The relationship between retained earnings and share price may have some validity for a company that actually produces a product or provides a service. In such a case it would represent the difference between income and expenses and thus speak to the efficiency of the company to create value, a "gain term" in engineering lingo.

But as we all know PTSC has no product or service, only IP. As we also know, IP has no intrinsic value other than what you are able to actively defend. The infrastructure to defend IP represents the machinery of a factory that produces an income from IP. Such machinery comes with a high operating cost.

This is the business that Alliacense is in, and even those to believe DL cannot be trusted will grant that the real operating costs are not cheap. PTSC does not own Alliacense, TPL does. How is the relationship between PTSC and TPL any different from that of PTSC Shareholders and PTSC? Both are sitting on IP waiting around for scraps to fall from the table.

Remember Mr. Bailey's posit that; "If the MMP were to immediately, this year, produce the same 250 million or so as it has over the past half decade, and nothing changed about the arrangements, that would amount to another 100 million or so and that would, if there were no expenses during the year, produce a maximum increase of about 25 cents per share in retained earnings and net worth."

So the yield of 25 cents per share of retained earnings is predicated upon "perfect operating efficiency" (meaning infinite return on operating costs). And all of this is also predicated upon a relationship of trust between the shareholders, PTSC, TPL, Alliacense and DL.

As for myself, I can say that I would never pay $3 a share for a PTSC with a mere $100M of retained earnings. I wouldn't even pay 25 cents a share for such a company.