@noomx, Yes, that's about as elegant as my valuation methodology...

@noomx,

Yes, that's about as elegant as my valuation methodology gets for property fund managers, who co-invest in the funds they manage.

In this case the implied value of the funds management business of $48m needs to be seen in the context of that business growing FUM at around 23%pa - even through Covid - with the following Revenue and EBITDA history:

FUM ($bn) / Revenue ($m) / EBITDA ($m):
2015: 0.35 / 4.9 / 4.5
2016: 0.49 / 9.3 / 7.9
2017: 0.65 / 14.2 / 11.3
2018: 1.08 / 13.7 / 10.6
2019: 1.39 / 15.0 / 12.1
2020: 1.69 / 21.5 / 5.3 (Covid-impacted.... management fee based on Hotel fund EBITDA)
2021: 2.08 / 29.7 / 10.7 (also still partly Covid-impacted)
1H'22: 2.44 / 20.2 / 7.6


For that trajectory in FUM, Revenue and EBITDA, I'd happily pay an EBITDA multiple of 10x; however, recognising the small size of the company, and its lack of visibility, I'd concede that 8x is more realistic.

And at current level of FUM, I think that $12m-$13m pa EBITDA is the "normalised" number today.

So I value the funds management business at around $100m , or 83c /share.

But here's a little EBITDA and EV multiple matrix which let's you choose your own adventure for valuing the funds management business (the blue, shaded area corresponds to my zone of comfort):





Adding that $100m ($0.83c/share) for the funds management business to the NTA of $1.32/share, yields a fundamental valuation of ~$2.15/share

[Of course, I recongnise there is a bit of double-counting there, because some of the NTA is is required to support the funds management business, but funds management is not asset heavy, nor is it working capital-intensive, so any double counting is not a material quantum. Besides, the same token, I've also ignored any option value in my valuation - and the option value is sure to be more than the value attributed to the funds management business which has been double-counted in the NTA).

.