1. You don't hold this stock , you only started posting on HC (this being your second post) when the 249D was in play and this is the only stock you have posted on. You wanted SB to remain in office. So forgive me if I take that all to add up to having a very "interested" view in proceedings but we don't have any idea what those are.
2. Actually, the results are bad - there are two drivers and both didn't perform as expected. These, however, were under the watch of SB as these results are to 31 December and thus SB was firmly in charge. So maybe you want to revisit your support of him staying.
3. They have been investing in taking a lot of outsourced processes in-house making Morrisons a much more comprehensive broking firm. So its no surprise that we didn't get a great return whilst these operations were migrated onto a single platform. The surprise was the Wealth services as you point out as that we would have expected this division to have returned a good profit. What you have to take into account here is that the Royal Commission must have had a much larger impact on InterPrac than we expected and subsequent to the end of December I realised that the Hayne commission made it impossible for Interprac to offer structured product or other engineered financial products during this period as no-one knew what would be outlawed or challenged. Interprac is not alone in what was a shocker of a half year in this segment. Whilst the Commission was regaling us with poor and at times it seemed outrageous behaviour the financial sector was immobilised and remember that Interprac customers include over 2000 professional accounting firms. So in hindsight, we should have anticipated a poor result from this division.
4. The Goodwill write-off is just the added pressure you will get from a bad trading period.
5. What I do think was an error is that management didn't give us insight into the first half at the AGM. After all, that was 23 November and around 5 weeks from the end of the half year. I don't understand why the shareholders were not made aware of the issues at this time. Maybe if the issues were highlighted the need for the 249d would have resolved itself without the need for a meeting.
6. Given the results that were stacking up, I am, in hindsight, not surprised that we had a 249D and just think it should have happened sooner. What I don't understand is that highlighting the poor result only amplifies my feelings that the 249d was appropriate in the circumstances, yet you supported the status quo remaining and I suppose still do.
7. Before anyone asks - No I am not linked other than as a shareholder to SEQ. I am an accountant and so I have been exposed to Interprac from that vantage point and have engaged with them, thus I am aware of the products they offer.
My conclusion: a bad result and I am looking to this half in righting the ship and the next year in continuing the journey. However, it is in my watch and act basket.
SEQ Price at posting:
25.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
