AUB Group Limited (AUB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by and welcome to the AUB Group half year 2024 results. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Mike Emmett, CEO and Managing Director.

[Technical Difficulty] financial year '24 have been very eventful and successful for AUB Group. The group has delivered strong revenue growth of 36.4% and a 120 basis point EBIT margin expansion to 32.5%. Please note, comparisons to the first half of financial year '23 are made more complex because the prior period only included 3 months of Tysers' results. I want to call out exceptional results in the New Zealand and agency's divisions and also acknowledge the continued strong performance in Australian Broking and BizCover. With Tysers we've made significant progress and after a relatively short period with several initiatives and changes well underway. The progress with revenue and cost synergies has been pleasing. And I want to highlight that the Tysers' EBIT margin, since acquisition, has been consistently ahead of the 19.9% EBIT margin, revealed in the AUB acquisition case that was communicated in May 2022. And is also ahead of the EBIT margin Tysers achieved in the years before acquisition. These AUB results and continued positive momentum in the business warrant an increased profit growth expectation for financial year '24. We now expect underlying net profit for financial year '24 to be in the range of $161 million to $171 million, representing growth on financial year '23 underlying NPAT of 24.7% to 32.5%. And this is an upgrade from the range in underlying NPAT of $154 million to $164 million previously communicated. I'll now hand over to Mark.

Thanks, Mike. And good morning, everybody. Slide 4 summarizes the excellent financial highlights for the first half of FY '24. Revenue growth of 36.4% to $635.7 million and an expansion in underlying EBIT margin to 32.5% gave rise to growth in underlying NPAT to $70.2 million, an increase of 50.5% on the prior corresponding period. The underlying EPS increased by 34.4% to $0.6476 per share while the interim dividend increased to $0.20 per share, an increase of 17.6%. On Slide 5, we provide a waterfall summarizing the growth in underlying NPAT in the first half of FY '24 compared with the first half of FY '23. While acquisitions contributed 38.4% of the growth, with most of this arising from the purchase of Tysers, there has been exceptional organic growth in underlying NPAT of 33%. You will note that robust acquisition and organic growth have been partially offset by a minor reduction in underlying NPAT from divestments and increased funding costs, the latter primarily due to the prior corresponding period, only having debt from the 1st of October 2022 with the acquisition of Tysers. I'll now hand back to Mike.

Thanks, Mark. So moving to Slide 7, and the performance of each division. Agencies in New Zealand were the outperformers for the first half of '24. In Agencies revenue growth of 45.4%, margin expansion of 870 basis points to 40.3% and growth in EBIT of 85.3% are spectacular performances by the team. Not to be outdone, our colleagues in New Zealand have delivered stellar results with revenue growth of 37.3%, margin expansion of 1,390 basis points to 36.6%, and EBIT growth of 121.9% crowning a period of continued turnaround success. In addition, we continue to be pleased with the progress and performance of Australian Broking and BizCover. We acquired Tysers on the 1st of October 2022, meaning there were only 3 months of ownership during the first half of '23. As a result, we are not disclosing percentage increases for Tysers' performance on the slide to avoid inflating the performance indicators. Tysers' performance was on track for the first half of '24. Slide 8, shows continued progress with Australian Broking. As you'll note, the EBIT margin continues to expand while we also have enjoyed a consistent compound annual revenue growth rate of 10.9%. Revenue growth and margin improvement have primarily resulted from business interventions, including 4 acquisitions, 4 equity step-ups, 2 equity step-downs, 1 divestment, and the merging of 2 AUB network businesses. In addition, market conditions remain favorable. We anticipate continued significant medium-term upside in Australian Broking from acquisition and consolidation opportunities. Slide 9, BizCover. BizCover is well established as the segment leader in Australia, delivering consistent revenue and client growth at a substantial margin. In the first half of '24 revenue grew 14.7% and the EBIT margin expanded to 39.7%. BizCover operates in other markets outside Australia, most notably in New Zealand. The business is smaller scale, and lower maturity in these foreign jurisdictions means that margins are much lower arising from higher customer acquisition and marketing costs. In the first half of '24, the EBIT margin outside of Australia was 6.5%. While in Australia, the EBIT margin was an excellent 42.6%. During the first half of '24 Chubb was added to the Australian platform as another major insurance partner and we also saw pleasing growth in placements on the ExpressCover platform used across the Oz brokers' network. Onto Slide 10, growth and performance in Agencies since we launched our new strategy 3-1/2 half years ago have been spectacular. This performance continues during the first half of '24 with revenue growth of 45.4% and EBIT margin expansion of 870 basis points to 40.3%. We exceeded $1 billion of premium from our agencies for the first time in calendar year '23. Investments in 360 underwriting and Strata Unit Underwriting have especially enabled growth in general, commercial, and Strata respectively. And while we've seen excellent growth in several agencies ensures specialty, this area remains subscale and is an area of focus during financial year '24. Our colleagues in Tysers are supporting us to identify and grow binder placements in specialty areas relevant to the Lloyd's market. Slide 11. Following several years of challenging performances in New Zealand, observing the strong turnaround over the past 18 months has been pleasing. Revenue growth in the first half of 37.3% and an expanded margin of 36.6%, benefited from both strong organic growth and acquisitions. While the New Zealand Tech Investment project has contributed to profit growth in the first half of '24, this has mainly been due to a reduction in tech spending on the project and we do not anticipate this will reoccur in the second half of '24 as we look to further rollout the technology. We're starting to see benefits from portfolio actions in New Zealand similar to those we take in Australia. During the first half of '24, we invested in three acquisitions, one equity step-up while participating in to equity step-downs to support succession planning. On slide 12, we summarize Tysers' performance and the various actions taken to optimize this business. The marine and aviation division as well as Tysers Live, the global entertainment media, film and sports business unit, both performed very well. While property and casualty, specialty and retail delivered more mixed results. As previously indicated, the wholesale business had benefited from a tail of income arising from discontinued jurisdictions and teams that either departed prior to AUB investment or have been transitioned to other wholesalers. The graph on Slide 12 shows that in the first half of '23 Tysers' EBIT benefited by $2.9 million from these items. We are therefore reflecting this separately on the waterfall chart to enable you to understand the underlying profit growth. We have also split out the FX benefit in the result, so that you can understand the constant currency performance. There may have been expectations from some that the Tysers' EBIT margin for the first half of '24 would be higher than the 20.4% achieved. I want to make a few specific comments regarding this. Firstly, as communicated in May 2022, the margin on which AUB based the acquisition of Tysers was an adjusted margin of 19.9%. Secondly, the income and margin for Tysers are seasonal with a skew towards the second half. That is, the margin for January to June of each year is higher than for July to December. And thirdly, the first and second halves of financial year '23 both benefited from tailwind income arising from jurisdictions that AUB/Tysers has withdrawn from, as well as from a tail of income earned from clients related to teams that departed before the AUB acquisition or teams that exited Tysers as part of an AUB structural intervention. We previously highlighted this phenomenon as artificially elevating the margin during our results for FY '23. I'd like to give you an update on the progress we've made with the priorities we identified for Tysers during the first half of '24, which were; firstly, to make good progress in restructuring and repositioning the company for future growth. Secondly, to achieve the synergies identified as part of the acquisition and thirdly, to minimize the downside risks to revenue of crucial team members leaving. I'll run through each of these. Firstly restructuring. To this end, we have actively repurposed Tysers' Singapore and Miami operations as reinsurance hubs. We have identified essential product or industry gaps in the wholesale business, and have recruited some teams to assist in addressing these. We have more clearly separated retail and wholesale operations to improve focus and growth and in the process established a new governance model and leadership structure for each. We've completed a bolt-on acquisition to enhance the scale and capability of Tysers in Brussels. And finally, I've taken on the Tysers' CEO role on an interim basis. This enabling me to rapidly deepen my day-to-day knowledge of the business, which has helped to accelerate the pace of changes and decisions in Tysers. Secondly, synergy benefits. We are pleased with the progress in delivering synergy benefits and anticipate exceeding our original targets by the end of financial year '24. We have already achieved the revenue synergy target of $10 million 6 months ahead of the target date of 30 June '24. And more revenue synergies will flow through during the second half. Full implementation of the cost synergies was targeted originally for 31 December, 2023. We need to catch up against that target. But we actually expect to exceed the overall targeted savings amount by the end of financial year '24. And as a result, the actual run rate benefit delivered by the end of the financial year will equate to our original synergy target. And thirdly, retention. A range of retention mechanisms and a strong alignment of culture and ambition have pleasingly meant, there have been little to no departures of key individuals. Tysers is an integral part of the AUB family, and together we offer tremendous opportunities for individuals to grow and progress in their careers. One example of this is the Tysers' summer school, held annually to develop broking talent. This year 10 of the participants will be from Australia and New Zealand, while later in the year, several Tysers' team members will attend the Oz brokers and NZ brokers conferences. And this is one example of how we are offering fantastic opportunities to our teams and to develop their talents. I'll now hand to Mark.

Thanks, Mike. Slide 14 shows our debt funding update. In January 2024 we achieved a tremendous outcome, refinancing our previous $675 million dollar facility with a new $850 million multi-tenor facility. We achieved a substantial reduction in interest margin from 450 basis points to circa 190 basis points and had $267.7 million of cash and undrawn debt on 31 January. The leverage ratio of 2.02x remains well below the covenant maximum of 3x. Slide 15 depicts the mix of currencies that Tysers is exposed to. Most of Tysers' income is earned in U.S. dollars, whilst expenses are mainly incurred in pound sterling. To mitigate this risk during FY '23, we entered into a multiyear series of monthly forward contracts to sell U.S. Dollars for Sterling for approximately 60% of Tysers' USD income. I'll now hand back to Mike.

Thanks, Mark. Moving to Slide 17. Over the past few years, we have made good progress in implementing initiatives to increase revenue and margins. And on this slide, we've attempted to summarize the key levers and factors that will impact the earnings of each business area in the future as well as the relative level of growth impact of each lever. The business plans we have in place will enable us to continue to benefit from earnings growth in the medium term. The table is best read from left to right. In summary, there remain significant opportunities to continue our track record of growing revenue and expanding margins, supported by many initiatives to achieve this. Slide 18 is a waterfall chart, reflecting key components making up the underlying NPAT growth in the second half of financial year '24. Most of the growth is expected from organic growth, together with some acquisition growth and a reduction in funding costs arising from the new debt facility put in place during January 2024. You'll note that we have called out the impact on Tysers' profits during the second half arising from historic noncontinuing items as explained when I described Tysers' performance on Slide 12. As mentioned earlier, more robust than anticipated performance in the first half and continued profit growth trends estimated for the second half have given us the confidence to upgrade guidance, and we now anticipate the underlying NPAT in the range of $161 million to $171 million. The new guidance range represents growth in underlying NPAT of 24.7% to 32.5% over FY '23 and compares to previously communicated guidance for underlying NPAT of $154 million to $164 million. Thank you. And I'll now hand back to the moderator to open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Kieren Chidgey with Jarden.

A couple of questions. Maybe just starting on the relationship between prices and the agencies, just wondering if you can give us a bit of an indication as to sort of how much those Lloyd binder benefits from Tysers have flowed into the agency results in the period and sort of also what you expect is still on the horizon from an opportunity perspective?

Hello, Kieren, thanks for the question. So I think, first as a general principle, what we've set up is an income sharing arrangement between Tysers and the relevant AUB businesses in Australia and New Zealand, whatever income [Technical Difficulty] So the income is split 50-50 between Tysers and whichever business has placed it. So the majority of the revenue synergies, as you'll recall, are for agency binders that are being placed. And so the majority of the income synergies or revenue synergies will be -- will benefit the agencies, roughly half of that. And so some of the agency income uplift or accelerated growth is from that portion of earnings. But having said that, quite a chunk of the revenue synergy actually flows through in the second half versus the first half.

And so the remaining opportunity, obviously, you've signaled the revenue synergy outlook for Tysers is now expected to be above the $10 million originally provided. Just wondering, based on the experience to date, sort of what the opportunity set is now looking like?

Yes. So Kieren, I mean, it is a difficult one to evaluate, right? Up to now, the synergies, the majority of them have been around the placement of binders already being placed into the London market and moving those to Tysers. And what we have seen is, pleasingly, not only have we been able to place those binders through Tysers, but Tysers have actually been able to enlarge the capacity. And so part of the uplift in the synergy benefit is simply the fact that those binders have been placed with higher capacity. And obviously, the income that Tysers earns is on the total capacity of a binder. The second uplift has been on specific individual risks being placed from our brokers, the income commission rate that Tysers has been earning is higher than our forecast. And then the third piece is really where we're starting -- probably more pertinently, our reference to higher opportunities is because we actually are seeing new binder opportunities for new agencies that are being placed through Tysers. And so that piece is obviously something that we hadn't originally equated in. When we announced the Tysers' deal, we had a slide where we quantified only the binder and individual risk placements, but we also spoke about other potential opportunities. One of them was new agencies that we would be able to establish because of Tysers has been able to support that, and that's really where we see strong momentum, anticipate. Now in the second half, there won't be specific income from that. But certainly, by the end of the second half, we anticipate at least 1 and probably 3 new agencies that will obviously benefit Tysers in terms of the binder, but then also the new agencies being able to give us further growth in our agency portfolio.

And Mike, with the EBIT margin in Tysers sort of around the 20% mark, I think you flagged at the full year results in August that sort of the expectation was it could move closer to 30% over time. Just wondering sort of how you're seeing that trajectory over the next year or 2, given you're already pretty close to your synergy targets, both revenue and costs at the end of this financial year?

Yes. So I think in terms of the margin, probably the best way I can say it is that first half was spot on our forecast. And so literally spot on our forecast with Tysers. So it's no better or worse than we anticipated. And therefore, obviously, if our forecast, the full year, was what we've achieved in the first half and -- and we also did a combination of reinforcing and upgrading the margin targets in the medium to long term, then obviously what that says is we believe we're on track.

So the 30%, but I just need to understand at what time point do you see that as being a realistic margin?

Yes. So we've always said -- and when we first put out those margin targets, we pretty much hit those original ones for Australian Broking and BizCover now. So we didn't anticipate that. What we really anticipated was a 3 to 5-year time horizon to achieve those margin targets. So I guess, we upgraded and updated them last year. And so our view is it's a 3 to 5-year time horizon. Probably worth just emphasizing on the margin sizes piece. The -- I think because Tysers was a new acquisition, I think last year, some of these comments may have been lost. So the first one is in terms of the seasonality of the business, although the revenue seasonality isn't sort of massive, the fact is that all of the revenue uplift in the second half flows through to the bottom line. So the seasonality from a profit point of view is roughly 41-59 first half to second half, that's what our forecast is predicated on.

Does that just reflect the sort of one gen renewal cycle at Lloyd's, stronger revenue in the second half?

It's partly that. It's also because we actually just have a number of -- in Tysers, we also have quite a significant piece around retail, which obviously renews in the second half as well, similar to our Australian business. We also have a lot of the entertainment business that renews in the second half. Some of it is third quarter; some of it is fourth quarter. So the quarter split in the second half is more even. Whereas generally, in the first half, the first quarter tends to be a bit different to the second quarter. So -- but yes, there's definitely a strong first half to second half seasonal output.

Our next question comes from the line of Tim Lawson with Macquarie.

Just one [indiscernible] first. You're talking about this sort of $10-odd million revenue synergy in Tysers that has also benefited agencies. Are you saying there's $20 million revenue synergies, I mean, you're just not disclosing $10 million or is it $5 million in each segment?

No. It's -- so Tim, revenue, I mean, I think the synergy estimates, if you go back to when we estimated these, it was based on some key assumptions, right? Firstly, that there was $200 million of premium in FY '21 that was placed into London. And we -- rough estimate of 5% income on $200 million. Now the 2 things we know is the 5% was an average, in reality, the wholesaler, depending on the type of risk, makes somewhere between 3% and 25% commission, right? So our 5% was simply a weighted average of what we thought the mix of business was that we had. The second is the $200 million. Now in reality, we're probably going to get close to $400 million in this financial year of placement into London. But the $200 million assumed all of it be placed into Tysers, so I guess the problem is there's so many moving bits. What we do know is that our average commission rate is higher than our 5%. The amount we're placing into Tysers is going to be higher than our $200 million. And therefore, we're going to come out at more than $10 million. For the agency binders that are placed into Tysers, the -- we originally estimated about $130 million of the $200 million was agency binders. And therefore, on the $130 million times 5%, we assumed half would show up in the Tysers P&L and half would show up in the Agency's P&L. So that was our assumption. Now in reality, we're going to see more than $130 million as agencies. We're going to -- the 5% probably actually has worked out of our branch for the agency binders. For the individual risks, we're actually seeing a much better outcome. And so roughly, pick a number, $150 million at 5% divided by 2, half will go into Tysers, half into the Agency.

Can I just go to Slide 17, the top left box, you're calling out high for earnings drive with priorities in that retail broking across all the markets from M&A. Could you just sort of expand anything there? Is that things you already have line of sight to things you can increase synergy ownership in your network, not your network, like that's -- is it a reasonably aggressive comment for a relatively consolidated Australian market in particular?

Well, the first thing to emphasize it is Australia and New Zealand and the U.K., right, that retail broking across the 3 jurisdictions. But interestingly, we see -- I mean, there's an extraordinary amount of M&A opportunity out there in all 3 jurisdictions, right? So despite all 3 of them being described as consolidated, we see a lot of opportunity. And we generally believe it's because our business model, our part ownership, owner-driver style model has appeal and no one else has exercised that at scale the way we have. So we do see significant opportunities. We're seeing good momentum, strong discussions, and progress in all 3 of those jurisdictions. So our issue isn't shortage of opportunity or a significant issue around multiple or any of those things. Our issue is more around we're very picky buyers, very picky investors. We want things that bring us strategic advantages that effectively plug into our business like a jigsaw puzzle piece to complement our strategy. And we -- and culture is really important, right? We talk a lot about the things that we do. We're not just buying businesses, we're investing in people and happen to also run business.

And just a follow-up question. In terms of -- you've called out sort of an acquisition in Belgium, you obviously pulled back and made some changes in other sort of non-U.K. jurisdictions for Tysers. Do you see sort of further opportunities on the acquisition side on the continent for Tysers and what that could do for the business? Or is that too soon?

I think it's too soon. I think this was very much a scale up our subscale Belgium operation. I think there's a piece around, if you put strategic overlays, firstly, Singapore, Miami are important reinsurance hubs for us to be able to service Asia-Pac and Latin America intermediated clients. And so that piece is important. Now we've chosen to build out Singapore ourselves through a team, a small team hire. And in Miami, it's a watch the space, we're busy working through that. Then separately, we've got the Tysers Live. This is the brand we use for our entertainment, media, film, and sports business. There, we need to have scale across the major jurisdictions where those types of clients are based. And so clearly, we need to have a solution for that in Europe. We have a solution in Asia Pacific. We have a great capability in the U.K. Now we need to make sure that there's some other jurisdictions that we support. So I think this comes back to my point around, we're very clear on what the strategy looks like and therefore what the missing puzzle pieces are, and now we need to build those out. On the retail side, it's clearly a U.K. strategy, not an international strategy. And so in retail broking is going to be U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, we're not going to acquire elsewhere.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrei Stadnik with Morgan Stanley.

Can I ask 2 questions, please? Firstly, on BizCover. Can you talk a little bit more about relationship with Chubb. And it's been interesting to see Chubb has actually advertised much more aggressively in the more direct space in Australia. So can you talk a little bit more about that relationship?

Yes, sure. Currently, I mean, we have a great relationship with Chubb across Austbrokers and BizCover and probably 2 pieces I talked to. The first one is for the SME platform for both BizCover direct to micro-SME as well as the Express cover version, which is used by Austbrokers. Chubb has been added to that platform. So it's the [indiscernible] of our -- insurance partners on the platform. What that means is it allows us to do rapid seamless quote bond issue of policies across Biz Pack for example, obviously, that's a big one, but also more niche areas around cyber, et cetera. So that's the one piece. So that's important because obviously, over time, as we add more insurers to the platform, it increases how much business can be placed on the platform, it increases the service levels and optionality for our brokers to offer to their clients. And the second piece, which we highlighted on this -- the second bullet point of the BizCover page is around, we're very pleased that Chubb has actually chosen to deploy our technology, the BizCover technology, white labeled as a Chubb platform to deploy to their -- support their direct propositions around their direct-to-consumer or direct-to-SME play. So that's obviously a great compliment, an acknowledgment of the BizCover technology. What's important about that is obviously deploying technology for yourself, so us using BizCover ourselves, is one capability. But what the team have done very well in supporting the Chubb proposition has been to create a separate instance. It's a single insurance partner. It's a greater level of bespoke solutioning around the look and feel, the question set, the branding, the white-labeling piece. It's a different capability, and they've done that really well. And so we do see this as an opportunity of exploring or something we could explore with other insurance partners. So I'm very pleased with the progress. I think the interesting thing with BizCover is, there are just so many ways in which that business can be deployed. And so we're almost spoiled for choice, right? So it's how many international jurisdictions you take on a time? What sequence do you do in them? Which jurisdiction do you follow a technology white label solution in partnership with someone versus a full deployment of a quote bond issue platform for yourself. It's a really interesting space. As it's getting bigger and bigger, its building out more technology capabilities, et cetera, just giving them lots of opportunities around how that business develops and matures.

And look, for my second question, can I just ask around the medium-term EBIT margin guidance -- targets you mentioned at the last result. You're not re-highlighting them in this result pack. How should investors think about that? Like is this still broadly committed to those medium-term targets?

Absolutely, Andrei. So don't read anything more into it than the -- last year in the half -- so normally, we've been talking about those at the full year. The full year margin targets, right? So the seasonality in our business is that the margins shift half year versus full year. So those targets are designed as full year targets. So every full year, we will talk about our progress against those targets. Last half year, we actually upgraded some of the targets. And therefore, we explicitly included that. But you shouldn't read anything into the fact that there's no slide about it. It's just that it's -- I mean, but absolutely just because we leave a slide out, doesn't mean we're withdrawing our commitment to it.

Also on all of the product slides from 8 onwards, there is a comment about EBIT margin as well as the increase in EBIT margin from the prior corresponding period. So there's no de-emphasis on what [indiscernible].

Our next question comes from the line of Jason Palmer with Taylor Collison.

I have a few questions. Just the first one is around the cost synergies and the revenue synergies. You've given run rate numbers of $10.3 million for revenue and $13.5 million for cost synergies and efficiencies. Are you able to provide the in-year benefits of each of those, please?

Jason, so the short answer is that we'll provide detail about that in the full year. So we haven't -- just because there's a piece around -- frankly, I think it got complicated. And we've always said our target is to have taken all of the actions to put on a run rate basis, these pieces in place. And so at the full year, we'll scorecard it, we'll disclose how much is in the FY '24 results. But certainly, for FY '25, 100% of those synergy numbers will be in the result.

I respect your answer, but if you disclosed it at the FY '23 number, you've given the cost synergy run rate of $7.6 million and the in-year rate of $2.9 million and it's jumped up by $6 million or $7 million. So one could assume there's at least $3 million or $4 million of cost synergies sitting in the Tysers' number. Is that fair?

That is fair, yes.

And then you've given some currency benefits in Tysers for the first half, which I believe is the translation benefits from the pound to the Aussie dollar. Can you provide the currency headwinds, please, on a U.S. to pound conversion?

Sure. So I think -- so that's a good point, Jason. So on the times, there's a waterfall on Slide 12. I'm just making sure everyone is on the same. The -- we disclosed an FX amount of AUD 2.6 million. That relates, as Jason said, to the sterling to Aussie dollar conversion. However, in the Tysers' number includes the slide that Mark had spoken to earlier, which is the conversion of multiple currencies, predominantly USD to sterling. Now, on the USD to sterling, roughly 60% of that is hedged, therefore, neither gain nor loss, but the other 40% in this half, we actually had a headwind. So we had an FX loss of circa $3 million after tax. So we haven't disclosed it separately. Yes, sorry, unitedly, yes, $3 million after tax, Australians headwind. So if we use the constant currency, then the Tysers result will be $3 million after tax higher. Our view of not disclosing that is because we've chosen to take our hedging for roughly 60% of the U.S. due to sterling. And therefore, the tailwind or headwind that results from the positive or negative shift in the currencies is unhedged, and we've chosen to take that as part of our exposure and risk. So I guess, if you wanted to understand the absolute constant currency view, you would add $3 million after tax on to the Tysers' result.

In essence, the cost synergies have actually come through in the numbers, that is being offset by the currency -- constant currency headwinds?

Yes. That's a good way of looking at it, yes.

And so the Tysers business doesn't have any cost problems that it's actually performing in line with what you're saying. So is the phasing of $41 million to $59 million of the PBT line, is that on a constant currency or is that on a reported basis?

That's on a reported basis, accepting that the 60% is hedged. So it's reported basis, assuming the 40% is unhedged.

I've got a couple more questions. The add-back from statutory to underlying of $17-odd million after tax for acquisition costs, what does that relate to, please?

Well, general M&A work, we always do. There are costs of that in every period. Then there are also some Tysers' related matters to do with the expensing of some of the transaction completion bonuses, which under accounting standards could only be expensed after the transaction [indiscernible]. Also cost of the LTI scheme and also some legal costs related to the Department of Justice piece that are not provided in the prior period.

The expensing of the LTIs or the incentive payments for Tysers, does that relate to the 3-year performance incentives going forward? Or does that relate to the final payment that was due on retention at the end of January?

Both. So just to clarify. Firstly is the retention payments that were provided for an acquisition had made. And as you correctly say, have largely been paid. Some of them have a further deferral but largely being paid. And the second piece is the differentiation is so -- in June, July, we may decide to issue some further LTI to individual in Tysers. That would be expensed as a normal expense because that's an ongoing LTI. This relates specifically to a tailored, targeted LTI retention scheme, a one-off scheme put in place at the time of acquisition.

And when does that complete?

June '26, yes.

Is that -- so that -- will we continue to see below the line expensing in other periods that is so this rolling?

Yes, until June '26.

This is the line shared with that.

Just the last question I had, please, was around Project Lola. What is the -- what is the sort of the -- putting that project on hold really mean for the technology investment in that country? And have you got a resolution in place for the second half?

Yes. So Jason, just to remind, I think I used this description in August. So we had -- so the system has been live in a few brokerages. There were some areas where it wasn't delivering functionality or capability according to our contracted specifications. We -- so the vendor then went away to work on addressing the functional gaps, which they've made great progress with. Obviously, what you want to do is make sure the worst thing you can do with the tech project is keep spending if in effect the project is going to stretch out. And so what we did, which sounds very brutal as we shrank or terminated some of the project team for that period to then remobilize at the appropriate point, which is roughly now. And so the saving is effectively the consequence of that reduction in spend while the project was -- we were pausing further deployments to other brokerages while the vendor was addressing these items. So we've -- we're happy with the progress the vendors made. We are still finalizing review and testing of functionality, et cetera. So it is sort of under evaluation, but our confidence is that we will commence further rollout of the -- further deployment of the technology, et cetera. And so that saving is almost just a one-half piece. The second half, our assumption is the same as our original statement, which was in FY '24, it will be a net neutral. And the only difference is I thought it would be a net neutral because it would have a lump of cost in the first half and a lump of benefit in the second half is actually flipped the other way around.

Our next question comes from the line of Dylan Jones with Ord Minnett.

I am just interested in the capacity within the Agency division. Like, I think you mentioned a little bit earlier, there's the strategy around building out that specialty line within the segment. Will this require some M&A? Or do you think you have capacity and it's more of a sort of refocusing this priority there?

Yes. Actually, a great question. I mean, I think the answer is just probably both. So we intentionally considerate -- so effectively, a few years ago, we articulated our strategy and agencies, effectively to talk about it as 3 legs. The first is what we refer to as general commercial. So these are products that every average SME broker needs for their average SME client; then Strata, which is a very specific high volume, relatively low premium sole piece, which requires scale. And thirdly, specialty, which is specialty products. It can be -- we've got a film agency, we might have specialist financial lines agencies, et cetera. What we did very successfully in general commercial is we invested in 360. We adopted that as our general commercial brand. We've consolidated, scaled up, set up new agencies, et cetera, and that's gone great guns. The next thing we did very successfully was we acquired Strata Unit Underwriting and have effectively coordinated the way in which we go to market around Strata. That's gone fantastically over the last 12 to 18 months. And now what we need to do is really only been a focus for -- because we knew that we need something like Tysers to support us around the specialty pieces. Now we're very early stages. Some of the specialty agencies are growing nicely in and off themselves, but the bigger scale piece, we are quite under scaled. I talk about hitting our $1 billion premium ambition that we set up, but actually, that premium ambition was based on a $400 million in general commercial $300 million in specialty, $300 million in Strata. We are roughly $300 million in Strata. We are over $500 million in special -- in General Commercial, and we are subscale in specialty. So that's the area that needs focus now. The best solution is for us to be able to buy something or several things to accelerate the pace and scale of that, but it is also about what I spoke about, which is new agencies, new binders with Tysers. We are -- interestingly, we are very heavy on the property and casualty end from a risk point of view. Financial lines were very small. So there's an obvious opportunity for us around scaling up our financial lines, presence and positioning. So that's broadly -- so short -- sorry, a long answer to an easy obvious question, the answer is, I think, ideally, it's both. But of course, that's dependent on the right availability and opportunity at an appropriate price for the right assets.

That's really helpful. I appreciate the extra detail. And just my last question. So the Tech investment sort of going across the industry in there, particularly if you're looking for your domestic ANZ market. I'm just wondering if you're seeing anything interesting, I suppose, occurring across the authorized representative market?

So I apologize. I'm not sure I understand the question. If you can elaborate a little bit?

I just suppose there's a lot to take investment going on. It's quite crucial to insurance broker's operations and you can get some of the gross authorized representatives to target margin. I'm just wondering if there's anything worth comment around that?

Yes. So I mean, I think a couple of things. I think we're very well positioned in that. Firstly, we have 2 exceptional authorize rep networks with different models and offerings to authorize reps, insurance adviser net and MGA. And we own a core broking platform that currently is predominantly used for authorized reps. And so, our technology proposition is very strong in that area, and it's offered through our insurance adviser network to their authorized rep members.

Our next question comes from the line of Sid Parameswaran with JPMorgan.

A couple of questions, if I can. First just on the pricing cycle, Mike, I had a couple of questions around this. One is just the chart where you showed the just the long-term levers for earnings and growth. And I think you flagged the for retail broking, it's low and for agencies and the wholesale broking, it's medium. I'm just hoping you just clarified the difference is that just because there's more fees in retail broking? And also if you could just comment on what kind of rate increases you're seeing how and how long do you expect the current conditions to remain?

In the first half, we saw -- now again, you've heard me talking about this ad nauseam, but from the first half, our like-for-like, right, same client, same insurer, same risk, same coverage was just under 7% in terms of the premium rate. Now if you look at our broking growth, obviously, a lot about that, we generally -- our view is we probably got a 1% to 2%, maybe 3% tailwind from rates because of a few things. One, actually, we spend a lot of time trying to help our clients minimize rate impact. And so that means we're working with them to adjust coverage. In our hard market, we tend to find clients who are willing to take higher excesses, change their coverage's, et cetera. In a softer market, they're willing to offset those because the risk is cheaper. So there's a piece where we actually play a role to help them mitigate those rate pieces. We also pass on a greater portion of our commission to clients in a hard market than in the soft market to try and offset that impact. And you're right; we are more muted about our fee increases in a hard market than we are in the soft market. So the reason, whereas in underwriting agencies, the premium is set by the insurer and the insurer then pays us commission. So the fact is we don't adjust or have this adaptable approach to how much we earn from an underwriting agency. And similarly, in a wholesale broking environment, that tends to be generally linked to the relationship and arrangements you have with the syndicate or the Lloyd's market rather than the direct client and intermediary dealing with other brokers or agencies. So you tend to see a greater flow-through of rate moves into those two categories of businesses versus retail broking where, frankly, we see our ability to influence our income and therefore, our ability to manage and maintain it is much greater. And therefore, the cycle benefits and negative is muted in retail.

Sorry, but just longevity of the current conditions and just any difference in terms of what Tysers have seen?

I mean, again, for fear of raising my very bullish state. I mean, some of the fundamentals are, if the world is going to get -- have the same or more volatility or less, unlikely to be less. Secondly, do we think climate change is driving an increase in frequency and severity of major events, we believe more. And therefore -- and then do we think that inflationary impacts are beaten. And so the reality is all of the trends and emphasis tends to be either that rates will stay where they are currently in terms of increases or further inflate. Now, we've believed higher for longer for both premium rate and interest rate for some time. And for, I think, 5 years now, I've been predicting a 7% to 9% long-term premium rate rise, which is pretty much where it's set for 5 years. So we still see that same piece. The reason I don't like the rate discussion, to be honest, it is because it makes us sound like we're sort of victims if that makes sense, right, whereas I believe we've got much greater influence and control over our investors.

And I was just asking does Tysers, is it the same dynamics? And obviously, it's exposed to different markets. So I was just wondering if the 7% is quite…

I think with Tysers, the reality is there's a portfolio effect. So there's so many variables. The chance that they're all going to move into a down cycle at the same time is unlikely. The chance that they're all going to move into an up cycle at the same time is unlikely. So it's a portfolio effect. You're going to have moves and shifts between different classes of business and different geographies but the reality is, on the whole, Tysers of the scale where, by and large, the things that will affect them the most is significant reduction in Lloyd's capacity. That's probably the more of an impact than rates. Having said that, everything Lloyd's is talking about is about increased capacity rather than decrease capacity.

I'll leave that discussion there. I just want to clarify a point that you made earlier, I think about the seasonality in Tysers. So do you see $41 million to $59 million? Am I to assume that your EBIT assumptions for Tysers for the full year is around $95 million, would that be right, Mark?

Is that in AUD?

Yes, AUD.

Yes. Yes, that's right.

Is that right? Great. And then -- sorry, what was that?

No, sorry. Sid, I'm shaking my head vigorously. If we were going to disclose the individual business…

I said $41 million to $59 million, yes. But you can work it out and make your own assumption.

Yes, I just wanted to clarify that number because you had given guidance on Tysers, but just on a slightly different basis 6 months ago. So that's why I just wanted to clarify the numbers.

Seasonality has become more apparent to us than what we had said previously.

Just my last question just is just around the acquisition pipeline. You flagged there on retail broking, the opportunities are very high for M&A. Just wanted to clarify just on those 3 regions. Is that in order, AU, New Zealand, U.K.? Is that the order that we should be thinking or you're likely to execute your ambition?

I think that's the order of the scale of our business, right? There's no other significance to the order. It's not a prioritization. I think part of this is about where do you -- where can we come across and identify the right opportunities at the right prices that complement our thesis. I mean, it's perfectly plausible that none of our ambitions in the U.K. come off -- and all of our ambitions in Australia come off for New Zealand, et cetera. So there's a wild card element to this right, which is, can we buy quality assets at a reasonable price. We're not going to buy poor quality assets just because they're in a right jurisdiction. We're not going to overpay for things just because they're in the right jurisdiction. So the reality is we see a lot of opportunity. We're not limited by the opportunity and availability of quality assets, that we are picky. And so we may not end up closing deals in those jurisdictions. But certainly, the opportunity sets and the potential to build out our strategy and footprint in those jurisdictions is strong for all of them.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand back to Mr. Emmett for closing remarks.

Thank you so much. So firstly, thank you, everybody, for joining us. I know that it's a tremendously busy time for all of you. So thank you very much for spending the time with Mark and I. We really do enjoy sharing the results. We are proud of this result, right? I mean the reality is it's the culmination of a number of years of effort and focus and, frankly, good strategy that's been executed well. And so across the business, what we're pleased to see is, clearly, the standouts are the turnaround in New Zealand and the fulfillment of our ambitions in agency and the momentum that that's built. But our good old fundamental core engine Australian broking continues to motor along. BizCover remains a quality business operating at tremendous margins with lots and lots of opportunities, frankly, more opportunities than we had originally envisaged. And then Tysers, although relatively early stages, a large quality asset with so much potential at the heart and the hub of what we can do as a broking group. And so we're really pleased with the progress that we're making. We're excited about the future opportunities, and I look forward to spending time with many of you over the next week to 10 days. So thank you again.