Hey Nauv,
I'm gonna assume you're not trying to troll me, but your post doesn't make sense. The annual report is on FY18, where they traded just over 2 months, my thoughts are the same as before as they are based on the same financials that we previously discussed. I don't know what you mean by being over the whole year, they have been trading since April 2018, what whole year are you talking about? This is their FY18 annual report showing performance for that period we previously discussed.
You don't retrospectively attribute costs of trading to previous periods as they are billed. I had a discussion with a Morgan Stanley representative last week in respect to SIL, they said there seems to be a few people confused with the nature of FASA's and the associated accounting. The direct costs will continue to be one month in advance of revenue owing to the nature of invoicing by practitioners and labs (obviously subject to labs invoicing). So only after 13 months will you be able to work out direct costs against associated revenue. This is why I ask if you're trolling me?
However, let me assure you; I have spoken to multiple practitioners and directors of the company. Which you could do as well, as opposed to wildly speculating, or trolling; you could establish that practitioners are not being paid a 16% commission. No practitioner is being paid on this basis, the practitioners I have spoken to are being paid in line with market expectations at or above 40% of gross receipts less labs for experienced practitioners.
Yes I think the SIL model is sustainable long term, I think you should contact Mike or his team as opposed to trying to work things out yourself. I think if practitioners were being paid 16% they would move overseas, change profession, look for jobs elsewhere or anything else, other than work for that employer. Who do you think they are employing at that rate?
I mean no offence when I ask, do you think your professional bias is effecting your perception here? Based on both you and SIL (currently) being Queensland centric, and your movement into practice acquisition consultation. I am absolutely biased having a position, however I like to think I'm well researched and communicative with relevant parties. Please let me know if I've misunderstood in anyway, once again not a personal attack and no offence intended. I would appreciate being directed to relevant information if I have missed something.
Cheers,
JB
