Hi TimtamTomThanks for your counter response and appreciate the...

Hi TimtamTom

Thanks for your counter response and appreciate the time you have taken. May have given wrong impression by previous response, always focused on the whole metrics, not just FUM growth. I have another spreadsheet that measures growth in Dividends and EPS over 5 years. This coupled with FUM growth and Operating Margin paint picture of valuable growth and recent performance trends. Here is the other spreadsheet with older share prices:


In terms of PAC, believe what you have presented highlights the issue with market valuation differences and why there is a discrepancy. I focus on underlying NPAT and its trends across all Fund Managers when analysing.

The reason for that is if you look at the same figures of PAC from previous years 2019 was EPS of 78.95c (as per your screenshot from 2020 Annual Report) and the year before that EPS was $2.04 (PAC would not have had a $60 share price with this EPS figure). This is applicable to PAC and PNI as they own parts of boutique investment managers and are subject to accounting revaluations each year that do not reflect business performance (no fund manager listed on ASX is 100% comparable).

Long way of answering your question, I prefer all FUM, Dividend and EPS to have high growth, coupled with low PE ratio and high dividend yield.

I invest in PTM on the basis of potential growth returning and a couple of PTMs newer funds hopefully expanding - health and technology funds have been returning above market averages. They are a well run business with High Operating Margins and with the potential of returning back to market favour too. FUM hasn’t been growing much, nor has the share price, but hope my capital is unlikely to decline over the next couple of years.

Best of Luck
Lost