ENN has always looked cheap on paper. It's MC:FUM ratio is lower than any comparable company I've had a look at on the ASX, this holds true even when you strip out the tangible assets on the balance sheet.

I'm not sure of the exact cause but I'd speculate it's any of the following:

> Small size and liquidity

> Poor cost discipline in the FM business (or possibly subscale in size?)

>Dirty, filthy financials due to the mixture of assets it holds on it's balance sheet that vary as being accounted for on a consolidated, equity and financial basis. This makes it hard to ascertain exactly what's going on sometimes. The are some cleaner supplementary financials that ENN publishes which are helpful.

> Employing higher leverage than a lot of its peers in the managed funds that it operates

> Related to the dot point above, the perception that the quality of FUM isn't as high as some of its peers

> Also related to the dot point above, the perception that some Elanor's capital partners aren't as high quality as some of its peers.

> Balance Sheet. It's probably more prudent to add back to debt to market cap and then compare to FUM. This may indicate it's not as cheap, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure of the extent to which any of the above is true, and until I dive deeper I will sit on the sidelines.

Entering dummy val so I revisit in the future.