Just writing my thoughts on these. Yes URFPA is obviously safer...

Just writing my thoughts on these. Yes URFPA is obviously safer than URF, but URFPA is not risk free.
Those looking at the potential 2023 conversion of URFPA into URF units are looking at the conversion price, they are ignoring the effect of such a conversion into the total number of URF on issue. Such a conversion would be massively dilutionary, which would then further reduce the value of URF units after conversion which would then tail-end effect the holders of URFPA.

I did a very very rough balance sheet analysis of URF:

As of 30 June 2019:
URF Current Assets: $162m
Current Liabilities: $21 million
Net current assets $141.

Borrowings (NOT INCLUDING URFPA) $710m

Net borrowings (borrowings - net current assets): $569m

For the non-current assets i only factor in property, investments and other assets. I then run a simple 'what if' property prices drop

30 June 2019: 10% property correction 20% property correction 30% property correction
Property: $1,229m $1106m $983m $860m
Investments: $36m
Other Financial Assets: $34m
Total $1,299
Net borrowings: <$569>
Net Assets $730m $597m $474m $351m

Now for the effect of URFPA: URFPA is held on the balance sheet as a component of equity, but if converted it will convert into URF shares.
There is approx $200m of URFPA.
There are approx 370m of URF shares currently on issue.
At current URF share price of $0.6, a conversion would increase units on issue by 200/0.6= 333m or nearly double the units of URF currently on issue.
This would massively negatively effect URF NTA per share, nearly half!!!!.

Therefore for those holders calculating the risk of holding URFPA, you must consider also the post conversion dilutionary effect, not just the conversion price.

The lower the URF share price goes, the more dilutionary this effect becomes.

Both URF and URFPA could become opportunities, but one needs to fully understand the risks.