I think the problem with forums such as this is that there is too much getting together of people who have the same opinions (invariably positive opinions that arise from them being holders of the stock).
And I think that only serves to perpetuate confirmation bias, and often results in sub-optimal investment outcomes.
Because I want to avoid permanent loss of my capital, what I benefit from most is when I hear negative opinions about stocks that I own, so your post is of interest to me.
In the light of the above, some questions to you, if I may:
Firstly, you say, "Much of IOOF’s growth has come from from one off acquisition benefits that have an end date."
Why do you think that IOOF will no longer be able to make meaningful acquisitions in this space?
"It also now looks like there will be questions about the survival of its model. More than any other integrated business model in the market given the attitude expressed by their CEO about obligations to clients."
I agree fully with you that the attitude of the CEO during the Royal Commission was unimpressive. And I am sure that there is highly likely to be a degree of reduction in the fundamental valuation of the business as a result of the recommendations of the Commission, but I'm struggling to come across anyone who is able to provide some cogent and lucid assessment of how much valuation-at-risk there is, for example, but how much (in hard dollar terms) will IOOF's future earnings be reduced compared to what otherwise might had been the case if the Royal Commission did not exist.
Can you provide any insights into that question, particularly in the context of your statement about the business not even, in fact, surviving?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
IFL Price at posting:
$8.07 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
