Morning all,
Some good issues being raised here by all posters. My take on the article and some of the comments so far:
Technology
As
@Nickinbrisbane rightfully points out, there is no mention of the technology (Lily/Klip). Possible explanations for this include: scope of article was limited to BPO (author/editor request), technology is a taboo for the company whilst in suspension mode, technology is not yet fully developed to the point where in depth articles can highlight it's features/functionality that is not already known to the market, technology is developed enough but sales/marketing of the product is on hold or restricted for some reason. All speculation, but given it's a gaping hole in the interview, I assume there is a reason for it.
Focus on BPO
So why the focus on BPO (and not the technology)? Firstly, from a change management perspective, it is far more beneficial for IAM to start having the "offshoring" discussion earlier with the industry. To the point where the article highlights that this is hard stuff and requires commitment from the practice. Secondly, IMO, the Lily/Klip technology is not really the secret sauce to achieving 40% savings in the eyes of the practice. The technology is what is simply used to transfer data between onshore FP practices and the offshore team. It's a mechanism and enabler to transfer the cost of labour to a LCCE. The Klip dashboard reporting is simply data analytics and metric tool that doesn't have any direct impact business costs, so there is less value in selling this service now as it will not contribute to 40% savings for a practice (directly). This can all come later as it's probably seen as a "given" with less impact on the business than sending physical work overseas.
Listing
Granted, there was no explicit mention of their upcoming listing on the ASX, however, there was definitely mention of capital raising (just not public). This is a shame and a wasted opportunity, but I have a feeling that there is a subtle and internal business reason for this. Either the magazine editor/publisher didn't want to be perceived as spruiking IAM or perhaps at IAM's request. I noticed on Mark's LinkedIn profile where it specifically mentions that "Intiger is by referral only". This implies that PR in a mass communication sense, is not a priority. Instead, a targeted approach is preferred, so perhaps this is applied to shareholder base as well, rightly or wrongly. Despite this apparent shortcoming, it is a very positive sign that a 3 page spread in an industry magazine dedicated to IAM is out there, given that IAM are virtually unknown, this is great PR for the business regardless.
Security
Great to see confidence is lifted with the security measures in place. I recall running a similar operation where they had similar restrictions for staff and the technology to use systems was via virtual machine/Citrix, so connecting to onshore servers rather than local machines was the way to ensure data and privacy was not breached.
@scott e
I think your interpretation is correct. IAM is setting the expectation upfront that savings won't be immediate. Instead, it's positioned far more realistically and with a longer term view (i.e. 6 months of grunt work and hand holding) before benefit realisation. After which, if they have saved $$$ for the practice and have essentially overhauled their processes to the point of no return, means that IAM is well positioned to continue servicing those businesses (clever approach it they pull it off).
@go army
Old habits are certainly hard to break. I think IAM know this and are doing what they can to address this by: targeting only those businesses that are committed to changing and trialling the change, putting the message out there now that BPO is not easy or for everyone (highlighting potential challenges and setting realistic expectations etc). From a logical standpoint, if $$$ are saved, then all businesses should be moving to this model. However, as emotional beings, we stick to what is comfortable, safe and known. In particular, there is a chance that if IAM strike a deal with a large licensee, then the Financial Planners that sit within that license may be forced to change against their will or leave to join another licence. This is certainly a risk for IAM. ). I suspect once they pluck the low hanging fruit in the FP industry, they will not engage in an uphill battle to change the unchangeable, but rather, move on quickly to focus on another industry (insurance, property etc).
It made me laugh
A few times I've read that Patrick Canion will be removed from business deals and client acquisition for IAM due to his conflict of interest with iPac being a customer and holding a Directors seat. I'm sure this is a highly effective move...I guess there's nothing stopping him from leaving his rolodex, filled with industry gold contacts lying around in the IAM office.
Always Be Closing,
Bodhi_Trader
(20min delay)