Thank you. This is very interesting information.I have had just...

Thank you. This is very interesting information.

I have had just had a closer look at the URFPA (i.e. URF CPU) PDS and am now very concerned about the following passage (direct quote from the PDS):
"Winding up:
CPU Holders receive distributions of capital on a winding up of URF
in priority to Unitholders up to the Issue Price and any accumulated
unpaid distributions."

To me this reads that if the RE of the fund is not suitable (i.e. replacement of RE resolution gets up at EGM) and the fund is then forced to "Wind up" URF holders may end up getting nothing.This sounds a bit dramatic but let me explain:
- Upon 'winding up', the forced property sales would occur at significantly below book value (insufficient demand to meet an immediate rise in supply). It is impossible to predict how big of a discount would be required to achieve this many sales.
- URFPA holders are paid out in full ($100) prior to any remaining assets being distributed to URF holders.
- There is a real chance that property asset 'fire' sales (less all outstanding liabilities) are unlikely to leave any more than the required URFPA payment of ~$180m (~1.8m URFPAs outstanding * $100 issue price).

Given no RE has been presented as the replacement at the EGM, I can only conclude that the above scenario is likely to occur should the resolution be passed. I will not speculate as to whether or not it is the intention of Keybridge Capital to achieve this outcome.

The 'wind up' scenario is extremely value destructive and may not even turn out well for URFPA holders (i.e. asset sales less outstanding liabilities may be substantially less than $180m).

The above outcome will only be avoided if sufficient URF holders vote 'NO' to the EGM resolutions.

As always, use common sense and DYOR.