The difference between the ROE and ROA is solely due to gearing,...

The difference between the ROE and ROA is solely due to gearing, which I think you understand from what you've said previously. The way I see it is that ultimately the business makes a 12% return from whatever funding source it utilises. ROE is higher just because the NPAT number is the same but it 's compared to a fraction of the total funding source (1 - gearing %).

I agree with you (and others) to an extent on re-rating, but I don't see the PE moving to 15+ until ROA is 15-20%. There are definitely catalysts for this going forward. Exit from SACC, cost reduction from branch closures, reduction in finance costs etc. So I do expect the PE to increase over time. My point is just that we shouldn't be using PE and comparing that to "typical" or "market" PE's as a gauge for how cheap MNY is. To me it comes down to the return on assets (loans) and the price relative to those assets.

The upside I mentioned before coupled with an excellent funding position, scope for considerable loan book growth, and opportunities to buy shares at less than net asset value make MNY a solid investment.