How are the Shorters situated?, page-92

@utsstudent - agree, current pricing doesnt make sense!

in relation to gqg vs ppt, lets put the ASSET MNGT SEGMENTS ONLY side by side (as at 31 Dec23):
and the problem immediately sticks out:

EXPENSES!!! PPT CARRIES 73% DEAD WEIGHT, 2.7 TIMES HIGHER THAN GQG!

GQG's avg mngt fee is slightly higher at 48.8bps, PPT 41bps, dragged down from historic highs due to the PDL acquisition.

Current FUM/FUA is comparatively similar (Mar24) with PPT at AUD $227bn vs AUD ~$219bn for GQG, but again, client outflows have occurred at PPT whereas GQG have consistently obtained net client inflows quarter on quarter...

PPTs massive challenge is to leverage that FUM better, how to extract better value from the boutiques. Their latest expense update was concerning:

Mngt really need to reign in the silo'd boutiques and start to control these cost blowouts. Having $227bn in FUA/FUM is amazing, but for them to rival GQG, PPT need to drive up mngt fee via amalgamation of competing domestic funds (PDL vs PPT) and removing duplicate headcount. The other challenge is the overseas ops, extracting greater synergies from those.

PDL wouldve taken PPT to town during the t/o with a 3year sweetener clause that PPT is probably still paying for...once this acquisition cost issue subsides, costs should stabilise.

apart from that, driving both margin improvement via mix, or other and decreasing expenses in particular should be the absolute focus for mngt.....your cost base is far too high!!!

the sale for $2.1bn was a masterstroke and cant believe the mkt has mispriced it.....

gltah