10c-14c gap, page-11

yes true Tony, though this is the important part... Its their Hedging that caused the sell down as the AUD fell against the YEN. Now its on the rise, when this announcement was released (18/11/2008) the AUD/JPY was 62c, its now 71.60.

These movements have material consequences for GJT investors both positive and negative.

The positive is the Net Asset Value per unit of GJT in Australian dollars has increased significantly from
A$0.90 at 30 June 2008 to an estimated A$1.12* at the close of trading on Friday, 14 November 2008.

This represents a favourable movement of approximately A$91.9 million.

The negative is that total liabilities including the mark to market (“MTM�) of derivative contracts have also
increased materially. The fair market value of GJT’s derivative contracts is estimated to have moved
from a positive of $A12.5 million at 30 June 2008 to a negative of approximately A$127.3 million as at 14
November 2008.

The current apportionment of the MTM value of the derivative contracts is approximately A$59.9 million
to the income hedges and the balance being capital hedges, which have maturities in four tranches
between 2011 and 2014.

The foreign exchange derivative contracts require GJT’s total interest bearing liabilities (including MTM)
to Total Assets should not exceed 70% and should not exceed 65% for more than 90 days. These ratios are tested twice yearly based on the release of the Trust’s audited financial accounts at the 30 June and 31 December balance dates.

If the 65% covenant is breached, GJT has 90 days to remedy and reduce LTV below the threshold.

Once breached, a favourable movement in the spot rate during this period would not be deemed a satisfactory cure. Should this occur, it is anticipated the reduction below 65% would need to occur via the strategy of retaining distributions and pursuing asset sales.

As a guide to the sensitivity of these ratios, it is currently estimated that a spot exchange rate at the 31
December 2008 balance date of A$1.00 = ¥60 would likely breach the 65% covenant and a A$1.00 = ¥44 would likely breach the 70% covenant, all things being equal. A change in the carrying value of assets at the balance date would affect these ratios.

GJFML confirms that no derivative covenants have been breached and there is no covenant with respect to GJT’s market capitalisation.

Conclusion
Management and the Board of GJFML believe this strategy represents the best of the available options for all stakeholders in a market which is clearly favouring investment entities that have a lower level of borrowings. GJFML continues to be focussed on acting in the best interest of GJT unitholders and we believe this strategy is consistent with this objective.