Ann: FUMAS for period ended 30 June 2018 and ANZ Wealth update, page-24

Actual figures? Why bother? If you could see two different futures for IFL (say over 3 years), would you prefer to invest in the one that will have a 10% annual rate of FUM accretion through enticing dealer groups, and 0% organic net flows, or the one that will have a 0% rate of accretion through dealer groups and 10% organic?

I am not disputing the fact that FUMA inflows obtained at constant cost structure are generally more profitable (per dollar of FUMA) than those acquired by adding new dealer groups (which do affect the cost structure).

But, if you qualify the former as being "far" more profitable, to the point that you find it "unethical" if Management did not explicitly disclose the breakdown in their results release, then you need to at least be able to quantify that differential in profitability. Don’t you think?

I'm obviously referring to the metric being not bad, not to the disclosure. Do you have trouble with context sometimes, or do you just like Socratic arguments?

If you qualify the disclosure as being “terrible” and “unethical”, then you are implying that there is something “bad” with that 2bn$ component of inflows (whether it is poor profitability or anything else). For, if there weren’t anything wrong or unusual with that component (and I personally think there isn’t), then there wouldn’t be anything terrible or unethical not highlighting it in the results.

There is no “Socratic argument” here, just simple logic.