Unfortunately, as so often happens on these (and I'm sure other) BB's someone rubs someone (or some people) the wrong way over a difference of opinion with the resulting series of personal attacks. It's taken awhile but I guess it was bound to happen to this one too.

It would seem that one of the main issues is the POR and whether or not CPG's all-included POR is sustainable, proper, in-line with industry etc. I understand why anyone might have concerns regarding a company which has an all-included POR of greater than 100% as it could be interpreted as borrowing to payout dividends.

From my perspective (and maybe I'm not as conservative as I should be) I tend not to be concerned if a POR is above 100% if the following are in place (and sustainable for the long run):

1. The dividends are less than 80% of sustainable free cash flow (after maintenance capex, debt servicing and income taxes)

2. The growth (i.e. discretionary) capex is funded by no more than 2/3 debt (i.e. max debt to equity of 2:1). In fact I would expect a company to fund a portion of its growth capex with debt (rather than cash flow or new equity) particularly at today's interest rates. Capital expenditures for growth are meant to be long run in nature so funding with cheap long term debt (on a prudent debt to equity basis) is what I would expect good managers to do. 

Now there are other measures that I also use but to keep this post as brief as possible I only mention that above 2. Given that I believe that the majority of CPG's capex is growth in nature( if my calculations are correct) and the above 2 metrics are appropriate then, in my opinion, the only complaint that I have is that CPG does not fund enough of its growth capex with debt (instead preferring to issue equity) not that its POR is too high.

Would welcome further discussion from everyone.