Ann: Response to Bonitas Research report, page-114

Pretty sure that improvements would have to go into income for the Lessor not a contra to income (if I understand you correctly), but I also take the term Minimum Lease Payment on face value and expect that it must be at least that. I suspect your first reference to leasor may have meant to be leasee. Pretty sure that the leasee can make some improvements to a property - they probably have to in a day to day sense, but as I indicated above I believe that would need to be 2 separate transactions
1) payment of rent by the leasor to the leasee (income for the leasee)
2) reimbursement of costs by the leasee to the leasor (expense for the leasee)
To Bonitas' credit they do quote and have links to all their sources, so while being arduous it is not impossible to check their reasoning. I came to the conclusion that their reasoning in the $28M case was just wrong and if they had thought about it just a little they would have realised it. The fact that they didn't causes me to think somethig else is happening here (at least in the $28M overstatement).
Has anyone else done some detailed analysis of the Bonitas report yet? Would be great to get a line on some of the other claims before trading re-commences (tomorrow?)