Son, you really do have no idea. But that's just my opinion although it could well also be the opinion of others.
PIL only makes money if you get the matters through and processed quickly (<12 months; within 18 months at an absolute outside). But 10+ years back, most firms other than the big CBD partnerships did PIL to varying degrees. So, yes, firms exited the field and SGH hoovered up some matters. So what. It doesn't change any aspect of the equation. PIL is at its most profitable where resolved within that 12-18 month timeframe. Beyond that however and it becomes a progressive war of attrition.
80-90% of the PIL matters however should be resolving quickly so, if SGH has this market as its own, then it should be making a killing. But it isn't. In H27, PIL went backwards $ wise but upwards, concentration wise.
So, yes SGH does other things as well but for such a large consumer law firm, they are not really that big. In GEL teens, they are falling away. If in doubt, look at the numbers:
*. AU/PIL - now 91.7m. Was 106.7m. Was 77%. Now 80% of AU turnover.
*. AU/GEL - now 22.5m. Was 31.8m. Fell 9.3m YOY. Was 23% of AU turnover. Now down to 20%.
*. UK/PIL - now 71.5% of turnover. Was 75%. Down 20% YOY.
*. UK/GEL - now 28.5% of turnover, up from 25% this time last year although YOY, revenue fell by ~8%.
Work the numbers. Do the sums. GEL is not anywhere near as big as what is professed whilst in a declining world, PIL is taking an ever bigger piece of the cake. Remember, GEL included the CAs and project litigation, so again failing to hit on all cylinders.
As for anything else, I ask you this - if SGH is so good at doing their job, why are they experiencing falling turnover across the board, in their traditional area of PIL, as as in project litigation and in GEL. And, if they were any good, why did they close down altogether their property law and conveyancing business in September last year.
Expand
