It was a Fairfax publication which, about 12 months ago ran a series of mutli-page articles over several publications - predicated on the interaction with a single whistleblowers - and whose tone intimated widespread and endemic "scandals" in IFL, untoward procedural happenings that ran rife throughout the organisation, and managers that were corrupt and fraudulent in their commercial dealings.
Why, these media reports even precipitated a Senate Inquiry whose findings and determinations were - laughably - confined to IFL appointing an external party to undertake a review of its procedures. Which it duly did and, to the best of my knowledge, the recommendations arising out of that review were little other than innocuous.
I do remember, at the time, a host of commentators cautioning that the ensuing fallout and the reputational contamination would adversely affect IFL's business brand.
Well, fast forward 12 months and we have a situation where fund flows into IFL's products and platforms have continued unabated (to the tune of almost positive $3.5bn over the past 12 months), and that's despite stock markets being under pressure, which is often a time when investors tend to withdraw their capital. This, I think speaks volumes about the resilience of IFL's brands and its business model.
This resilience is borne out in financial performance, it is fair to conclude, given that IFL's FY2016 profits are unchanged on FY2015's, despite the level of the stock market - a key driver of IFL's revenues - is averaging around 5% or 6% lower in FY2016, than it did in FY2015.
"The big thing to consider is synergies, which is generally about removing duplication of systems and people."
Yes, that much they've got right.
Which is why trade buyers like IFL, as the logical owners of the StatePlus business because they can bolt the acquired customer accounts onto their existing platforms and systems, can afford to pay a tad more than pure institutional investors.
(20min delay)
