proposed cap raising, page-24

I received a reply this morning from the AEU to my disappointment to this CR. It reads below, with my response. We can not change this decision I know, but hopefully they will consider our disgust next time they see an opportunity to feather their own nest.


>>> "Lula Liossi" 23/03/11 8:42 AM >>>
Dear XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your email. AET issued an announcement last night in
relation to a fully underwritten 3 for 10 Rights Issue. The Offer
Booklet will be mailed to Unitholders on 1 April 2011 which will contain
further information. Eligible Unitholders will also be able to apply to
top-up their existing holding with New Units up to a maximum of 100,000
additional New Units as a supplement to their entitlement under this
offer.

The purpose of the Rights Issue is to strengthen AET's balance sheet and
improve the Trust's key financial metrics through the repayment of debt
- by providing additional headroom over banking covenants, increase the
attractiveness to other investors and promote additional liquidity in
AET.
To view the all the documents in relation to the Rights Issue, please go
to AET's website at:
http://www.educationtrust.com.au/news/public_announcements.aspx

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Lula

Lula Liossi

Investor Relations Manager



Thank-you Lula for your reply

As you are well aware the Company has survived the GFC and its only Tenant going into receivership. It has secured bank loans at 8.5% hedged for 3 years. It has 26 secure tenants on triple net leases and a WALE of 10 years. Hence its outgoings are stable for 3 years, its incomings are stable for 10 years, so why did the board ( or notably Austock who hugely benefits from this capital raising) suddenly require to improve its balance sheet. The balance sheet as it was worked OK and had a higher NTA and actually made more money per share, so dumping 40 million shares extra shares at 75 cents into a market that didn't want it at above 85 cents is unlikely to raise the Company any closer to its NTA value, albeit now somewhat reduced. This decision directly means I have to find $135,000 just so my holding is not diluted and has ultimately reduced the top price that this share will ever reach and the dividends it will ever pay by issuing a third of the Company at almost half of its agreed and audited value. My thoughts are still that this is an unnecessary act of vandalism, which mainly benefits the Manger and not the unit trust holders and many other holders are thinking and saying the same.