I looked at this further and i see that they have booked the fx...

I looked at this further and i see that they have booked the fx loss in other comprehensive income. Only way that could have occurred is to designate a hedge accounting relationship but no disclosure of that. Also no disclosure of Fx risk disclosures in the financial risk management note - required where material and I would say open exposure to US$38.5m plus accrued interest is a material exposure. Separately these amounts could possibly have been capitalised if one makes the call that they are an adjustment to interest costs and they could be attributed to a qualifying asset, anyway.....

I also don't like that they have capitalised the costs related to raising the borrowings into PPE. In my view these should be set against the borrowings and amortised as part of amortised cost over the expected life of the loan (AASB 139). Prior to draw down they could have included as prepayments for liquidity services and then into the loan on draw down. The problem into PPE is that the amortisation profile is much longer than the borrowing as it will be based on LOM. Other than that the item should be captured under the scope of IFRS9 and not IAS16.

Every time I look at something new in these accounts I find something I don't like and my personal opinion is that they are of poor quality and lack clear and transparent disclosure. We can argue that such disclosure doesn't change the value of the company etc and I agree. I just don't like investing when I feel a quality seal isn't on everything I see. What if corners are cut on things that do impact value?

DYOR opinions and observations only