No. of Recommendations: 1
Let me explain given reading is a skillset. If interest rates do not regress as most, but not all, expect? Then in my view it is highly likely that the non-asset manager parts of Brookfield will not grow as fast as most think, but surely not as fast as the certain (certain according to management) 20% manager fee business of BAM.
Thus, whatever the value is of BN ex the asset manager, will be plagued by both only having and "being" 73% of the asset manager (hard to word that accurately) and the subs drag on value growth. So given and equal start as related to real value, I'd expect the manager to do "better" from any actual intrinsic value start if and only if management's wildly positive predictions do come true.
The subs "growth" of FFO and DE will be quite interesting given all the drags that seem to be developing. Interest rates, carry, BAM fees, performance fees...and more fees, and the fact that renewables and other new era energy businesses seem to be hitting a wall of profit problems. Lots of hands in the cookie jar, and to me there's use of FFO where FFO should simply not be the valuation model, businesses by increasing number that elsewhere do not use FFO are given FFO with Brookfield.
And to go a step further in my view, years ago we had a gulf between those who used management presentations as analyst expertise on a number of Brookfield entities and that didn't turn out well at all. The gulf wasn't small, it at times was several times the market cap of the existing business within a year or two.
What you believe, or don't believe here with Brookfield, is likely enormous. Management vs the few who question the upscale excitement of the investor day presenters.
