Editing Alpha Financial Markets Consulting plc

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 177: Line 177:
=== What’s the size of the company target market? ===
=== What’s the size of the company target market? ===
===Total Addressable Market===
===Total Addressable Market===
Here, the total addressable market (TAM) is defined as the global financial services consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $46 billion<ref>Global financial markets consultancy market = World GDP x consultancy services as a proportion of World GDP x financial services as a proportion of World GDP
Here, the total addressable market (TAM) is defined as the global consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $590 billion<ref>0.61% of global GDP.</ref>.
 
= $100 trillion x 0.61% x 7.5%.
 
= $458 billion.</ref>.
===Serviceable Available Market===
===Serviceable Available Market===
The serviceable available market (SAM) is defined as the global asset management, wealth management and insurance consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $23 billion<ref>=50% of the global financial markets consultancy market.</ref>.
The serviceable available market (SAM) is defined as the global asset management, wealth management and insurance consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $59 billion<ref>=10% of the global consultancy market.</ref>.
 
===Serviceable Obtainable Market===
Here, the serviceable obtainable market (SOM) is defined as the United Kingdom asset management, wealth management and insurance consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $2.17 billion<ref>= UK GDP x consultancy as a proportion of GDP x financial services as a proportion of GDP
 
= $3.131 trillion x 0.84% x 8.3%.</ref>.


The key structural drivers in the industry are as follows:
The key structural drivers in the industry are as follows:
Line 205: Line 196:
# The industry is subject to a wide range of regulatory and risk management considerations, which the directors believe will continue to drive growth in consulting services. In addition to the ever more demanding regulatory environment, the industry is having to react to requests from institutional and retail customers for greater transparency in reporting, engagement and accountability, which in turn is driving a growth in demand for more effective data systems and processes.
# The industry is subject to a wide range of regulatory and risk management considerations, which the directors believe will continue to drive growth in consulting services. In addition to the ever more demanding regulatory environment, the industry is having to react to requests from institutional and retail customers for greater transparency in reporting, engagement and accountability, which in turn is driving a growth in demand for more effective data systems and processes.
# '''Consolidation.''' The pressure on margins within the asset and wealth management industry has also resulted in significant consolidation in recent years, as fund managers seek to increase assets under management, drive synergies and ultimately generate better returns through mergers and acquisitions. The value of global M&A deals completed in the sector totalled approximately $34.9 billion in 2015 and $71.3 billion in 2016, with many market commentators expecting continued consolidation through M&A in the asset and wealth management industry in the near future. This has created substantial opportunities and areas of growth for Alpha as it continues to provide M&A integration, operational and outsourcing consultancy services to increasingly larger and more complex fund managers.
# '''Consolidation.''' The pressure on margins within the asset and wealth management industry has also resulted in significant consolidation in recent years, as fund managers seek to increase assets under management, drive synergies and ultimately generate better returns through mergers and acquisitions. The value of global M&A deals completed in the sector totalled approximately $34.9 billion in 2015 and $71.3 billion in 2016, with many market commentators expecting continued consolidation through M&A in the asset and wealth management industry in the near future. This has created substantial opportunities and areas of growth for Alpha as it continues to provide M&A integration, operational and outsourcing consultancy services to increasingly larger and more complex fund managers.
===Serviceable Obtainable Market===
Here, the serviceable obtainable market (SOM) is defined as the United Kingdom asset management, wealth management and insurance consultancy market, and based on a number of assumptions, it is estimated that the size of the market as of today (23rd January 2023), in terms of revenue, is $2.17 billion<ref>= UK GDP x consultancy as a proportion of GDP x financial services as a proportion of GDP
= $3.131 trillion x 0.84% x 8.3%.</ref>.


=== What are the main achievements of the company? ===
=== What are the main achievements of the company? ===
Line 1,544: Line 1,540:
As with any investment, investing in Alpha FMC carries a level of risk. Overall, based on the Alpha FMC's adjusted beta (i.e. 1.139)<ref>Research shows that an investment has two main types of risks: 1) non-systematic and 2) systematic. Systematic risk is the risk related to the overall market, and non-systematic risk is the risk that's specific to an individual investment. Evidence shows that taking on non-systematic risk is inefficient, and it's, therefore, best to eliminate it; and in most cases, elimination is fairy easy to do [by holding a diversified portfolio of investments (i.e. around 15 investments)]. Accordingly, when assessing the riskiness of an investment, it’s best to look at the systematic risk only (i.e. ignore the non-systematic risk). A key measure of systematic risk is beta, and a main way to determine the riskiness of an investment is to compare the beta of the investment with the beta of the market, which is 1. For example, Supply@ME Capital's adjusted beta (5 years, monthly data) is 4.61, and is, accordingly, 561% above the market beta (of 1); assuming that a 'high' level of riskiness is 50% or more above the market beta, then the riskiness of investing in Supply@ME Captial is considered to be 'high' (561%>50%). For estimating an asset's beta, in terms of time period, and frequency of observations, the most common choice is five years of monthly data, yielding 60 observations. One study of U.S. stocks found support for five years of monthly data over alternatives. An argument can be made that the 2 years, weekly data can be especially appropriate in fast growing markets. The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, the beta of an average-systematic-risk security, than to the value of the raw beta. Because valuation is forward looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more accurately predicts a future beta.</ref>, the degree of risk associated with an investment in Alpha FMC is 'medium'.
As with any investment, investing in Alpha FMC carries a level of risk. Overall, based on the Alpha FMC's adjusted beta (i.e. 1.139)<ref>Research shows that an investment has two main types of risks: 1) non-systematic and 2) systematic. Systematic risk is the risk related to the overall market, and non-systematic risk is the risk that's specific to an individual investment. Evidence shows that taking on non-systematic risk is inefficient, and it's, therefore, best to eliminate it; and in most cases, elimination is fairy easy to do [by holding a diversified portfolio of investments (i.e. around 15 investments)]. Accordingly, when assessing the riskiness of an investment, it’s best to look at the systematic risk only (i.e. ignore the non-systematic risk). A key measure of systematic risk is beta, and a main way to determine the riskiness of an investment is to compare the beta of the investment with the beta of the market, which is 1. For example, Supply@ME Capital's adjusted beta (5 years, monthly data) is 4.61, and is, accordingly, 561% above the market beta (of 1); assuming that a 'high' level of riskiness is 50% or more above the market beta, then the riskiness of investing in Supply@ME Captial is considered to be 'high' (561%>50%). For estimating an asset's beta, in terms of time period, and frequency of observations, the most common choice is five years of monthly data, yielding 60 observations. One study of U.S. stocks found support for five years of monthly data over alternatives. An argument can be made that the 2 years, weekly data can be especially appropriate in fast growing markets. The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, the beta of an average-systematic-risk security, than to the value of the raw beta. Because valuation is forward looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more accurately predicts a future beta.</ref>, the degree of risk associated with an investment in Alpha FMC is 'medium'.


Here, to estimate the adjusted beta, we used the iShares MSCI World ETF to represent the market portfolio; and in terms of the time period and frequency of observations, we used five years of monthly data (i.e. 60 observations in total), which is supported by a study and is the most common choice. The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, and because valuation is forward-looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more/most accurately predicts a future beta. In addition, here, we have assumed that for an investment to be considered 'medium' risk, it must have a beta value of between 0.5 and 1.5. Further information about the beta ratings can be found in the appendix section of this report.
Here, to estimate the adjusted beta, we used the iShares MSCI World ETF to represent the market portfolio; and in terms of the time period and frequency of observations, we used five years of monthly data (i.e. 60 observations in total), which is supported by a study and is the most common choice. We note that the company in its current state was only really formed (following a reverse takeover) on 27th March 2020<ref>Officially, the company was formed on 1st March 2000 (i.e. almost 23 years ago).</ref>, and, therefore, the numbers of available data observations is less than what's typically used in the five years of monthly data beta calculation (i.e. 33 observations vs. 60 observations). The beta value in a future period has been found to be on average closer to the mean value of 1.0, and because valuation is forward-looking, it is logical to adjust the raw beta so it more/most accurately predicts a future beta. In addition, here, we have assumed that for an investment to be considered 'medium' risk, it must have a beta value of between 0.5 and 1.5. Further information about the beta ratings can be found in the appendix section of this report.


The key risks can be found below. For us, currently, the biggest risk to the valuation of the company relates to the company's ability (and willingness) to take the appropriate risk to maintain the growth of the business.
The key risks can be found below. For us, currently, the biggest risk to the valuation of the company relates to the company's ability (and willingness) to take the appropriate risk to maintain the growth of the business.
Line 1,824: Line 1,820:


|Year 1
|Year 1
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to use a time period of 12 months or less. Accordingly, for the earnings figure, we suggest using Year 1, which is 22 pence per share.
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to use a time period of 12 months or less. Accordingly, for the sales figure, we suggest using Year 1, which is 20 pence per share.
|-
|-
|In regards to the PEG multiple, for the earnings growth figure, which year(s) do you want to use?
|In regards to the PEG multiple, for the earnings growth figure, which year(s) do you want to use?
|Year 2 to 4, from now
|Year 2 to 4, from now
|We suggest that for the earnings growth figure, it's best to use Year 2 to 4, which equates to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30%.
|We suggest that for the sales growth figure, it's best to use Year 2 to 4, which equates to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30%.
|-
|-
|In regards to the PEG multiple, what multiple figure do you want to use?
|In regards to the PEG multiple, what multiple figure do you want to use?
Line 1,854: Line 1,850:
|-
|-
|Which type of multiple do you want to use?
|Which type of multiple do you want to use?
|Growth-adjusted EV/sales
|Price/earnings to growth
|For the numerator, we believe that to account for the different financial leverage levels of its peers, it's best to use enterprise value (EV), rather than price. For the denominator, we believe that because we expect Alpha FMC to reinvest almost all of its revenue back into the business over the five year forecast period and, therefore, its earnings are expected to be abnormally low over the period, it's best to use sales. Accordingly, we suggest valuing the company using the EV/sales ratio. However, we feel that to take into account the different business lifecycle stages of its peers, the most suitable valuation multiple to use is the (sales) growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, rather than the EV/sales multiple.
|Mainly given the relatively low amount of fixed capital expenditure (as a proportion of revenue) of companies within the consultancy industry (for example, currently, Alpha's fixed capital expenditure as a proportion of revenue is around 0.5%), we suggest valuing the company using the price/earnings ratio. However, we feel that to take into account the different business lifecycle stages of its peers (and, therefore, the different growth stages of its peers), the most suitable valuation multiple to use is the price/earnings to (earnings) growth multiple (or the PEG multiple, for short), rather than the price/earnings multiple. Another multiple which we think it's worth looking at is the (sales) growth-adjusted EV/sales, mainly because the multiple takes into account the different leverage levels of the peers (whereas the PEG does not, at least not directly; one is able to argue that the leverage levels are reflected indirectly in the earnings growth rates).
|-
|-
|In regards to the growth-adjusted EV/sales multiple, for the sales figure, which year to you want to use?
|In regards to the PEG multiple, for the earnings figure, which year to you want to use?


|Year 1
|Year 1
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to use a time period of 12 months or less. Accordingly, for the sales figure, we suggest using Year 1, which is ccc pence per share.
|Research suggests that when using the relative valuation approach, it's best to use a time period of 12 months or less. Accordingly, for the sales figure, we suggest using Year 1, which is 20 pence per share.
|-
|-
|In regards to the PEG multiple, for the earnings growth figure, which year(s) do you want to use?
|In regards to the PEG multiple, for the earnings growth figure, which year(s) do you want to use?
Line 1,867: Line 1,863:
|-
|-
|In regards to the PEG multiple, what multiple figure do you want to use?
|In regards to the PEG multiple, what multiple figure do you want to use?
|0.43x
|1.04x
|Here, we suggest using a multiple of 0.43x, which we believe is in-line with the multiples of Alpha's peers.
|Here, we suggest using a multiple of 1.04x, which we believe is in-line with the multiples of Alpha's peers.
|-
|-
|Which financial forecasts to use?
|Which financial forecasts to use?
Please note that all contributions to Stockhub may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Stockhub:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)