my revised nta take is now 1.32, page-15

hi defab,

i was loosely aware of your point, but must confess that i couldn't see why there was a serious difference in the percentage devaluations, considering that the AU properties are regarded as more stable.

that is why i asked about LVR - both factors are included in LVR (the sale the properties (assuming it is being used to pay of debt) and the resultant portfolio value)

but you replied with the NTA figure and the effects of exchange rate

was that because you don't place much importance on the gearing?

-----------

anyway, i can kick myself for not seeing it.
but if the media is reporting as you say, then they deserve a big kick in the bum.

thankyou for clearly elaborating on it.

the ann was regarding portfolio values; so that doesn't include debt adjustments, and i don't think there is any form of double entry book keeping.

but it would have being nice if the reduction in debt was mentioned somewhere in that announcement

do you think that it would it have be kosha to incude the exchange rate adjusted valuations on the US portfolio rather than just mentioning that they have being excluded?

management can not be accused of upramping their annoucements.

when i read that ann, the first thing to hit me in the face was those 2 % figures

also, where did you get the book value for Hannaford plaza?

cheers