good news at last, page-12

It's anyone's guess as to the worth of the Sheraton, but assuming Valad now has controlling interest over the property with the added assumption that this means they now hold 100% of the asset worth, then even if the Sheraton
is only valued at half (I doubt the discount is that great), then given they got half from Ashington, then they
should be no worse off than before financially. Given the stamp duty payable, that indicates a cost of some $40million according to existing duty rates - someone more familiar with accounting out there may be able to provide corrections or elaboration on that point however.

Either way, we'll have to wait another 3 weeks to find out the outcome of any appeals assuming they are lodged however.

While management may have had a hand in the litigation outcome, unlike a few other posters (no disrespect intended since I find most postings informative), I am not ready to take my hat off to management. There is too much bad history outstanding - emails requesting information from Valad are usually met with excerpts from ASX announcements - if the announcements had any content of net worth, I would hardly find the need to make further enquiries to Valad for additional information would I. Regarding attendance at general meetings, living in another country with a work week probably twice if not triple the hours of Mr. Hurley, makes it somewhat difficult to attend. The next best thing is to contact the company, which I certainly do to indicate disatisfactions (or the converse where postive actions arise). As Barry Wynne indicated in the SHH article, the fact that Valad announced the Top Ryde write off within a matter of weeks of the AGM was underhanded - reading the AGM report alludes nothing to the state of Top Ryde, yet obviously management was well into its proceedings by the time of the AGM. The consolidation to 20:1 was met with practically no sound reasoning behind it other than the assumption that a with a higher sp, the markets would suddenly decide VPG was a player again, and come to the rescue by buying up the stocks. But nothing was offered by the board to indicate what THEY would do to stabilise and improve the situation. Instead we are provided the guidance that in 2011 there will also be no distributions. If this is the only guidance they can give, then I'd appreciate a photocopy of last years and the year befores AGM report with the year twinked out and replaced, since reading through the past couple of years reports shows almost no change in direction or comments.

If more good news hits the markets regarding Valad during the next couple of months, I will probably maintain the same position as indicated above. After all, as an investor I hold the risk. Mr.Hurley and the other directors are charged with protecting shareholder rights and assets. Based on that I EXPECT them to do their jobs as charged, and as such, doing so is out of the ordinary. As with most other posters, I work during the week and earn a salary. My company expects me to perform, and for that makes payment. I don't suddenly demand additional bonuses for having performed according to expectations - rather most companies these days expect one to out perform in order to secure their position as well as opening up opportunities for advancement. In regards the Sheraton litigation then, I expect the directors to do their job which apparently they have done. Nothing more nothin less, and given they've all received whopping salary increases and/or bonuses over the past year, I don't feel compelled to provide any further appreciation. In fact its time they appreciated the holders who stuck with them and started providing some results.

So if I am negative towards management, why do I still hold shares. As with other posters comments, I agree that the likelihood of further devaluations is limited. Regarding the Sheraton, I don't know how much of the value is in loans or otherwise, but it is a going concern and appears that it isn't a cash drain. So unless Valad needs to sell it (which I don't think they do), then any change in valuations given they now have 100% ownership may be more irrelevant than otherwise. Top Ryde has gone at a considerable cost, but th upside is once Valad forks out the $21million odd, then there are also no future liabilities or cash outgoings associated with it. Goldfields House will be a winner long term however you look at it if not only based on the location and is unlikely to devalue. Pentridge is anyone's guess any other posters may be able to elucidate on that development. Then we have all the other bits and pieces floating around Australia that I'd be interested in other posters take on. Regarding Europe - while not reflected in the NTA/NAV the size of the network and market reach has a substantial intrinsic value as well as the total scale of funds under management. Those aspects can only but improve going forward. And the DUKE, while valued at zero, is likely at some stage to show a postive value - I highly doubt the RBS would step in and provide the financial guarantees unless there was some merit in doing so. Of course Valad has a 45% give or take leverage, but there are companies out there with substantially more, so this doesn't distress me that much - it only takes a small improvement in valuations to rapidly chip away at that figure. It may be the case that the sp may fall further - who knows. But at 45% of NTA, it's trading at a large discount. And as regards the assets, assuming the valuations have flattened out and assuming there are no shenanigins in the valuation calculations, if Valad had to sell all of them now, I'd presume they'd pretty much get what they are valued at. So unlike many other companies that may have plant and other capital forming their NTA, most of Valad's derives from direct property valuations - and as such I place higher value in the meaning of NTA from Valad's perspective than most other companies. And finally as mentioned, no good will or inclusion of the funds management/DUKE/European operations appear in the figures, so a true worth of the company is certainly much more than any NTA or NAV.

But I don't like the management - and given the state of the sp now, I'm reluctant to presume they could possibly make things any worse with or without action. So hence the decisions to continue holding. If anyone has contact information for Barry Wynne, please post them here - I have fired off an email to the SMH author of the recent article requesting contact information, so if any information is received, I'll post if here also.