@Starmanwin - Great point and the news is hot off the press...

@Starmanwin - Great point and the news is hot off the press about ANZ. It could go either way for IAM. Its still possible that M3 could be the MOU#2 if there was an impending sale coming up since the discussions would have happened many months ago and IAM efficiencies could be a value-add to the potential buyer. But I'm with you...lower probably compared to AMP/MLC and too disruptive a change to make.

@ffxssj - Great question! Attacking the major shareholder and parent company would be nice and do-able, but much more complicated and higher risk for both IAM and the customer. My view is that going for the "subsidiary" is more likely as they are generally run as discrete businesses (owners, processes, entities) and the implementation is de-risked by trialling with one of the groups first (e.g. IPAC under AMP), proving it up and then moving along to the next one (e.g. Hillross under AMP).

@stevemol - Thanks for reminding me of the "household name" (as other posters did mention this). Not sure what to make of it. I guess the good news is that no matter who the household name is, it's going to be good news for all of us (except Malmanu) as I'm indifferent to IAM signing up any one of the Big 4 + AMP.

My money is on MLC/Garvan, Hillross or Charter as either MOU#2 or #3.

PC, if you're reading this...1 wink for cold, 2 winks for hot. See you tonight.

AIMHO + DYOR.

Bodhi_Trader.