It is good to see increased disclosure as they progress with the...

It is good to see increased disclosure as they progress with the valuations but this announcement raises more questions to me:

1. It reads like about half of the 12 assets suffered downward revaluations, but what was the magnitude? 1% down? 5% down? 50% down? Is there a more systemic issue across the portfolio? Under accounting standards, materiality is generally 5-10% of the underlying metric you are measuring. 5% of $4 billion is $200 million, and the assets reviewed covered 25% - $1 billion, of which $50 million would be material. So were these $1 billion of assets written down by less than $200 million, or less than $50 million?

2. I'm struggling to reconcile the comment that there was no material impact on FEAUM yet the revaluations reduced accrued performance fees by a large chunk of the $7 million. This implies that BLA performance fees recognised as income to date have been driven by previous valuation practices. When the other 16 assets on which performance fees are recognised have been valued, even non-material reductions in their FEAUM could still have a material downward impact on accrued performance fees.

3. There was no disclosure of how much performance fees remain accrued in relation to those 12 assets which may end up being written back when the new revenue accounting standard is applied in FY19.

4. Selecting assets in funds with a unit price greater than $1.20 in which BAF is invested may well a good place to start with the first round of valuations, but were these the assets whose valuations have been subject to greater scrutiny in the past. And is it the smaller assets / funds which have been subject to less valuation rigour are still to be reviewed?