BLA is, at the moment and in my opinion, over-earning for two reasons:
1) We are in the late stages (or perhaps already past the peak of) a virtuous cycle in which asset prices have risen; this leads to BLA's funds generating returns higher than what i'd imagine they'd generate through a full financial cycle, and because BLA's fees are tied to the returns the funds make, BLA is over-earning. Simply put, i don't believe they'll continue to earn 15% in the underlying funds net of fees through the cycle - a 15% post fees translates to roughly 18% pre fees, and they won't deliver that through the cycle.
2) BLA's fee structure will change as its capital base changes from HNWI/retail money (high fee), to institutional money - in short, the latter demand lower fees in return for cutting larger cheques. What i do is assume tomorrow that the entire business switches over to a more institutional fee regime.
In terms of valuation, because i think BLA is over-earning, i basically ignore the $34-36m FY18 NPAT outlook they've provided - capitalising a given earnings number at a multiple only makes sense if you think those earnings are sustainable based on where the business is today. What i do instead is ask myself the question: "what should BLA earn based on where it is today?", and to that end i build a basic Excel model with a few key inputs to flex:
- AUM ($5-$7bn)
- Unlevered through-the-cycle returns generated at the fund level (i estimate 10-12%)
- Leverage employed within funds (30-50%, at 5-6%)
- The above provides estimated through-the-cycle pre-fee equity returns at the fund level (~12-18%)
- Overlay fee regime - i estimate 80-100bps AUM base fee and simple 20/8% performance fee
- This outputs BLA's base and performance fees, and i sense-check that against outputted post-fee fund-level returns (10.5-14.4%)
- Assume BLA has to coinvest 5% of equity into funds, feed that income to BLA
- ~$50m cost base to operate
Doing the above, i get a wide range of potential EBITs - at the low end ($5bn AUM, 12% pre-fee levered fund returns) the EBIT is ~$27m, and at the high end ($7bn AUM, 18% pre-fee levered fund returns) the EBIT is $88m. I probability-weight a number of scenarios to derive a probability-weighted EBIT of ~$50m, say a fair value on that is perhaps 10x, but i want to buy at a discount to fair value which might be 9x, pro forma the net cash for assumed 5% coinvest, and i roughly get to a ~$500m market cap as a point i'd be happy to commence buying - which works out to ~$6.40 per share.
To be honest, what i think Glaucus has done is identify the fact that BLA was at $12+ trading at very lofty valuations hence made a good short target, then they've written a 65-page report with some interesting stuff and a whole bunch of garbage to justify their short position. Glaucus will make money here as i think BLA was objectively overpriced (it unquestionably was when it was trading at >30x PE), but it's not a fraudulent business model as was made out.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- BLA
- Glaucus
Glaucus, page-72
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 13 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add BLA (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
I88
INFINI RESOURCES LIMITED
Charles Armstrong, CEO
Charles Armstrong
CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online