Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder, page-10

I am interested you say that and want to understand your logic. I think I first started thinking about it when CBG was absorbed into CAM. I wasn't a holder in either but had been introduced to CBG through a third party. Essentially I have looked at Clime over the years but it never got the nod either as an investor in their funds or in the operating company (CIW). I cannot say that I have done an in-depth analysis in any of their entities as my last look must be early 2017.

However this morning after your post I had a cursory look. This is what I saw. The market must like Clime Capital because it seems to trade very close to its NTA. That being said it looks like its about $1.00 and trades around 94c. A lot of moving parts given the CBG acquisition so on 15 December that will be definitive. I am surprised they don't have to release an NTA every month. I then went to the CIW financials and this is what struck me:

1. This looks like at least a 20PER.
2. The change from 2018 to 2019 was really $1,5 Million Increase in income but all of that was taken up in increased administrative costs. Yes the performance fees income increase was there and some of that may well have been paid out but logically the increased income should not mostly drop into the laps of admin and employee costs. Really of the $1,5 million increase only $400K drops to the bottom line so at best that $600 K before tax. Not a fair ratio, given that 84% of the underlying cash profits comes from the performance fees.
3. This is a high price 50c for a business in a sector with such huge disruption, especially with managing LIC's etc.
4. CIW already has a Super JV so you would have to buy someone out to consolidate both entities.

So I am not sure where the benefits for SEQ would be, nor for that matter is the share price merger compelling for SEQ.

I would be interested to understand your views as I think we are all struggling to understand how financial services would be in a few years.