That "assuming stable economic conditions" statement needs to be...

That "assuming stable economic conditions" statement needs to be adjusted for real market conditions. This probably assumes fee percentages do not decline.

@CaptainBarnacles

From my own number crunching (previously provided here in multiple posts, feel free to provide your own) it seems to me that “assuming stable economic conditions” simply means “at constant capital markets and FUMAS” and possibly assuming constant Net Operating Margin (consistently with the past nine years of historical performance, see slide 9 of today’s presentation).

So now you know the fantasyland numbers, and you can adjust them down for market realities.

You can give a negative spin to pretty much everything, if you are so inclined. Implying deliberate misleading information from Management is a pretty serious allegation, though. So, you either back it up with something more robust (e.g. previous misleading info given to the market, if such a thing exists), or I suggest that you just avoid this kind of comments. I get that you’re short the stock, and I don’t have a problem with that, but let’s just try and stay factual.

It is a bit annoying that they paid $18.3m for an acq, but haven't outlined what they got for their money. They are certainly maintaining opacity. Was that for $2b of advisory FUM at fees of 0.13, or roughly $2.6m pa npat margin initially, assuming the book is maintained? Or did they get more or less for that money? If 7x npat - seems good value possibly, but I am not sure the industry is that cheap.

Yes, from what I can see it is likely to be that one, and the implied economics of that transaction look far from awful to me. I understand your craving for detail, but to be frank a 18m$ acquisition in the context of a 3.2bn$ company is not exactly earth-shattering. If they failed to provide that sort of breakdown when it comes to the ANZWM integration, for instance, then yes I would have an issue with it too.

Cheers