worried about what ?--and further more, page-27

Bodo,

Your note acknowledges that there were other reasons for investing in MIS than just tax.

I think though under BEN postings the main issues are about the present and future. These issues as i see it are:

Corporately, it was a shocking decision by BEN to take on any exposure to MIS let alone the material amount they ended up with.

There has to be a question mark over the volume of provisions / write offs for this exposure given the rapid decline in the industry, the asset value and the individual investor balance sheets that took out these loans.

I would love to know the amount of loans > 90 days overdue and also the position of the clients of the financial planner who is in court with BEN who has a huge exposure for clients.

There has to be a question over the court case. Both the propoganda that Hirst has put out in the media, in investor presentations and directly to loan holders about the validity of the loans. If he is so sure - why is it in court and why hasnt BEN lawyers produced the evidence it says it has got to answer the validity question and be done with it?.

A combination of these points on gut feel alone tells me the provision is simply not enough.

If I am right then the question goes straight to the board on meeting continuous disclosure obligations which is a pretty hot topic at the moment.

Just my opinions and I drink heavily so am often wrong