Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly, page-17

Hi all,

For those that know me, I post irregularly on HC, but follow the threads closely, so it's nice to be able to get time and post this and get a few thoughts out of my head.

For those that don't know me, you can read some of my earlier posts here:


18015921
18028487
24579381
25371498

My personal view on all the discussion here is that I really don't mind the "downrampers" or the "uprampers". I remain objective (as possible) either way. It's good to have people question management and the business EVEN if it's not backed up with any facts. What I get out of it is additional food for thought and a perspective to further inform and educate my own research and decision making.

Furthermore, I think it's great that more people from within the industry (myself included) are throwing their 2 cents in and I find it interesting how some are completely FOR Intiger and others remain skeptical. Even when faced with the same facts and knowledge, we have differing views as it comes down completely to one's own personal experience and outlook for the industry.

Anyway, I thought I would share my thoughts (not all the below is entirely fact based as I want to express a personal opinion as well).

1. I'm not sure why management decided to give the update last Friday, then the portal this morning, then the 4C tonight (it's a rhetorical question really). Seems a little strange and somewhat "tactical", and didn't really achieve what I think it was set out to do. I much prefer a straight shooter and spill the beans approach, but that's just me.
2. It's a shame about NAB really. I think IAM thought they had it in the bag and would give them the much needed boost. Obviously things didn't work out and now they are more reliant on the portal (which is a good thing) to supplement their plans. I mentioned many moons ago in an earlier post that one of the big hurdles I see for IAM is them breaking into the Insto's (having worked in their Paraplanning areas before)
3. I think the M1-4 targets are important. Only recently people have said they are not, but only in the last week or so. I can't remember anyone saying in the early days that M1-4 weren't important. My view hasn't changed. They are important since that is what the business believed they could achieve when they listed. If it was an achievable goal when they set them, then its important to the future valuation of the business. Whether it's an important factor in investors/trading buying and selling stock is up to the individual. To the extent that they achieve a sizeable chunk of their M4 target, then yes, it's neither here nor there.
4. I was thinking about selling my shares recently (or partially) as I'm seeing other opportunities in the market with greater potential return, but decided to leave my funds with IAM for the long term (sticking to the original plan) and use other funds.

Projections - these are my own rough estimates required by IAM to reach their target. There are a few important notes to read through. It is not intended to stir debate or create a nit-picking exercise that will overrun the HC thread, but just give some flavour to the types of numbers they would need to achieve. All you readers can then make up your own  mind to tweak them either way or come to a view on whether you think it's achievable or not.

Notes:
1. The initial $140k NPAT is the starting point. Obviously this is wrong to start since they have no NPAT. But I've used it as a starting point based on their quarterly revenue and applying a 30% margin. In other words, IAM would need to do better than what I've projected.
2. The growth rate of 30% is just what I made up as I thought it was a reasonable margin for a business to operate at in a sustainable sense.
3. I've used packages as the unit product. i.e. 1 package is $400. This is to simplify things since its impossible to break this down any further to SOA, File Note, Insurance quote level. Bear in mind that IAM have previously said that there is no real clear and defined metric for their business and will need to work on this over time. Aside from revenue, it's not as simple as counting how many tasks are completed or how many practices they onboard since neither give a true reflection of their business performance. On this occasion, I am making a call that "packages" are a suitable unit of measure.
4. I've assumed each planner uses each package twice per week since 2 SOAs is probably a safe industry average. Some do more, some do less. I think $800 per week for a planner to spend ($41,600 pa) is also reasonable. Again, some will spend more, some will spend less.
5. The bottom line is that IAM would need quarter on quarter growth of 85%. This is just above the 60% growth we saw last quarter. As the chart shows, this is an exponential increase in NPAT which is consistent with Patrick's recent comments.



Glad to back and keep up the informative posts everyone.

I'll be back after the Annual Report or next Quarterly (i.e. when more facts are available).

Bodhi_Trader