O.K. There's so much negativity in the media, I thought I'd have...

O.K. There's so much negativity in the media, I thought I'd have a stab at working out the disaster scenarios.

Now I have no financial background so this may be wrong.

But for the naysayers assertions that the company "is finished" -- that is, shareholders take a big bath on their investment, it appears

1. The deal needs to falter AND
2. No one else is interested in buying the assets AND
3. They cannot sell their UK interests for $300m approx AND
4. The centres suffer a fall in profitability leading to asset writedowns (this is necessary for the loan convenants to be breached) AND
5. The lenders decide to call their loans (they may not even though they have the power to, I have read in articles on the internet that the reason AFG is still afloat is because although lenders can effectively force them to repay their loans they are loath to because they also lose by suffering big writedowns themselves) AND
6. Theres nothing left for shareholders after assets are sold and loans are repaid.

Geez I'm probably off the mark somewhere but that seems like a *fairly* remote scenario to bank your money on happening.

Sometimes being bombarded with negative article after negative article can distort ones judgement, making a negative outcome seem more likely than it really is.

I'm gonna stick to the company line. "expecting deal to finish, but even if it does not it is business as usual"