Originally Posted by
Ferg
Thanks mistaTea. You can verify/test the assumptions by reading the accounts as SR suggested. In response to your statements:
1. Can you elaborate on this - was this the statement about including Bream Bay land? This was my critique of the method underlying the info-graphic but not crucial to Aaron's question. Possibly not relevant. Ok yes, it was relating to the Bream Bay land comment.
2. This is not an assumption and can be verified per 3.1 under the heading 'Investment property under development at fair value; and also note 3.2 under the column 'Freehold Landand Buildings Under Development'. Ok, thank you - will take a look.
3. Acknowledged assumption regarding AR values per my later post, but it is not an assumption the proceeds from new sales are used to repay the dev debt per the OCA transcript. Ok.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by 'unaccounted'. All capex was certainly accounted for by OCA and shuffling funds (or words to the effect) was mentioned on the analysts call. The $60m capex which is not part of development assets is not an assumption - refer note 3.1 under 'Completed investment property at fair value' and can be further confirmed by checking how OCA derived the value for 'development assets' as outlined by me earlier. Ok, 'unaccounted' was perhaps the wrong term. It sounded like you were making some assumptions to reconcile the $60M.
Hope that helps.