Glad someone else noticed this. I kinda glossed over it at first, then read it again and broke it down thusly: 1. Our footprint is a big advantage today (pres

Glad someone else noticed this. I kinda glossed over it at first, then read it again and broke it down thusly: 1. Our footprint is a big advantage today (presumably this means more reach). 2. We want to make that advantage bigger. 3. Therefore we are reducing our footprint. At first it sounds like an outright contradiction. But it does make sense, in a very convoluted sort of way. The advantage of having broad reach will be increased by exiting those markets that are losers for them, because the (still presumably fairly broad) range of markets they're staying in will be more profitable overall. But it would have been much simpler to just say "We're exiting a handful of smaller markets where we aren't leading or growing, focusing our efforts where they're doing the most good." But I guess you can't say that these days.