Ann: Intiger Operations Update, page-336

Okay. I can see I'm going to have to lead a few here down the garden path since....

"I completely disagree with your findings and also those of Wild Man. I think you are both over reaching".

@hank the tank

I feel the need to both defend myself and also clarify a few things from my post 24008580.

In case you missed it, Hank, I didn't draw any conclusions as to whether Sentry were being counted as a single client or as individual practices. How is stating known facts "over reaching"? I simply gave the facts as I knew them and left it out there for others to determine. I figured, however, that those who tried would at least READ what was said closely, know the figures they choose to introduce, and try to use logic along the way. I even hinted at the likely location of the answer.

I guess hinting isn't enough for some.

You said....

"A practice is a practice and it represents 1. This does not matter how it is drawn up. In previous company statements it was announced in the sentry deal how many practices they were going to use. From Memory and with out looking it was 5 initially and then they added some more. I believe in total Sentry are some where around 12 practices now of the 165 with in the group".

Firstly..... and factually it was 6 initial Sentry "practices" as of last November when the trial commenced. In the past month or so this was advised as rising to 15. Also, the "165 practices" was (again as stated in my post) as at February 2016. The current figure is somewhere "400+". My own figures say up to 419 (up to 285 practices) ... which comes from an article from Feb 2016...

https://www.professionalplanner.com...oup-about-to-move-in-on-the-east-coast-43904/

You said....

"Yes each practice can have multiple advisors but each practice in its self typically is its own independant business, much like a doctors practice.So If Sentry have up to 12 then the other 6 is divided between all the other groups".

I agree regarding independent businesses. However you let yourself down when it comes to juggling the numbers. I detailed the numbers both in terms of "advisors" AND "practices". The answer is there in the detail.

Lets divide the time period into sections and analyse the numbers in terms of PRACTICES and CLIENTS. For clarity I'll ignore Sentry for now (since it is the contentious area) and the "Perth gent" (since we don't know where he comes in). Remember, we are trying to determine whether the official figures might be "clients" OR "practices".


Period 1 - Pre-November seminars. (NB:stated as "9 clients" at this point in time).

IPAC WA 1 practice with 14 advisors.
IPAC SA 1 practice with 18 advisors.
Fin. Framework 1 practice with 5 advisors
All Fin. Services 2 practices with 7 advisors
Planwell 2 practices with 7 advisors
Perth Gent 1 practice

Total 6 clients, 8 practices..... leaving 3 "unknown" clients /OR 1 unknown "practice".

At this point Sentry were not officially involved, however we were still advised of "9 clients". It should be noted that IF Sentry, MOU2 and MOU3 (all involved in talks) were counted that would be 9 "clients". Nevertheless....



Period ending Jan 2017. (NB: Stated in Apr 2017 update as total of "10 practices").

Logically (and mathematically) this is where it gets interesting.

Remembering that the contentious point here is whether or not the stated "10 practices" actually MEANS "practices" or "clients".

1) If it means "practices", and with the Sentry trial having been going since Nov 2016 with 6 additional "practices" (which were surely added by Jan 31st) then we have 9 (old) plus 6 (Sentry) for a total of 15 "practices". They say 10.... maths says 15. Hmmm... Houston we have a problem.

2) If it means "clients" then we have the original 9 clients plus Sentry = 10 clients. This leaves open the possibility (even if Sentry were included in the original 9 clients) of another additional client to make the stated 10. That seems to still work either way.... unlike the "practices" example above.



We can do the same projection for end February which is stated as 14 "practices" (yet we have at least 9 + 6 = 15). By March (stated as 18 "practices") things become murky due to the rise from 6 to 15 by Sentry being vague in terms of exactly when each has joined/will join. Also, the possibility of additional clients added (rather than Sentry practices making up the numbers) is undeniable.

The one thing I take away from this exercise is that if what IAM call "practices" in table 1 of the recent Operations Update is in fact "clients" then the maths DOES work. If they MEAN "practices" then it clearly doesn't.