That is certainly one interpretation of the need to have...

That is certainly one interpretation of the need to have separate boards.

My view is that 'Centro' (the group) has suffered from a market perception that the companies are joined at the hip and there is potential conflict of interest by having the same people running both. It would be difficult to argue against this.

Investors who have done their research in CER realise that the company can (and IMO will) survive as a stand-alone entity quite happily. CNP just happens to be the majority shareholder, the current RE and is the counterparty in most of the hedging positions.

I have said a number of times that if CER was called something non-Centro (like 'The Trans-Pacific Property Trust) and had an independent board, it would probably be trading at around 70-80% of NTA (adjusted for SuperLLC default) like others in the sector. This phenomenon is known as "Centroitis" - anything that has the name "Centro" is diseased by association.

A change of name, separate boards, some clarity on SuperLLC and the unwinding of hedge positions would force investors to view CER as a stand-alone entity at which point they would realise the amount of value the company holds. IMO this would create a huge amount of shareholder value.

The recent appointment of two directors to the separate boards is a major step in the right direction and I think over time we will see more of this. Centro has announced that they have Egon Zehnder (who are one of the best in the business) looking for more directors. If all goes to plan we should expect to see some appointments in the coming months. I also think it would be a major boost to see directors buying company stock, but they are probably still in self-imposed blackout because of the negotiations under way.