I completely accept what you have outlined @madamswer - cheers....

I completely accept what you have outlined @madamswer - cheers.
I was just looking at Pendal's presentations etc, and there is one disclosure that they make that could be very instructive for understanding IFL. PDL give their fixed and variable costs/expenses. In the chart above, it might be very helpful to have a measure of risk, based on what proportion of their expenses are fixed. The do give a service and marketing fees expense for each div, and other direct costs, but I doubt that the whole of service and marketing fees could be variable costs. To evaluate this business I think these figures would be extremely helpful. These numbers could even assist the market in coming up with best/worse case scenarios. It would also be instructive to have an idea of how the ANZ acquisitions would change this metric.

I think IFL has lost my trust by being opaque in their FUM figures by not disclosing how much is organically derived. This is possibly another area for potential improvement IMO. I think pressure can be applied for IFL to raise their transparency with the SP under severe pressure.

I'm not sure if anybody agrees that organic FUM and fixed/variable cost metrics would be very helpful, and a very responsible addition to their disclosure? Would be great if a fundy or analyst or somebody with some clout asked them for this.