Ann: Intiger Operations Update, page-286

Are you confusing advisers for practices? I don't think there was ever any confusion about the 18 being advisers so not sure how the total number in ipacWA and ipacSA help in your argument that Sentry is regards as a count of 1 as they both have 1 practice each.

Recap the terminology:
Client: (e.g. Sentry, ipacWA, ipacSA, etc) can have 1 or more practices
Practice: (which I imagine to be an office of sort with an address) can have 1 or more advisers
Adviser: the people generating the SOA

Recap the list provided by The Wild Man:
1) Sentry 239 (Feb16) 165
2) IPAC (W.A.) 14 (Apr17) 1
3) IPAC (S.A.) 18 (Apr17) 1
4) Financial Framework (W.A.) 5 (Apr17) 1
5) All Financial Services (N.T.) 7 (Apr17) 2
6) Planwell Fin. Planning (Vic) 7 (Apr17) 2
7) Unknown ? (Nov 16) 1 Gent
8) MOU2 597 ? NAB
9) MOU3

Using just the figure for Jan 17, which is 10 practices. Considering 8) NAB was only announced in March, I would assume they wouldn't be part of the 10 and so is MOU3 (still pending). That leaves us with 7 possible candidates for the figure. Without an absolute list of clients, we wouldn't know how many falls in the category of unknown (e.g. 7. gent at seminar).

If Sentry is counted as 1, then we have 2 unknown. Otherwise we can explain the 10 is made up of 6 (ipacWA, ipacSA, Financial Framework, All Financial Services, Planwell and unknown gent) and 4 practices of Sentry making up the rest. Seems plausible as there appears to be a progression of 4 each month which can be Sentry practices coming on board for the pilot.

Hence, without firm confirmation from IAM, either scenario is possible. I sent out another email to Patrick asking specifically this: "Wondering if that is the case, would you consider Sentry Group as 1 financial planning practice for the purpose of operational report?" No reply yet, guess he is too busy with Twitter.

I am passing on the baton to anyone with a sizable holding and has communicated with Patrick to seek clarification on this.