SMSF has added to its previous holding of 50000 Units in Plenti Lending Platform ARSN 169 500 449 at a cost of $ 1 per unit. Last year I warned the Trustees relating to the investment valuation at cost as I don't believe it is guaranteed and it does not appear to be an appreciating asset. I have asked the Trustees to obtain a written redemption valuation or quotation supporting the cost figure presented in the SMSF balance Sheet or a hypothetical quotation to dispose of some or or all units. For the year end valuation they merely referred to the Annual Tax Statement -price or cost of $ 1 per unit. This is an extract of the response from Plenti re request for hypothetical disposal now :
"Once your order is matched to borrower loans you are not able to withdraw your funds until the indicative term of your investment.
Funds invested in the Plus Market will be repaid in approximately equal instalments of both capital and interest over the course of the indicative term as borrowers make repayments towards their loan. You may also be invested in a loan where the borrower is required to make a balloon payment. See Sections 6.5 and 6.6 for further information.
Please note the indicative term is 3-7 years for funds invested in our Plus market.
You may request at any time an Early Access withdrawal by nominating a withdrawal amount (before fees), up to the total value of loans funded from a particular lending market in your Portfolio. The availability of the Early Access transfer feature is subject to an eligibility criteria and may not be fulfilled if the following conditions are not met:
There are sufficient funds available from other investors to replace your interests;
After execution the value of orders that would remain in that investment market would be greater than the early access market value limit for the relevant investment market; or
Replacement lenders would be matched to the relevant facilitating loan at a rate below the early access rate limit. The early access market value limit and early access market rate limit are determined by us from time to time and published on our website.
Your official investment performance is outlined in your tax statement and distribution notice in which your units and unit price are confirmed, this is made available after the 30th of June in accordance to the financial year."
My concern is that there does not appear to be any assurance of recoverability of the cost in full and the date of recovery of funds seems to be obscure. I would be more comfortable if there were a written guarantee of recoverability of the cost of the investment. The audited financials for the half year ended 30 Sept 23 show cost of units effectively NTA/ number of allotted units = $ 1, however there are substantial related party transactions. My inclination is to qualify the financials as I am unsure as to the full recoverability of the investment.
I agree. I will warn the Trustees about the valuation issue in the Management letter (again) and on this occasion the part A qualification. I could report the matter in G but do not believe it merits an ACR. Its up to the Trustees what they invest in and the risk they take. I am unsure whether the Trustees expect to recover the cost in full when they eventually cash it in. I propose to continue to issue a Part A qualification for as long as they keep the investment or I do the audit ! I am interested in any auditors that would issue an ACR and their reasons.
Hi
Your view is that you have not been able to verify the value of a (assumed) material asset.
The audit report you should issue is a Part A qualification on the basis that you have not been able to verify the value of an asset.
Further as you have been unable to verify the value of the investment you may consider qualifying re:
Regulation 8.02B - "When preparing accounts and statements required by subsection 35B(1) of SISA,
an asset must be valued at its market value".
If other forum members have a view as to the audit report that would be issued please let the forum know.
Thanks
The Auditors Institute