Richard Hemming article in the Australian, page-5

sjontour,
The article is titled "Don't tar legal stocks with Slater & Gordon brush". It compares S&G with three other stocks (IPH, XenithIP and IMF). While highlighting S&G's business model of employing large numbers of staff to run personal injury cases & it's profitability based on success in legal cases, IPH and Xenith generate profits based solely on billable hours while IMF’s business model is based on winning or successfully settling cases, but employing a very small number of staff, who only run an investment portfolio. Hence IMF is more leveraged, and not reliant upon continually merging with other businesses in order to lower costs. The article further dwells on S&G's problems with the purchase of Quindell and its bringing forward revenue receipts in its WIP account & being overly optimistic in anticipating cash through successful cases. While IMF having had its managerial problems with lumpy profit earnings but now moving from funding a small number of high value cases to a large number of smaller cases and giving IMF management the benefit of the doubt with its strategy considering its high cash reserves and big case wins in the last quarter of the FY 2016. IMF's accounting policies are conservative & does not account for revenue until the cash is received. I think that about sums it up.