Hi GregI agree with the Management Fee (100%) through Aether...

Hi Greg

I agree with the Management Fee (100%) through Aether Investment Partners and Performance Fee (25%) through Aether General Partners.

I believe the $AUD8M to $AUD10M is correct for Management Fee revenue from new FUM - Aether Investment Partners revenue. That is 0.8% to 1% for management fees on $AUD1B ($USD750M). I don't believe management fees will go down to 0.6% on average, despite range in the SEC brochure.

I believe Aether earns a bit more through performance fees for its current FUM due to management targeting this method to generate money for themselves (the other 75%). The brochure states "performance-based allocations do not exceed 5% of profits and are subject to certain preferred return hurdles". Believe performance fees make the difference up of between 0.4% and 0.6% on existing FUM and have assumed it will for future FUM.

I have dug around to see why I have 1.4% on older Aether FUM (I will post when I find it). This could change with future FUM and the amount of FUM being sought. I use 1.4% as a guide only - also includes the fact that Aether is a Tier 1 Fund and needed to generate this on historical FUM to get to Tier 1 status. The 1.4% fee would mean $AUD14M in revenue is generated.

I do like the conservative NPAT figure of between 8c to 10c ($AUD4.1M and $AUD5.1M). This is an uplift of between 15% to 19.5% on an annualised EPS basis from the Aether FUM itself - based on last years earnings without Banner Oaks. I can't tell what the uplift in costs will be if Aether generated additional FUM.

The other item to consider is any Distribution Fees generated by PAC's sales team. Does PAC have a distribution agreement with Aether? I have assumed not. This would increase revenue as well as employee costs, but should be profitable if there is.

Best of Luck
Lost