The amortization of R$ 3,79/unit came out on 28/05. Why does the unit still fall?
Because what's left in the bottom is the hard part. With the portfolio sales box returned, the VIUR11 became practically a single asset: the FACAMP property, revalued down and with default tenant. The market is not precluding the sales thesis of the old portfolio — it is precluding the risk that the FACAMP MOU will not close. The unit for R$ 2,39 is not "by mistake": it is the discount that the market requires to load an uncertain settlement.
What's changed since May
This is the direct continuation of analysis of 14/05, when VIUR11 had just sold 83% from the portfolio and promised amortization of R$ 3,79/unit. That part is now closed: the units for TRXF11 received in return were delivered on 13/04 and the corresponding cashier left the fund on 28/05. Event complete.
The effect is mechanical and expected — returning capital to the unit holders reduces the size of the fund. The problem is what's left behind. Prior to the sale, VIUR11 was a diversified portfolio with a problematic asset in the middle. After amortization, he is in practice this problematic asset plus a cashier. The diversification that diluted the risk of FACAMP simply went out the door along with the amortization.
Today the net worth of R$ 94,7 mi is divided between the property of FACAMP (R$ 37,3 mi) and R$ 57,4 mi in box. São 43.783 unit holders trapped in a thesis that sank: everything now revolves around being able to turn that property into money.
The MOU of FACAMP: what is and what is still missing
In 24/04/2026 the fund signed a MOU — memorandum of understandings — to sell the FACAMP property by R$ 35 mi, plus the assumption of R$ 2,3 mi in bonds, totaling R$ 37,3 mi. A signal from R$ 1 mi has already been received. At first glance, it is the news that the thesis needed: someone willing to buy the stranded asset for a value close to the accounting revaluation.
The trap is in the word "meeting." A MOU is neither deed nor final sale contract. It is an agreement of intent that still needs to become a closed deal, with due diligence, buyer financing and final signature. Between signing a MOU and receiving the R$ 37,3 mi in the cashier there is a path that can go wrong in any stretch — and in the case of FACAMP, there is a specific complicator.
Why the default still worries even with the MOU signed
The FACAMP paid a rent in April and one in May, but did not pay the accumulated balance: until May/2026 there is still about 2 months of default rent plus charges. A tenant who can’t keep up to date is exactly the kind of counterparty who can stop the sale — either because of the buyer’s own difficulty or because of disputes over the late ones. The fund has already triggered legal measures and the insurance of 12 rents, but this confirms the size of the problem, it does not solve it.
It was precisely this chronic default that led to the reassessment of the property down: from R$ 48 mi to R$ 37,3 mi in April, a fall of 22%. In other words, the price of the MOU is not a prize — it is the already hurt value of an asset that the market recognises as difficult.
The mathematics of the settlement
The calculation that supports the thesis is direct. If the MOU closes at full value, the fund adds the R$ 37,3 mi from the FACAMP to the R$ 57,4 mi box, reaching the R$ 94,7 mi equity. Divided by the 26,9 million units, it gives the R$ 3,51 of VP per unit.
| Component | Value |
|---|---|
| FACAMP property (if MOU closes) | ZQX0ZX mi |
| Current box | ZQX0ZX mi |
| Total net worth | ZQX0ZX mi |
| Quotas | ZQX0ZX mi |
| Value per unit (VP) | R$ 3,51 |
| Quotation today | R$ 2,39 |
| Potential return (full liquidation) | +47% |
Who bought R$ 2,39 is looking for an upside of approximately +47% if the settlement comes out at the full amount. It's a big number — and that's exactly why it exists. The market does not pay R$ 3,51 today because it assigns relevant probability of the outcome being below that, or of taking so long that the annualized return shrinks.
The other side of the scenario is uncomfortable: if the MOU does not close — and the default of the tenant is exactly the type of factor that can hinder the closing — the fund can stay 12 to 24 additional months trying to settle the property through the judicial or the insurance, without income for the unit holder in this interval. The accumulated reserve is already in -R$ 51 mi in May (vs -R$ 49,6 mi in April), and the next dividend depends either on the sale of the FACAMP or the secure resolution.
It is also worth reading the result of May with care: the applicant was positive in R$ 0,016/unit, but the total result was in -R$ 0,057/unit because of the non-recurring loss of the sale of TRXF11 units. It is not new operational deterioration — it is the accounting record of the same movement that generated amortization.
For who it makes sense to carry now
The R$ 2,39, the VIUR11 is no longer an income FII and has become an event operation: a bet on a single binary outcome, the conclusion (or not) of the sale of the FACAMP. It only makes sense to who:
- understands that there is no dividing up to at least ten/2026 And you don't need that rent;
- agrees to carry a position that may take from months to more than a year to unlock;
- measures the position as an arbitration bet — small fraction of the portfolio —, not as a central allocation;
- He's comfortable with the possibility that the MOU won't close and the lawsuit will drag itself through the courts.
For the investor seeking flow of proceeds or who does not tolerate time uncertainty, this is not the asset. The discount of 31% on VP is the remuneration offered by risk — and it only compensates for those who really understand and accept that risk.
The verdict
FACAMP's MOU is a concrete and positive step, but it is far from securing the outcome: it is intention, not scripture, and the tenant follows default. The thesis of VIUR11 today fits in a sentence — who loads the unit to R$ 2,39 bet on a clean settlement of a dirty asset. The upside of up to +47% is real; the probability of it coming true in the short term is what the 31% discount is measuring. Event operation, not income position.
Risks of the operation
- MOU don't close. Memorandum is not sold completed; due diligence, buyer financing or disputes over late ones can overturn the business.
- Failure to comply with FACAMP. A tenant who does not pay in due course is the main factor that can stop the closure and prolong the judicial route.
- Term. Without closure, the unlock can take 12 to 24 additional months, without income in the interval and with negative accumulated reserve.
- No divide until 10/2026. Confirmed by the fund manager; who enters today is without cash flow for this whole period.
- Additional reassessment. The property has already fallen 22%; a new re-evaluation down would bring down the reference VP of arbitration.
