Ann: Investor Presentation Notice, page-22

yeah fair point TEP. It certainly wasnt intended to sling mud. Its just that its so bullish with some fundamentals and comments just plain wrong, as I have pointed out in previous posts.

I havent gone through pricing the stock because quite simply Im not interested. In saying that here are some thoughts on fundamentals;
1. your assumptions on MGA valuations are incorrect. The industry used to look at GWP multiples but now more on EBIT and therefore aligning with normal M&A. Also MGAs are only takeover attractive when they reach a certain size. ENA is simply just too small particularly being listed and certainly would not command premium valuations. And therefore any reference to much larger listed peers is irrelevant.
2. growth you are seeing is that of any start up. Do not assume this growth will remain as it enters maturity and the concept of a ‘new insurance market’ disappears.
3. even though they sold previous profitable assets they announce they are in the market for more acquisitions. These are hard to find and now very expensive. Organic growth will decrease accordingly to a industry normalcy.
4. The board now apart from Kent has no insurance experience. Banks have tried unsuccessfully for years to run insurance businesses and cant do it. Havent seen one survive yet run by inexperienced management in the industry. Especially those that sell profitable businesses only to dilute shareholders further and acquire others virtually in the same space.
5 I hear what you say regarding directors buying stock as a positive flag. But in this case imo its just been a constant prop-up of the stock with little to no other buyers. They buy because its their livelihood and of course they have a positive view and are in it for years and years to come. Not necessarily aligned with the average investor that is trying to max out returns. (History tells me Im correct here). It would be an interesting exercise to calculate how much they have bought over 2 years. It would be considerable. Again meaning there is little to no on market interest.

in truth I liked the story when it was a disrupter, now its simply just too small to survive only as a listed normal MGA due to its size. It joins hundreds of MGAs in this space that dont have the ASX head office expenses and are generally already larger with experienced industry management.

I could go further into numbers but cant get passed the fundamentals failing, again all imo. The numbers are hyped and the current MV is already a little high for its size, future growth and profitability.

its not a buy but accumulate over 5-7 years as insurance. Buy a small amount in your super every year. But all this talk of 48 and 50 cents? Just why would it double, there are simply no reasons due to the numbers either. It would go against the valuations of every other stock in the sector and private valuations in the M&A space. Time will tell and have already too many other stories out there where fundamentals stack up.