Mr. Ed Farrell:

From a personal understanding of the property market in general, in a rising tide the market rent probably made perfect sense, but in a reducing tide one would want to have the rent bottom lined and with some maintenance built in. I presume that the 30% of CALF was some cushion and the two together stepped in as a bundle made good sense. Two years ago when rents were depleting, it probably had its own challenges. We would assess whatever model is there. When credit union money starts coming into the pipeline, we will have to get expertise to adjudicate if the model is as tight as can be, if it could be tighter, and, if modifications were to be made, the pros and cons as a bundle. As a model, it appears to be a good, secure model with the CALF, the P&A and the step in. We can consider tweaks and changes. We are always on one side or the other of a problem. Property is going up too fast now but three years' ago it was the opposite domain and one would be sorry to be in a market rent. Perhaps long-term investors or pension funds would take the long view, with some better years than others, but credit unions would like it steady as it goes.

Knowing that one is getting 80% or 90% of the basic figure, not linked to a market might actually be more security for us and the extra bit comes as a bonus. At least we know we have the basics covered.