Yes, an identical value as six months ago, because exactly the same letter of credit was in force six months ago as now. It is the same thing being reported at two different snapshots in time.
If we:
a/ Accept your point that a 'Letter of Credit' is not for a fixed amount of $3.77m, but is instead for some varying amount between $0 and $3.77m at any particular time AND
b/ Accept your point that the $3.77m is an 'exposure' rather than being 'drawn'. (I think this is playing with words a bit. 'Exposure' has a context of something that might happen given certain circumstances and in those circumstances a payout might be required. 'Drawn' OTOH would suggest an event has happened and the money has actually been drawn out. But whether that $3.77m is a 'drawn risk' or an 'exposure risk' the amount of money 'at risk' is still $3.77m either way.)
BUT We know for a fact that this $3.77m is outside of the banking syndicate facilities.
YET we also know that the banks know the $3.77m is outside of the arrangements of the banking syndicate facilities.
Given the banks know this, they could therefore have set up their banking facilities to take account of the fact that this $3.77m facility exists outside of the banking facility arrangement they are about to set up. So although the banking syndicate does not control the $3.77m external facility directly, they do control it indirectly , in effect, because the banking facility they are about to set up will be on less generous terms compared to a hypothetical 'parallel universe facility' they would have set up if the $3.77m external facility did not exist.
So Ferg, I put it to you that although we are approaching this question from different directions, when each of us puts the building blocks in place, along our divergent expressive paths, what we end up with is the same thing. IOW in results terms, we agree. That $3.77m can be drawn down at any time and the banks know it.
SNOOPY