@Transversal - Some of this shouldn't be taken at face value...

@Transversal - Some of this shouldn't be taken at face value IMO.

That "assuming stable economic conditions" statement needs to be adjusted for real market conditions. This probably assumes fee percentages do not decline. So now you know the fantasyland numbers, and you can adjust them down for market realities. I don't know what level of fees will be possible in the future, but IFL is significantly leveraged to the reduction in these. I think a lot of analysts and investors will have their own view on what the deterioration will mean, and will have their own numbers.

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.

All IMO