That covenant doesn't make sense unless you add in receivables...

That covenant doesn't make sense unless you add in receivables and subtract payables (if we assume these are mainly for rental assets) to net rental assets. I'd go to SIV and ask about this, but have never had any response to anything I have sent them before.
They still seem very keen to maintain some opacity by not outlining the covenant metric as it stands today, so we can test our result of estimating the covenant. They haven't shared how their book was going when they gave us a "trust us" outlook, and gave no idea of the relevant covenants that applied, or the approximate capital shortfall IMO.

So - if I assume receivables net of payables (slightly wrong at best I suspect) are included in net rental assets (NRA), I get an NRA of 375.4, and net debt of 313.7, to get a ratio of 84%. If that is the case, they need to get net debt down to 244m, which means they need another 69.7m. They say they need $45m, so either I have the numbers wrong, or they will be expecting to reduce their net rental assets (by my calc) by about $40m in this half, and get that equity or finance.

If I am roughly right, we have to wonder about what happens if another writedown is required. Also if they knew they were about $70m short of capital under their existing covenants, and didn't tell us the magnitude of shortfall under the current covenants that applied . . . why didn't they? Why were the directors buying when the market was not privy to the likely shortfall? Might that not have given shareholders a misleading impression.

Just my thoughts. If anybody more knowledgeable than I about about the covenant calcs can correct my numbers, I would sincerely appreciate it.