a snack for the dingoes?, page-2

Correction - the $6.9m was disclosed in payments to Grande Pacific - I'd picked the December 2006 figures as the June 2007 figures, and co-incidently it happened to be $6.9m out, about the same as the increase in the unit holding in the fund with respect to the $1/units. There is nothing to say that this $6.9 is the amount as disclosed in the accounts, but by the same token, there is nothing to say to that it's not.

Nevertheless, the argument remains that, in the 31 December 2008 mid-term, there is either (1) a misnaming of the 6.9 million units (at $1 each) as 're-investments' rather than 'applications', or (2) the 6.9 million units has been counted twice since no 'redemption' appears in order to facilitate the 're-investment'.