Excluding the CLS facility, the bank's security is recourse to...

Excluding the CLS facility, the bank's security is recourse to the assets only right? So if IEF were unable to extend or refinance, the banks would seize assets secured by that facility and sell them. I can't see more shares issued under this scenario - only the share price decimated. Or am I missing something?

Speaking of which, does anyone know whatever happened to the $200m totally undrawn facility that wasn't due to expire until 2013? Was in the 7/08 presentation - gone from the 12/08 presentation. If needed, that could have plugged a few gaps.

As the currency of the debt. My understanding is that all NZ assets have NZ debt and all Aus assets have Aus debt. I doubt borrowing would have been possible any other way.

I note that the average term of hedges is 4.6 years. I'm not sure that as at 6/08 they mean term remaining. It would be typical to have your hedge expire at the end of the facility. If it didn't - they'd have to break the swap on a refinancing event, potentially incurring a premium.

Haka (good afternoon) - I think they have their banks on side. If they agree to an extension, then the bank will no doubt insist as part of the deal, that they lock in a forward swap for extended term. Given what's happened to rates, they should be able to lock in a decent rate at nil cost right now. But will be hammered on margins of course.

If they can't extend, then I think given those long leases, they would find a taker for a refi (on some pretty average terms though). Their ability to do this in 2010 will depend on IEF coming up with sufficient cash to meet the debt shortfall given reduction in LVRs and perhaps some expected drift in values, i.e (very approx numbers):-

Value of secured assets (assume -3% c. 12m): $435m
Repayment of existing debt: $263m
Available debt on refi (assume 50% LVR): $218m

Cash shortfall (exc fees etc): $45m

Clearly a lot depends on bank's view of an appropriate LVR next year.