@Transversal,
I recall discussion some time back about the need, or otherwise, for taking out of insurance against market falls; and, if my memory serves, the discussion was inconclusive in terms of either side being convinced by the arguments presented by the opposing side.
So I'll resist the urge to re-kindle that debate.
However, that bit in your post that did pique my interest was the reference to the Bell Potter analyst's negative view on the stock.
Ordinarily the lemming-like behaviour of broking analysts mean I pay virtually zero attention to what they say (especially when they are all corralled around a positive view); however, because I try to be vigilant against my own confirmation bias, I am always keen to learn where I might be wrong in my thinking.
So, when an analyst has a view that is at stark odds with the rest of the herd, and especially when that view is negative, I am always keen to hear what such an analyst has to say.
To that end, do you - or does anyone else who follows these threads - have a distillation or synopsis of the the thinking of the analyst in question?
Because, based on my assessment on where IFL's earnings will approximately land over the next year or two, that implies a $7.61 stock price equates to a P/E of less than 9x.
Either that, or my assessment of IFL's prospective earnings is deeply flawed.
(20min delay)