independent valuations, page-25

page 19 of the FY2008 presentation,
LVR of max. 60% for group and

40-65% at a project level.

it is noted that some have LVR of 1.1x, 1.3x-1.75x. I presume that is value to loan ratio.

If we assume
-AUD500mln writedowns to property assets,
-200mln writedown to goodwill,
-150mln book value to recent disposals
-200mln cash balance (last cash of 121mln+ earnings of HY+disposals)
-assuming no repayment made to loan outstanding of AUD1.3bln as at 30 June 2008, then assuming LVR at group level is defined as net Loan to total properties value.


LVR will be:

(1300mln-200)/(1430+1300-150-500mln-goodwill writedown of 200mln)=1100/1880=58.5%

LVR is still in compliance. (max. of 60%)

Can someone check this to see whether there is any loophole here? Obviously this is only an estimate. But I assumed cash proceeds from asset disposal + 1H09 cash earnings of only 80mln which is conservative.

This gives me some comfort that LVR at group level is likely to be still in compliance though close to the max. allowed.

However, on a project by project basis,there might be some LVR breaches, especially in Europe.


VCS:
Page 34-40.
I don't know much details of their VCS projects apart from what was in recent announcements.

However, per page 36, it is worth noting that most (62%)of its VCS is in the form of preferred equity with mortgage over assets, only 10% is ordinary equity.

P37 shows sector breakdown of VCS:

46% of commercial,
10% of retirement,
16% of retail (eg. North Ryde shopping centre),
7% residential (mostly in prime locations eg. shellharbour),
11% industrial
hotel 4%
6% mixed

Geographically, 57:43 between Asia Pac and Europe.

Can someone who knows better about their VCS projects make some comment here?