2017 Australian Registry & ESP Provider Survey Report Share... · 2017 Australian Registry & ESP...

www.jpmorganmarkets.com

Asia Pacific Equity Research06 July 2017

2017 Australian Registry & ESP Provider Survey ReportAn in-depth review of customers' views on the Australian registry and employee share plan market

Australia

Insurance and Diversified Financials

Siddharth Parameswaran AC

(61-2) 9003-8629

[email protected]

Bloomberg JPMA PARAMESWARAN <GO>

J.P. Morgan Securities Australia Limited

Alvin Liu

(61-2) 9003-8622

[email protected]


Russell Gill

(61-2) 9003-8625

[email protected]


Priyanshi Jain

(91-22) 6157-3274

[email protected]

J.P. Morgan Securities Australia Limited/ J.P. Morgan India Private Limited

See page 46 for analyst certification and important disclosures, including non-US analyst disclosures.J.P. Morgan does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.

This report, on the the first annual J.P. Morgan Australian Employee Share Plan(ESP) Survey and the ninth annual J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Service Provider Survey, provides an overview of the current state of the Australian registry and ESP services industry, the future direction and competitive dynamics within the industry. This report collates data from our surveys of companies in the S&P/ASX200 conducted from December 2016 to January 2017.

Key Survey Conclusions

First annual J.P. Morgan Australian Employee Share Plan Survey: Survey results indicate that risk deferral was a key reason to outsource ESP services with potentially more outsourcing by internally managed plans going forward. Results also indicated that Link and Other providers (primarily Boardroom) appeared to have very competitive pricing. Similar to registry, most contracts were noted to be 3-5 years and appeared sticky, especially for larger companies.

Duopoly structure remains for registry, but shortening of contract duration?Computershare and Link still command ~96% of market share with respect to the domestic registry market from a number of shareholders perspectives. About half of outstanding share registry contracts being negotiated are on three-year terms (refer Figure 8), however there appears to be a declining percentage of >5 year contracts and an increasing amount of 1-2 year contracts. We also note an increasing number of companies putting contracts to tender.

Registry providers continue to add value and improve overall performance.~64% of respondents of small and large corporates currently see registry providers offering value-adding services (refer Figure 6). The current overall performance is strong across all registry providers, with all providers receiving a high proportion of positive responses and with respect to overall performance over the last 12 months; the majority respondents noted no change.

Service provider expertise remains the key reason for outsourcing registry services. As noted in our previous surveys, service provider expertise has fallen from highs over the prior two reports, however, this year’s survey has it reverting back to the mean, with 83% of respondents selecting this reason (refer Figure 5). Service provider expertise has been and remains the key reason to outsource by a large margin.

On a shareholder administered basis, CPU and Link remained flat. There has been an erosion in market share for market leader Computershare to the benefit of Link Market Services and smaller competitors such as Boardroom (refer Figure 2) when assessed on a contracts administered basis since 2009. Trends for Computershare on a number of contracts administered basis are not reflected when considered on a shareholder administered basis (better proxy for revenue) which has been more or less flat, from ~58% in 2009 to 57% at present (refer Figure 3).

Table 1: Australia Registry Services Providers – Market Share (No. of Shareholders Administered)

Registry Service Provider S&P/ASX20* S&P/ASX100* S&P/ASX200*Computershare Investor services 62% 59% 57%Link Market Services 38% 37% 38%Boardroom 0% 3% 3%Other 0% 1% 1%Source: Bloomberg, ASX, Company reports. S&P/ASX Indices as at 13th December 2016

Endorsed by

Figure 1: Aust. Corporate market revenue as % of group revenue – 1H17

Source: J.P. Morgan estimates, Company data. Note:

CPU revenue includes registry, corporate actions,

stakeholder mgt, ESP, communication services and

assumes an average AUD/USD of 1.33 (as provided by

CPU). Link revenue figures include Aust and NZ.

Completed 06 Jul 2017 05:20 PM AESTDisseminated 06 Jul 2017 05:31 PM AEST

2


Siddharth Parameswaran(61-2) [email protected]

Table of Contents

Survey Description...................................................................3

Executive Summary – Registry ...............................................4

Future Considerations Assessed Against Current Market Dynamics .........................5

Executive Summary – ESP ......................................................6

Competitive Landscape ...........................................................7

Reasons for Outsourcing Registry Services ..............................................................9

Adding Value Function?........................................................................................10

Contract Length & Pricing Structure......................................................................11

Movement in Shareholder Numbers.......................................................................14

Overall Performance .............................................................................................17

Future Considerations Assessed Against Current Market Dynamics ................................................................................23

ASX200 – Contract Changes .................................................................................24

All Ordinaries – Contract Changes.........................................................................25

All Ordinaries – Demergers/Spin-Offs and Other Restructures .................................26

All Ordinaries – Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) .....................................................27

All Ordinaries – Secondary Raisings......................................................................28

Employee Share Plan Survey (ESP)......................................29

Survey description.................................................................................................29

Reasons for outsourcing employee share plan services ...........................................30

Contract length & contract negotiations .................................................................30

Overall Performance .............................................................................................32

Cost ......................................................................................................................34

Movement in Registry and ESP service providers ..................................................34

Appendix: Industry Overview................................................35

Competitor Profiles ...............................................................................................36

Key Share Registry Providers Competition Analysis – Major Markets ...................37

J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Services Survey 2016/2017..................................38

3



Survey Description

This is the 9th annual J.P. Morgan Australian Registry and Employee Share Plan Service Provider Survey 2017 (the employee share plan section has been introduced in 2017). Our Australian Registry Service Provider Survey 2017 has historically provided an overview of the state of the Australian registry space. For the first time, we include analysis of the employee share plan services industry. We examine thefuture direction and competitive dynamics within the industries.

The reasons these surveys were conducted were:

Limited specific information released by listed players in the industry and limited specific research on Australian industry.

Assist in analyzing the impact of current market events on shareholder numbers, a key driver of revenue for registry service providers.

Provide an insight into the key issues that listed companies consider in determining which registry service and employee share plan provider to use.

Provide an insight into the non-uniform approach to industry pricing and contract structure for both registry and employee share plans.

Provide an insight into the development and implementation of technology platforms and cross-sell of products offered by registry service providers and the performance of employee share plan providers.

Provide an update on activity in the registry service provider space in Australia including contract changes and IPOs and what registry providers and employee share plan service providers’ value.

Source of information

Outside of publicly available information, all the data in this report is sourced fromour Australian Registry and Employee Share Plan Service Provider Survey 2017 of listed companies in the ASX200 (as at December 2016). The survey was conducted from December 2016 to January 2017. A copy of the survey appears in the Appendix to this report.

We have not provided a list of the companies that participated in the survey as it was conducted on the basis that the participants’ individual details and responses remain anonymous.

Table 2: ASX Listed Companies Surveyed for Registry services

S&P/ASX20* S&P/ASX100* S&P/ASX200*

Number of Shareholders 54% 51% 50%Market capitalisation 52% 48% 46%

* S&P/ASX indices as at March 2017

# Based on number of registered shareholders at the time of publication of the company’s last annual report where available.

Table 3: ASX Listed Companies Surveyed for ESP services

S&P/ASX20* S&P/ASX100* S&P/ASX200*

Number of Shareholders 22% 25% 25%Market capitalisation 22% 23% 23%



Note: An ASX200 company responded to our survey, but shareholder number was not available.

4



Executive Summary – Registry

The key findings from the J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017 are:

Competitive landscape

Duopoly remains strong – Computershare and Link still command ~96% of market share with respect to the domestic registry market from a number of shareholders perspective. Whilst on a number of contracts administered basis for the ASX200, Computershare has lost market share to Link, trends on a number of shareholders administered basis (better proxy for revenue) have been broadly static for Computershare, Link and Other players – indicating the losses on a contract basis by CPU may have been with smaller shareholders (refer Figure 2).

Service provider expertise remains the key reason for outsourcing registry services – As noted in our previous surveys, service provider expertise has fallen from highs over the prior two reports, however, this year’s survey has it reverting back to the mean average of 83% (refer Figure 5). Service provider expertise has been and remains the key reason to outsource by a large margin.

Majority of respondents still view registry providers to add value, with the market still remaining relatively ‘sticky’ – ~64% of respondents of small and large corporates currently see registry providers offering value-adding services (refer Figure 6). A further ~21%, up from ~14% from the prior year, do not see registry providers offering value-adding services; however they would not expect them to in any event. When considered alongside the ~64% of customers who are currently being provided value-add services, ~83% of the share registry market may potentially be considered relatively ‘sticky’ (vs 76% last year).

Three-year contracts continue to be the most common, but duration appears to be shortening – About half of outstanding share registry contracts being negotiated are on three-year terms (refer Figure 8), however there appears to be a declining percentage of >5 year contracts and an increasing amount of 1-2 year contracts. For large corporates (ASX20), we have seen a significant increase from last year, increasing from ~50% to 86% this year to be on three-year contracts. Assessing this trend from 2009, we see that 3-5 year contracts have remained at >50% of all contracts surveyed, reinforcing the challenges that new entrants face in gaining market share.

Increasing number of companies putting contracts to tender. We observe from our latest survey results that Link customers are more likely to be putting their contract out to tender vs Computershare, however, there seems to be an increasing trend for both Link and Computershare (Figure 17).

Minimal movement in shareholder numbers in past the six months –Assessing trends for the last six months, shareholder numbers have mainlyremained flat for small and medium companies with the larger companies reporting an equal percentage of increasing and decreasing trends (~38% each). Analyzing trends from the last two years, we see a skew towards shareholder numbers increasing for all ASX20, ASX100 and ASX200.

5



Competitor analysis

Current performance remains strong – especially for larger players –All providers received a high proportion of positive responses; especially Computershare and Link (refer Figure 25).

Improvements generally seen across all providers over the past 12 months –Responses were relatively consistent across the market for Computershare, Link, and Boardroom (Figure 26).

The majority of respondents have indicated either an improved cost structure or no change to cost structure, reinforcing the theme that the competitive environment remains a constant barrier to material upward revisions in pricing (refer Figure 44, Figure 45 and Figure 46).

Future considerations assessed against current market dynamics

Importance of Quality of Product/Service and Account Management Relationship, continue to be most critical; importance of cost declining –The quality of the product and service remains the most critical factor for all oursurveyed companies, with ~58% of companies in the ASX200 classifying this as critical followed by account management relationship.

For the ASX200, on a shareholder administered basis trend was flat. However, if we look at it for All Ordinaries perspective (Table 9), we saw that Link and Boardroom were winners at the expense of Computershare and other smaller providers.

6



Executive Summary – ESP

This is the first year we have conducted a survey for Employee Share Plans (ESP). The key findings from our Australian ESP survey are detailed below. We note we are cautious around our conclusions given the smaller sample size surveyed, as compared to our Registry Survey.

Risk deferral the key reason to outsource ESP services (refer Figure 5).

Link and other providers (primarily Boardroom) appear to be pricing more competitively than CPU. We also note that out of the respondents who internally manage, they all flagged that the reason for this was cost.

3-5 year duration contract most common. This is in line with registry contract duration – this is unsurprising as Registry and ESP service providers are usually provided by the same provider (Figure 62). However, from our survey respondents, it appears that Link has the shortest contract duration (Figure 54).

Similar to registry contracts – ESP servicing contracts are ‘sticky’. ~75% ofASX200 survey respondents do not put their contract up for tender on expiry (Figure 55), with the larger players (CPU and Link) appearing to have more ‘sticky’ clients.

Potential increased outsourcing of ESP servicing going forward. ~ 33% of internally managed accounts indicated they were unhappy – a potential indication that accounts could be outsourced.

7



Competitive Landscape

Duopoly market still relatively strong

The Australian share registry services industry has acted as a quasi duopoly for a number of years, particularly amongst the larger and hence more complex accounts. Specifically the two main providers (Computershare and Link) currently service ~ 96% of the companies listed in the S&P/ASX200 on number of shareholderadministered basis and ~90% on a number of contract administered basis. Whilst on a number of contracts administered basis, Computershare has continued to lose market share to Link, (Figure 2) trends on a number of shareholders administered basis (better proxy for revenue) have been broadly static with few or negligible changes.

Contrasting trends depending on viewing from a contract vs shareholder lens

There has been an erosion in market share for market leader Computershare to the benefit of Link Market Services and smaller competitors such as Boardroom (refer Figure 2) when assessed on a contract administered basis since 2009. Specifically, results from our latest Australian Registry Service Provider Survey suggests that Computershare’s market share amongst the ASX200 entities has reduced from ~60% in 2009 to 49% at present. In the same timeframe, market share for Link Market Serviceshas increased from ~33% to 41% and other providers such as Boardroom from 7% to 10% (growth in Boardroom offset by losses in share from other small providers). Whilst the above analysis is calculated on a ‘number of contracts administered’ basis, the number of shareholders administered may be a better proxy for the revenue pool available to market participants. We justify this view on two key drivers:

Shareholder skew – There is a significant skew in registered shareholder numbers to specific companies (e.g. large blue chip companies); and

Pricing structure – A significant and increasing proportion (Figure 12) of contracts in the industry are based on a ‘cost per shareholder’ or ‘shareholder transactions’ basis.

Figure 2: Australia Share Registry Providers – ASX200 Market Share (No of Contracts)

Source: Bloomberg, ASX, Company data, J.P. Morgan estimates. We note within other,

Boardroom has increased from 4% in 2012 to 8% in 2017.

Figure 3: Australia Share Registry Providers – ASX200 Market Share (No of Shareholders)

Source: Bloomberg, ASX, Company data, J.P. Morgan estimates. We note within ’others’,

Boardroom has increased from 1% in 2012 to 3% in 2017.

The decline in market share for Computershare from a number

of contracts administered basis

is not replicated when considered on a shareholder

administered basis (better proxy

for revenue) which has been relatively flat, from ~58% in 2009

to 57% at present

8



Applying a ‘number of shareholders administered’ lens produces different results. First, when seen historically from 2009, the decline in market share for Computershare from a number of contracts administered basis is not reflected when considered on a shareholder administered basis (better proxy for revenue) which has been more or less flat, from ~58% in 2009 to 57% at present (refer Figure 3). Despite an increase in number of contracts administered, market share for Link Market Services has been largely stable from 41% in 2009 to 38% at present, indicating the gains highlighted above on a contract basis may have been with smaller shareholders.Boardroom (the bulk of the ‘other’ category) has been relative flat in terms of share of shareholders (2% in 2013 vs 3% in 2017) – reflecting gains in contracts with smaller shareholder numbers.

9



Reasons for Outsourcing Registry Services

Similar to our surveys in previous years, the majority of respondents (~84% for ASX200 respondents) indicated that the expertise of registry service providers was the primary reason for outsourcing the company’s registry function, however this year the skew towards this reasoning stemmed from medium to small companies as opposed to the previous year’s skew to ASX20 (refer Figure 4). Cost and quality of product were also noted by ~41% and ~52% respectively, of the ASX200participants as other reasons for outsourcing registry services.

As noted in our previous surveys, service provider expertise has fallen from highs over the prior two reports, however this year’s survey has it reverting back to the mean average of 83% putting more weighting on next year’s figures to solidify or break this trend (refer Figure 5). Cost, as a reason to outsource registry function was largely stable, at 44% in 2016 vs 41% in 2017, whilst on the other hand risk deferral has become a relatively more popular reason for outsourcing (15% in 2016 to 25% in 2017). We note the quality of product has become a rapidly increasingly determinantrising from ~27% in 2009 to ~52% at present overall.

Figure 4: Reasons For Outsourcing Registry Services – 2016/2017

Source: J.P. Morgan– Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Note: Respondents can offer more than one reason.

Figure 5: Reasons For Outsourcing Registry Services (ASX200) –Over Time

Source: J.P. Morgan– Australian Registry Services Provider Survey. Note: Respondents can

offer more than one reason.

Why quality of product is becoming a more important consideration

We had noted in our previous reports that the move to digital-based economies has opened the thematic of product differentiation in the traditionally ‘vanilla’ share registry market segment. By way of example, electronic proxy material delivery and shareholder voting are now becoming a relatively more common thematic, although survey responses suggest that data quality and real-time access in this format still remain potential areas of improvement. In contrast, service provider expertise has become a less significant consideration as overall performance is strong across mostregistry providers (Figure 25).

While industry feedback suggests that cost is still an important factor, we also highlight from a cost perspective, that following years of consolidation, the scale of the two main competitors in the industry means the gap between the cost of the services provided by the outsourcing companies and the cost for a company to perform the same tasks internally remains significant.

Service provider expertise

remains the most important

factor for choosing an outsourced registry service with

quality of product once again as

the second most important factor, although its importance

appears to be increasing

(27% in 2009 to 52% in 2017)

10



Adding value function?

Much of the revenue growth opportunities available for registry services companies exists in their ability to cross-sell other products or services to their clients.Following on from the previous section on the increased importance of the quality of product to customers, one of the key methods in driving this cross-sell opportunity is through impressing on the client the ‘value-add’ that the provider can offer to theclient (e.g. understanding their shareholder base).

To this extent, it is positive to note that ~64% of respondents of small and large corporates currently see registry providers offering value-adding services (refer Figure 6). However, ~17% also see registry providers currently providing no value-adding services but would like them to (vs 21% average since 2009). In our view, this figure may potentially be indicative of the share of the wallet available for smaller registry players with respect to gaining market share. Finally, a further ~21%, up from ~14% from the prior year, do not see registry providers offering value-adding services;however they would not expect them to in any event. When considered alongside the ~64% of customers who are currently being provided value-add services, ~83% of the share registry market may potentially be considered relatively ‘sticky’.

Figure 6: Does Your Registry Service Provider ‘Add Value’ to the Company?

Source: J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Figure 7: ‘Yes’ Response To Provider Adding Value – Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan– Australian Registry Services Provider Survey.

Assessing the responses to the question, if your registry provider ‘adds value’ to your business, provides some interesting insights (refer Figure 7):

Computershare – While we have seen a 6% increase in the percentage of respondents in 2017 having thought that Computershare has added value to their business, there has been a decline in positive responses from ~75% positive response in 2012 vs 64% in 2017.

Link Market Services – Has also reverted back to approximately its averagehistorical levels of respondents indicating value added from 72% positive responses last year to only 64% this year (we note there is inherent volatility in the survey given we do not cover 100% of the market and responses are subject to the respondents subjective view – with the respondent potentially changing year on year). Overall, Link appears to show largely stable trends.

Other smaller providers (primarily Boardroom) – We have seen further deterioration for small providers, which now tracks below that of Computershare and Link (we note there is inherently volatility in the data – especially for this category given the smaller number of responses.)

The majority (~65%) of

companies continue to believe

that registry service providers continue to add value to their

business – relatively stable

trends since 2013

11



In a market with limited potential for future growth in shareholder numbers, in our view it remains essential that registry service providers consider opening up opportunities to provide value-adding services rather than just being perceived as a necessary cost for companies.

Contract length & pricing structure

Three-year contracts continue to be the most common

Our survey data indicates that approximately half of outstanding share registry contracts have been negotiated on three-year terms (refer Figure 8), an outcome broadly consistent across both small and medium corporates, however, for large corporates (ASX20) we have seen a significant increase from last year , increasing from ~50% to 86% this year. Assessing this trend from 2009, we see that 3-5 year contracts have remained at >50% of all contracts surveyed, reinforcing the challenges that new entrants face in gaining market share.

Figure 8: How Often Are Registry Services Contracts Negotiated?

Source: J.P. Morgan Australia Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Figure 9: How Often Are Registry Services Contracts Negotiated?–Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan Australia Registry Services Provider Survey.

Contracts are priced on a combination of fixed and per shareholder basis

Respondent data indicates that the majority of contracts in the industry are negotiated on two levels: 1) Basic registry maintenance (includes annual processes including dividend disbursement), and, 2) Additional registry services (i.e. corporate actions).As highlighted in Figure 10 and Figure 11 below, only a small number of basic registry maintenance contracts and additional services (capital raisings and M&A) are done on a fixed price (i.e. an annual base fee). The majority is either on a fee per shareholder or a combination of fee per shareholder and fixed price. The same trend can be traced back through time for both the Basic and Additional Registry Maintenance Pricing structure which are weighted towards Fee per shareholder or a combination of fixed and Fee per shareholder (refer Figure 12 and Figure 13). Fee per shareholder remains the most popular pricing structure for basic registry maintenance (Figure 12).

The majority of share registry

services contracts continue to

be negotiated every three years

Large companies (ASX20)

appear to have changed preference from the

‘combination’ pricing structure

(i.e. fixed fee + fee per shareholder) from last year to

the fee per shareholder basis for

basic registry maintenance

12



Figure 10: Basic Registry Maintenance Pricing Structure

Source: J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Figure 11: Additional Registry Maintenance Pricing Structure

Source: J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Figure 12: Basic Registry Maintenance Pricing Structure-Though Time

Source: J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey.

Figure 13: Additional Registry Maintenance Pricing Structure-Through Time


Contract negotiations – increasing number of contracts put to tender

Respondent data indicates that only 43% of companies indicated that they intend to put their registry contracts out to a competitive tender upon the expiry of their contracts (refer Figure 14). By virtue, the majority of companies (57%) took anegotiated contract term and price with the incumbent registry service provider upon the expiry of their existing contract. Looking at historical trends (refer Figure 15) it appears there is an increasing percentage of companies putting their registry contractout for negotiations causing the trend to move from ‘No – but have considered’ to‘Yes’. However, there remains significant incumbency with ~43% of the surveyed companies putting their registry contract out to tender.

Looking at historical trends, it appears there is an increasing

percentage of companies putting

their registry contract for negotiations causing the trend

to move from ‘No – and never

considered’ and ‘No – but have considered’ to ‘Yes’, however

there remains significant

incumbency

13



Figure 14: Contact Negotiations – Does Your Company Put the Registry Contract Out To Tender, upon the current contract's expiry?


Figure 15: Contact Negotiations – Does Your Company Put the Registry Contract Out To Tender (Over Time)?


Contract negotiations – competitor analysis

In Figure 17 below, we observe Link customers are more likely to be putting their contract out to tender vs Computer share. Furthermore, we did see a sharp increase for Link with the percentage of customers putting the registry contract out to tender increasing from 39% in 2016 to 52% in 2017 (average between 2010-16 is just 37%, Figure 17). Computershare has historically averaged at ~24% of respondents putting the contracts for negotiation over the last 8 years andother providers (primarily Boardroom) have ranged from ~60% in 2015 to falling as low as 17% in 2016, and reverting back to ~40% levels in 2017 – the volatility is driven by the small sample size.

Figure 16: Contact Negotiations – Does Your Company Put the Registry Contract Out To Tender?


Figure 17: Contact Negotiations? Yes-Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey. We note that whilst the

2017 data point for ‘Other’ refers to Boardroom only, prior data points includes other providers

besides Boardroom.

We observe that on average

Link customers (~39%) are more likely to be putting their contract

out to tender vs Computershare

(~24%), over the past 8 years

14



Figure 18: Contract Negotiations? No But Considered-Though Time


2017 data point for ‘Other’ refers to Boardroom only, prior data points includes other

providers besides Boardroom.

Figure 19: Contract Negotiations? No And Never Considered-Through Time


2017 data point for ‘Other’ refers to Boardroom only, prior data points includes other

providers besides Boardroom.

Movement in shareholder numbers

As highlighted earlier (refer Figure 10), the majority of registry services contracts are on a fee per shareholder or a combination of fee per shareholder and fixed price basis. Thus the change in company shareholder numbers in our view is a significant driver of revenue for service providers.

The Australian market has shown positive returns over the past few periods, after being negative due to GFC and other macroeconomic factors in 2007/08. However, we have seen 5 consecutive quarters of positive shareholder returns (for the period ending 4Q16) – which should provide some tailwind to shareholder numbers (strong markets are usually positive for shareholder numbers).

Figure 20: S&P/ASX200 Accumulation Index-Quarterly Returns

Source: Bloomberg (21/03/2017)

15



How have shareholder numbers been trending?

Assessing trends for the last 6 months, shareholder numbers have mainly remained flat for small and medium companies where as the larger companies reported an equal percentage of increasing and decreasing trends (~38% each). Analyzing the trends from the last two years, we see a skew towards shareholder numbers increasing for all ASX200, ASX100 and ASX200. The analysis of the historical trend (for the 2 year period) reveals that the shareholder numbers are following an increasing trendespecially visible since the last 5 years (Figure 23 and Figure 24), Whilst analyzing the shareholder trends (of our survey respondents) through time for six-month period, we see that shareholder numbers have seen more muted shareholder increases.

Figure 21: Change in Shareholder Numbers Over Previous 2 Years


Figure 22: Change in Shareholder Numbers Over Previous 6 Months


Figure 23: Change in Shareholder Numbers Over Previous 2 Years (ASX200)-Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey

Figure 24: Change in Shareholder Numbers Over Previous 6 Months (ASX200)-Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey

Assessing trends through time (across the ASX200), Table 4 below illustrates the number of shareholder accounts in the ASX200 as at each December year end since 2009 – i.e. it includes net changes to the index compositions. The overall shareholder number has declined slightly from last year, with the only gainer in shareholder numbers being Link out of the three main share registry providers. The broadly flat change relating to the number of shareholders administered since 2009 provides a relatively more muted picture. We note the market has been very strong since the previous report and as prior results have indicated some correlation between shareholder numbers and market performance. It will be interesting from this standpoint whether a continued strong share market over the next ~12 months will result in further increases in number of shareholder accounts administered.

For the ASX200, in the current

period, there has been a modest

skew towards shareholder numbers increasing over the

past two years

16



Table 4: Number of shareholder accounts administered – ASX200 as at each year end (in Millions)

Calendar Year S&P/ASX200 CPU Link Boardroom2009 13.88 8.27 5.42 0.12 2010 14.19 8.57 5.34 0.17 2011 13.73 8.12 5.35 0.15 2012 13.71 7.97 5.30 0.25 2013 13.64 7.93 5.07 0.51 2014 13.62 7.74 5.22 0.592015 13.98 8.27 5.11 0.482016 13.79 7.92 5.29 0.46% change 2016 vs 2015 -1.35% -4.23% 3.52% -4.17%

Source: J.P. Morgan estimates, Company data. For companies where shareholder numbers are unavailable for 2016 – we have

assumed the same shareholder count as in the prior year (i.e. no change)>

17



Competitor Analysis

As highlighted in Table 5 below, the respondents to our survey provide a good representation of the make-up of the ASX200 index, with no overly strong bias in sample size to any particular competitor.

Table 5: Australian Registry Service Providers – S&P/ASX200

Registry Service Providers Market Share Survey ResponsesComputershare 49% 54%Link Market Services 41% 39%Boardroom 8% 6%Other 2% 0%

Source: ASX, J.P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Overall performance

In assessing overall performance of registry providers, we retain a cautious stance with respect to providing relative conclusions, as our survey largely sees respondents providing a view from an absolute perspective. Furthermore, respondents do change year on year and Boardroom’s results can be volatile due to the small sample size and exposure to smaller clients. Given this backdrop, we highlight the following key set of findings (refer Figure 25 and Figure 26):

The current overall performance is strong across all registry providers, with all providers receiving a high proportion of positive (good or better) responses –Computershare 98%, Link 96%, Boardroom 80%. Boardroom's performance appears to have deteriorated from 83% positive responses last year and 100% from 2015.

With regards to the change in overall performance over the past 12 months, responses were relatively consistent across the market for Computershare, Link,and Boardroom with ~60% to 75% of respondents indicating that there has been no meaningful change in performance.

Whilst ~60% of respondents viewed the performance of Boardroom as having not changed over the last 12 months, ~20% of respondents also indicated an improved performance with an equal percentage indicating a worsened performance.

Figure 25: Overall Performance – Current


Figure 26: Overall Performance – Over Previous 12 Months


Computershare and Link showed strong overall

performance, with Boardroom

appearing to have slipped (80% positive responses this year vs

83% last year and 100% in 2015)

– although we note there is volatility for Boardroom, due to

the low sample size

18



In assessing the performance of Computershare, Link and Other (mainly Boardroom), not only over the last 12 months but historically since 2009/2010 (for ‘Others’) we note the following (refer Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29):

Respondent data indicates a consistent grouping of overall performance being rated ‘above my expectations’ or ‘good’ for all registry providers. However, for Link, there is also a modest percentage, ~4% in 2017 (vs ~8% average from 2009-2017) of respondents who have indicated performance below expectationsvs average of ~2% for Computershare over 2009-17. For all providers, no respondents indicated poor performance since 2009 till date.

Since 2012 there has been a shift in respondent feedback from Computershare from ‘good’ to ‘above expectations’, potentially indicating an increase in standards. Whereas Link since 2012 has experienced material shift from ‘Good’and ‘Below my expectations’ to ‘outstanding’ and ‘Above expectations’.

Historically, ‘Other’ registry provider (primarily Boardroom) performances have been positive (we note results can be volatile due to sample size).

Figure 27: Computershare Overall Performance – Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan- Australian Registry Services Provider Survey

Figure 28: Link Overall Performance – Through Time


Figure 29: Other Registry Overall Performance – Through Time


19



We assess some underlying components driving overall performance including account management, quality of product, innovation and cost in further detail below:

1. Account management

From an account management perspective, ~64% and ~56% of Computershare andLink, respectively, showed respondents noted no change, while all Boardroomrespondents noted no change in performance over the prior 12 months (refer Figure 30). Historically, we see an increasing trend of respondents voting for ‘Improved’performance for Computershare and Link. For ‘Other’ (primarily Boardroom), all the respondents noted no change in performance in 2017 vs 50% noting no change and 50% noting worsened performance last year. This is the first time in last 5 years that no respondents voted ‘worsened’ performance for ‘Other’ registry providers.

Figure 30: Account Management Performance – Over Previous 12 Months


Figure 31: CPU Account Management Performance-Through Time

Source: Source: J.P. Morgan- Australian Registry Services

Provider Survey

Figure 32: Link Account Management Performance-Through Time


Provider Survey

Figure 33: Other (primarily Boardroom) Account Management Performance-Though Time


Provider Survey

2. Quality of product

As highlighted in the previous section, quality of product is becoming a more important consideration (refer Figure 5 earlier) for customers when identifying which registry provider to work with. Given this backdrop, it is interesting to note the majority of Computershare, Link and Boardroom respondents have indicated no change in quality of product over the last 12 months (refer Figure 34).

Looking at historical trends,

we see an increasing trend of respondents voting for

‘Improved’ account management

performance continues in 2017 for Computershare

The majority of respondents

have indicated no change in quality of product over the last

12 months

20



Figure 34: Quality of Product – Over Previous 12 Months


Figure 35: CPU Quality of Product- Through Time

Source: J.P. Morgan- Australian Registry Services Provider

Survey

Figure 36: Link Quality of Product- Through Time


Survey

Figure 37: Other (primarily Boardroom) Quality of Product- Through Time


Survey

3. Innovation

In line with our quality of product findings noted above, the majority of Computershare, Link and Boardroom respondents have also indicated no change in innovation with respect to services being offered over the last ~12 months (refer Figure 38). However Computershare is the outperformer with ~33% of respondents indicating ‘Improved’ innovation and 5% indicated ‘Worsened’performance. For Boardroom, the residual respondents all indicated ‘Improved’making up the remaining 20%. Link received 20% ‘Improved’ and 76% ‘No change’with the remaining 4% indicated ‘Worsened’. Looking at past performance (note –only three years of data), majority of the respondents indicated ‘No change’ in performance (refer Figure 39, Figure 40, and Figure 41).

The majority of Computershare,

Link and Boardroom

respondents have also indicated no change in innovation with

respect to services being offered

over the last ~12 months although from the last 3 years of

data, CPU appears to be on a

positive trends

21



Figure 38: Innovation – Over Previous 12 Months


Figure 39: CPU Innovation Performance-Though Time


Survey

Figure 40: Link Innovation Performance-Through Time


Survey

Figure 41: Other (primarily Boardroom)Innovation Performance-Through Time


Survey

4. Cost

As global registry revenues continue to see margin compression and elevated levels of competition between the likes of Computershare, Link and Boardroom, the cost of service has maintained a key area of focus. We note the following set of findings relating to our survey data:

Industry in 2017 – The majority of Computershare, Link and Boardroom related respondents (i.e. greater than 85% have rated good or above) have a favourableopinion on the cost of service being provided to them (refer Figure 42).

Market players in 2017 – 84% respondents who are currently being serviced by Link Market Services are of the view there was no change in the cost performance over the previous 12 months. However, ~92% of respondents notedgood or above ratings respectively, vs 86% of respondents for Computershare.

Trends through time. Assessing trends over the last 12 months (refer Figure 43), it is important to note that the majority of respondents have indicated either an improved cost structure or no change to cost structure. The same trend is visible historically, where majority of the respondents indicated ‘No change’ or ‘Improved’ cost performance. This reinforces the theme that the competitive environment remains a constant barrier to material upward revisions in pricing (refer Figure 44, Figure 45 and Figure 46).

The majority of Computershare,

Link and Boardroom related respondents (i.e. greater than

85% have rated good or above)

have a favourable opinion on the cost of service being provided to

them – with Link continuing to

have particularly favourableresponses

22



Figure 42: Cost Performance – Current


Figure 43: Cost – Change Over Previous 12 Months


Figure 44: CPU Change in Cost- Through Time


Survey

Figure 45: Link Change in Cost-Through Time


Survey

Figure 46: Other (primarily Boardroom)Change in Cost-Through Time


Survey

We think the reasons for the small proportion of overall responses which indicated that the cost of the service had worsened over the last year include:

Increased competition – Driven by emergence of a viable large-scale third player, Boardroom and increased competition from Link as seen in Figure 2 andwhich listed at the end of last year.

Cost-out opportunities – Declining revenue margins have been able to be offset by cost-out opportunities in recent times including, 1) increased scale, 2) the standardization of forms and processes, and 3) the rollout of IT platforms, reducing manual and costly processes. However, we reiterate that there is a limited buffer which this can provide going forward.

Small overall cost of service – The cost of the registry services function is relatively small in the overall cost of corporate overheads for most companies in the S&P/ASX200. As such, a ~5% increase in pricing is unlikely to make a significant impact on the company’s costs or an impression on the survey respondent.

Historically, the majority of the

respondents indicated ‘No change’ or ‘Improved’ cost

performance, reiterating the fact

that due to increased competition it becomes

important to concentrate on cost

efficiency

23



Future Considerations Assessed Against Current Market Dynamics

Our survey asked companies to rate how important certain factors would be if they were considering changing registry service providers in the future. Consistent with historical trends, quality of product and service was rated as the most criticalconsideration followed by account management relationship – these two factors are consistently ranked as the two most critical. We note the following key trends both from an ‘as is’ and historical perspective (refer Figure 47 and Figure 48):

Quality of product/service – The quality of the product and service remains themost critical factor for all surveyed companies, with ~58% of companies in the ASX200 classifying this as critical. When only assessing survey results from companies in the ASX20 this increased to ~71%, still highlighting the critical importance of this factor to large corporates. Whilst this figure has fallen from historical highs of 100%, it still remains of critical importance to these large corporate. .

Account management relationship – The relationship between the company and registry service provider was classified as critical for ~53% of companies surveyed in the ASX200. When assessing the ASX20, this figure increased to ~71% from 50% in last year's survey.

Innovation –10% of ASX200 viewed innovation as critical declining from 12% in 2016 and 22% in 2015. The drop in importance of innovation could very well be because Registry Providers have largely undertaken steps to addressed innovation and are continuing to do so.

Cost – The cost of using a registry service provider was considered by ~32% of companies in the ASX200 to be critical.

Additional services – Only 11% of ASX200 companies saw additional services as an important future consideration in determining registry services.

Figure 47: Future Considerations Considered ‘Critical’

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey 2017.

Figure 48: ASX20 Future Considerations Considered ‘Critical’ – Over Time

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Registry Services Provider Survey.

Account management

relationship and quality of

product and service were both flagged as critical by ~71% of

the ASX20 for the first time;

further to this, cost has become less critical to large corporations

over the past six years

24



ASX200 – contract changes

In assessing market share movements on a contract administered basis for registry providers servicing the ASX200, we consider several moving parts. Specifically, registry providers may lose or gain market share in the ASX200 simply if a company enters or falls out of the index. In addition, any large IPOs that have taken place during the year may push companies at the bottom end of the ASX200 out of the index as well. Lastly, we also take into consideration organic movements i.e. contract wins and losses in relation to positions held by competitors. Using this framework and the results in Table 6 below, we highlight the following contract-related market share movements during 2016:

Computershare – We estimate Computershare at the start of 2016 serviced 103contracts in the ASX200 or ~52% of market share. This reduced to 98 by the close of 2016 or ~49% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-11), ASX200 new entrants (+7), IPO wins (+2) and organic losses (-2). Considering organic losses in isolation results in a net -2 headwind or -1% adverse impact to market share.

Link Market Services – Link at the start of 2016 serviced 77 contracts in the ASX200 or ~39% of market share. This increased to 82 by the close of 2016 or 41% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-11), ASX200 new entrants (+10), IPO wins (+2) and organic wins (+3). Considering organic wins in isolation results in a net +3 tailwind or +1.5% positive impact to market share.

Others (Primarily Boardroom) – Other providers (primarily Boardroom) at the start of 2016 serviced 20 accounts in the ASX200 or ~10% of market share. This remained constant at 20 by the close of 2016 or ~10% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-2), ASX200 new entrants (+3), IPO wins (+0) and organic wins (-1).

Table 6: Number of Registry Contracts Administered – ASX200

Opening Balance

2016

ASX200 Exits

ASX200 New

Entrants

IPO OrganicAdditions /

Losses

Closing Balance

2016

Computershare 103 (11) 7 2 (2) 98Link Market Services 77 (11) 10 2 3 82Other 20 (2) 3 0 (1) 20Total 200 (24) 20 4 0 200

Source: Company data, Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan estimates

However, as we have outlined earlier, a shareholders-administered lens may be a better proxy for revenue, and can produce differing results (refer Table 7).Whilst Computershare showed a ~5% loss in contracts above, from the perspective of shareholders administered their market share declined ~2%. Moreover while Link seemed to gain market share on contracts administered basis, up by 6% since previous period, on a number of shareholders administered basis, the market share increased by ~2%.

25



Table 7: Number of Shareholders Administered (millions) – ASX200

Opening

Balance

2016

ASX200

Exits

ASX200

New

Entrants

IPO Shareholder

Movements

Organic

Additions

/ Losses

Closing

Balance

2016

Computershare 8.2 (0.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.2) 7.9

Link Market Services 5.1 (0.1) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 5.3

Other 0.6 (0.1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Total 13.9 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 13.8

Source: Company data, Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan estimates Note: All data is rounded to one decimal place. Note: Shareholders

movement represents DRP (positive) and consolidation of shareholders (negative).Note APO,GPT, RMD 2016 shareholder numbers

have assumed to be unchanged from 2015 levels due to unavailability of data. Shareholder numbers for CYB, VVR , MTR, NWS were

not available.

Computershare – We estimate Computershare at the start of 2016 serviced 8.2m accounts in the ASX200 or ~59% of market share. This declined slightly to 7.9m by the close of 2016 or ~57% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-0.2m), ASX200 new entrants (0.00m), IPO wins (+0.0m), and shareholder movements (0.0m) such as DRP alongside shareholder number consolidation andorganic losses equating to (-0.2m).

Link Market Services – We estimate Link at the start of 2016 serviced 5.1m accounts in the ASX200 or ~37% of market share. This increased to 5.3m accounts by the close of 2016 or ~38% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-0.1m), ASX200 new entrants (+0.1m), IPO wins (0.00m), movements such as DRP alongside shareholder number consolidation (+0.0m) and organic additions (+0.2m).

Others (including Boardroom) – We estimate other providers (includingBoardroom) at the start of 2016 serviced 0.6m accounts in the ASX200 or ~4% of market share. This remained more or less flat at the end of 2016, with 0.6m accounts by the or ~4% of market share when considering ASX200 exits (-0.1m), ASX200 new entrants (0.0m), movements such as DRP alongside shareholder number consolidation (0.0m) and organic additions (0.0m).

All Ordinaries – contract changes

The number of contract switches in 2016 was lower than those observed in 2015. A summary of contract changes in the Australian ASX listed market (outside of M&A activity, IPOs and company dissolution) appears below – refer Table 8. Specifically, there were 55 contract switches in 2016 representing ~2.5% of the average ASX listed entities in 2016 (2,203). This is marginally lower than ~2.8% change we have observed in 2015 and the ~3.6% seen in 2014. Interestingly, Computershare and other registry providers including Boardroom lost a net of 9 contracts and 8 contracts respectively to Link that won a net of 17 contracts.

Table 8: ASX Listed Share Registers – Change in Listed Company Contracts Administered (All Ordinaries)

No. of contracts

2014 2015 2016 CY 2014-2016Registry Services Provider New Lost Net New Lost Net New Lost Net New Lost Net

Computershare 62 (30) 32 11 (24) (13) 11 (20) (9) 84 (74) 10Link Market Services 3 (8) (5) 13 (4) 9 19 (2) 17 35 (14) 21Boardroom 0 (13) (13) 6 (6) 0 7 (10) (3) 13 (29) (16)Others 13 (27) (14) 32 (28) 4 18 (23) (5) 63 (78) (15)Total 78 (78) 0 62 (62) 0 55 (55) 0 195 (195) 0

Source: Company reports, morning star.

Where active contracts have changed hands (excludes changes due to M&A, IPOs and company dissolution).

2016 recorded a lower number of

contract switches when

compared to 2015

2.5% of the market switched

providers (as measured by number of contract switches)

26



From a registry provider perspective, Computershare lost 189k and ‘other’ providers (excluding Boardroom) lost 43k net shareholder accounts (refer Table 9) to the benefit of Link (123k) and Boardroom (109k).

Table 9: ASX Listed Share Registers – Change in Number of Shareholders Administered

‘000s of shareholders

2014 2015 2016 CY2014-16Registry Services Provider New Lost Net New Lost Net New Lost Net New Lost NetComputershare 292 (104) 188 549 (571) (23) 27 (216) (189) 867 (892) (24)Link Market Services 5 (72) (67) 32 (10) 22 124 (1) 123 162 (83) 79Boardroom 2 (44) (42) 9 (12) (3) 140 (31) 109 151 (87) 63Other 12 (91) (79) 58 (54) 4 18 (61) (43) 89 (206) (118)

Source: Company reports, morning star. Note: some new and old shareholder numbers were not available and numbers in the table are rounded.

Where active contracts have changed hands (excludes changes due to M&A, IPOs and company dissolution).

# Number of shareholders is based on the last number of shareholders stated in the prior Annual Report where available.

All Ordinaries – demergers/spin-offs and other restructures

The much larger (and more uncertain) driver of market share change in shareholders numbers administered has historically been through corporate activity. In 2015, one of the key corporate activities was the demerger of South32 (Table 10). Besides that, in 2016 demerger and corporate restructuring activity was relatively high compared to last previous year, providing opportunity for the growth of registry administrators.

Table 10: Demergers/Spin-offs

Parent Company NewCo Ticker NewCo NameEffective

Date

Current Market Cap

(A$m)

Registry Services Provider

No. of New Sh’holders

2016National Australia Bank Ltd CYB AU Equity CYBG PLC 2/3/2016 3,987 Computershare 17122

Spirit Telecom Ltd DAV AU Equity Davenport Resources Ltd 2/23/2016 10Security Transfers Registrars Pty Ltd 773

Magnis Resources Ltd 1383187D AU Equity Uranium Africa Ltd 4/7/2016 - – –Paramount Mining Corp Ltd 1404574D SP Equity Paramindo Singapore Pte Ltd 5/23/2016 - – –Taruga Gold Ltd 1395335D AU Equity Kodal Minerals plc 5/26/2016 - – –Indiana Resources Ltd GPX AU Equity Graphex Mining Ltd 6/3/2016 23 Computershare 4,060UraniumSA Ltd 1414046D AU Equity Samphire Uranium Ltd 6/24/2016 - – –

APN News & Media Ltd NZM AU Equity NZME Ltd 6/27/2016 167Link Market Services

Limited 6,870BlackWall Property Trust 1410647D AU Equity Pelathon Pub Group 6/28/2016 - – –Bulletin Resources Ltd PNR AU Equity Pantoro Ltd 7/18/2016 134 – –Eneabba Gas Ltd 1437466D AU UIL Energy Ltd 9/13/2016 - – –Hannans Ltd 1432507D AU Equity Critical Metals Ltd 9/19/2016 - – –

Heron Resources Ltd ARL AU Equity Ardea Resources Ltd 10/5/2016 35Security Transfers Registrars Pty Ltd 3249

Clime Investment Management Ltd 1446845D AU Equity Clime Pvt Ltd 11/2/2016 - – –Broken Hill Prospecting Ltd COB AU Equity Cobalt Blue Holdings Ltd 11/18/2016 24 Next Registries 1440

Metals X Ltd WGX AU Equity Westgold Resources Ltd 11/29/2016 719Securities Transfer

Australia Pty Ltd. 6,312World Titanium Resources Ltd 1478048D MP Equity World Titane Holdings Ltd 12/29/2016 - – –

2015Raffles Capital Ltd 1233935D AU Equity Raffles Co Ltd 3/3/2015 - – –Hudson Investment Group Ltd HPG AU Equity Hudson Pacific Group Ltd 5/13/2015 - – –BHP Billiton Ltd S32 AU Equity South32 Ltd 5/18/2015 14,694 Computershare 537,893 Strategic Energy Resources Ltd 1273947D AU Equity Ionic Industries Ltd 6/11/2015 - – –Sirius Resources NL S2R AU Equity S2 Resources Ltd 9/10/2015 53 Computershare 4965Transerv Energy Ltd 1323032D AU Equity TSV Montney 10/6/2015 - – –Tamaska Oil & Gas Ltd 1324149D AU Equity TMK Montney Ltd 10/6/2015 - – –

Source: Company reports, BBG. Note: we show the latest completed transaction in 2016. Note: Number of shareholders is taken from distribution schedule published on listing or from the latest

published annual report post transaction if distribution schedule is not available. Also data for some transactions was not available.

27



All Ordinaries – initial public offerings (IPO)

IPO activity in Australia was relatively strong in terms of number of new listings in 2016. Specifically, there were 133 newly listed entities in 2016, up ~6% from pcp (Figure 49, The top 10 IPOs resulted in at least ~25k shareholder accounts being created, with Link Market Services handling ~70% of the new accounts

Table 11). However on a net listing basis, 2017 saw more entities delist giving a net listing number of -27 vs a positive net listings number of 30 in the previous year. 2016 saw a relatively weaker year for IPOs, with ~$21bn raised in the year, down from $33bn in 2015 (boosted by South32). In 2014 ~$29bn was raised.

Figure 49: ASX Listings & Delistings

Source: ASX, Company reports.

Table 11: ASX – Listings and Delistings

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

New Listings 127 133 83 110 109 126 133De-Listings (92) (127) (117) (103) (96) (96) (156)Net Listings 35 6 (34) 7 13 30 (23)Total Listings 2,216 2,222 2,188 2,195 2,208 2,238 2,215

IPO Proceeds (A$m) 25,048 15,493 7,206 24,037 28,798 33,437 21,190

Source: ASX.

2016 witnessed a number of IPO, which resulted in a material number of new shareholder accounts being generated. The 10 largest IPO generated at least ~25k accounts (note data for the number of shareholders for the IPO of Antipodes Global Investment Company Limited – serviced by Boardroom was unavailable) with Link Market Services handling ~70% of the new accounts (based on information available).

Table 12: Top 10 IPOs in 2016 – IPO Proceeds/No. of Shareholders Administered

Name Ticker Date of Announcement

IPO Proceeds (A$m)

Registry Services Provider No. of Shareholders*

Reliance Worldwide Corporation Limited RWC 04/11/2016 919 Computershare 6,225Viva Energy REIT Trust VVR 07/11/2016 911 Link Market Services 3,552Inghams Group Limited ING 10/12/2016 596 Link Market Services 10,659Propertylink PLG 07/18/2016 502 Computershare 343Antipodes Global Investment Company Limited APL 07/22/2016 313 Boardroom UnavailableScottish Pacific Group Limited SCO 06/22/2016 294 Link Market Services 1,392GTN Limited GTN 05/12/2016 188 Link Market Services 319Wisetech Global Limited WTC 03/17/2016 165 Link Market Services 1,278Autosports Group Limited ASG 10/25/2016 160 Link Market Services 1,117Bravura Solutions Limited BVS 10/28/2016 148 Link Market Services 401Total top 10 IPOs priced in 2016 4,196 25,286

Source: Company reports, Bloomberg.

*Approx. number of shareholders at the time of the IPO as detailed by the company in initial listing documentation if available or else taken from annual report after IPO.

2016 saw a relatively weaker

year for IPO, with ~$21bn raised

in the year, down from $33bn in 2015 (boosted by South32). In

2014 ~$29bn was raised

The top 10 IPOs resulted in at least ~25k shareholder accounts

being created, with Link Market

Services handling ~70% of the new accounts

28



We remind that similar to most regions around the world, profitability of IPO in Australia can be ‘hit or miss’ for the registry service provider. Given most registry contracts are structured on a ‘per shareholder basis’, registry providers must try to forecast the number of shareholders upon the float of the company when pricing the initial contract. For larger transactions, the retail take-up of the offer can be difficult to forecast, leading to some variability in profitability in the IPO process for the registry service provider.

All Ordinaries – secondary raisings

In 2016 secondary raisings were lower than 2015 with $33.3bn of capital being raised, down 41% on 2015 (refer Table 13) as 2015 numbers were driven by capital raisings by the major Australian banks which is considered as a one-off.

Table 13: ASX – Secondary Capital Raised

A$ in millions

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Secondary Capital Raised# 31,428 33,101 35,163 28,491 34,751 56,638 33,321% Change on pcp -68.1% 5.3% 6.2% -19.0% 22.0% 63% -41%

Source: ASX.

# All secondary capital raised on the listed market in the year (incl. DRPs).

Similar to most regions around the world, profitability of IPOs in

Australia can be ‘hit or miss’ for

the registry service provider

Secondary raisings in 2016 were

down 41% on 2015, with

~A$33.3bn in secondary equity capital raised (vs 2015:

~A$56.6bn, 2014: ~A$34.8bn)

29



Employee Share Plan Survey (ESP)

Survey description

This year we conducted a survey on Employee Share Plan Service in addition to our Annual Registry Service Provider Survey.

Source of information

Outside of publicly available information, all the data in this report is sourced fromour Australian Employee Share Plan (ESP) Survey of listed companies in the ASX200 (as at December 2016). The survey was conducted from December 2016 to January 2017. A copy of the survey appears in the Appendix to this report.

We have not provided a list of the companies that participated in the survey as it was conducted on the basis that the participants’ individual details and responses remain anonymous.

Table 14: ASX Listed Companies Surveyed

S&P/ASX20* S&P/ASX100* S&P/ASX200*Number of Shareholders 22% 25% 25%Market capitalisation 22% 23% 23%



Note: MTR responded to our survey, but shareholder number not available – affects the ASX200 numbers above only.

Figure 50: Breakdown of service provider – based on our survey respondents

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Employee Share Plan Survey 2017

30



Reasons for outsourcing employee share plan services

Risk deferral emerged as the key reason for outsourcing ESP (Figure 51). It is interesting to note that risk deferral is the key reason for companies to outsource their ESP – in contrast, risk deferral was the least cited reason for outsourcing registry. (refer Figure 5).

Cost appears to be the reason for companies to manage internally, with Link and other smaller providers appearing to be more price competitive than CPU.Users of Computershare as their ESP service provider flagged risk deferral and service provider expertise as the top two reasons for outsourcing this function. In comparison users of Link and Other providers (primarily Boardroom) flagged risk deferral and cost as the two main reasons for outsourcing (Figure 52). Out of the respondents who internally manage, they all flagged that the reason for this was cost.

Figure 51: Reasons for outsourcing ESP Services at your company?

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Employee Share Plan Survey 2017.

Figure 52: Reasons for outsourcing ESP Services-By ESP Provider

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Employee Share Plan Survey 2017. Note: respondents can offer more than one reason.

Contract length & contract negotiations

3-5 year contracts appear to be most for most companies

Our survey data indicates that majority of the contract lengths are for 3-5 years for ASX100 and ASX200 companies, where as respondents of ASX20 companies are equally distributed between 3-5 years and 1-2 years (~40% each) – as shown in Figure 53. This appears in line with the preferred contract duration for registry providers – this is unsurprising as Registry and ESP service providers are usually the same for a company (Figure 62).

Competitor analysis – Link appears to have shortest contract duration

Most of the competitors in the space appear to have a skew towards contracts of 3-5 years, except Link who appears to have an even distribution of contracts between 1-2 years and 3-5 years. However, we do note there is volatility in our data given we only survey ~25% of the market in this section of our survey.

Risk deferral emerged as the

main reasons for outsourcing ESP amongst companies,

followed by service provider

expertise and cost

The majority of contract lengths

are for 3-5 years for ASX100 and

ASX200 companies, where as respondents of ASX20

companies are equally

distributed between 3-5 years and 1-2 years (40% each)

31



Figure 53: How Often Are Registry Services Contracts Negotiated?


Figure 54: How Often Are Registry Services Contracts Negotiated?–By ESP Provider


Contract negotiations – 57% of companies responded that they do not put up their contracts to tender on expiry but have considered.

57% of ASX200 companies do not put up their contracts to tender but have considered, 25% do put up their contracts for tender and remaining do not even consider putting up their contracts for tender. Looking at the large companies that make up the ASX20, we see a slightly different trend as none of the respondents put up their contracts for tender, majority(~60%) do not put up their contracts for tender but have considered, and remaining 40% have never considered it – reflecting the sticky nature of these contracts.

Competitor analysis: CPU and Link have relatively more 'sticky’ clients than other smaller providers

For respondents who use Computershare and Link as service providers, the majority of the respondents do not put up the contracts for tender but have considered doing so. For respondents using other providers (primarily Boardroom), 50% put up contracts for tender and remaining 50% do not but have considered doing so, and for those that manage ESP internally, all respondents noted they have considered outsourcing their ESP function.

32



Figure 55: Upon contract expiry do you put the contract out to a tender process?


Figure 56: By ESP provider – Upon contract expiry do you put the contract out to a tender process?


Overall performance

In assessing overall performance of ESP providers, we retain a cautious stance with respect to providing relative conclusions, as our survey largely sees respondents providing a view from an absolute perspective. Furthermore, respondents do change year on year and we note that the sample size for the ESP survey is smaller than that for the registry survey above. Given this backdrop, we highlight the following key set of findings (refer Figure 57 and Figure 58):

Majority, ~72% of the ASX200 respondents believe that performance of their ESP providers has not changed, 23% believe that performance has improved and remainder 5% believe that performance has worsened.

Similarly for ASX100 companies, 68% believe performance is unchanged, 25% believe it has improved and 7% believe performance has worsened.

ASX20 respondents had slightly more favorable views of their service provider’s performance with 60% voting as unchanged, and 40% voting as improved and no respondent thought that the performance worsened.

This is comparable to the responses received for performance of Registry providers where most respondents believed the performance of their registry providers to be unchanged.

From a competitor analysis perspective:

Computershare fared better than others as 26% respondents noted improvement in the performance and 74% noted the performance to remain unchanged. This is followed by Link with 24% of respondents noting an improved performance.

For Other service providers (primarily Boardroom), 25% respondents noted improved performance but also 25% noting worsened performance with the remainder 50% noting performance to be unchanged – we note the sample size for this is small, hence there will inherently volatility in the result.

When asked, whether our respondents were happy with their service provider's performance, we noted the following (Figure 59 and Figure 60):

More than 81% of the respondents noted they were happy with their service provider’s performance.

Majority of the respondent

companies viewed the

performance of their providers to be unchanged

33



For Link, Computershare and Boardroom generally had >75% of the respondentshappy with their over all performance.

Majority of the disappointments came from accounts that were internally managed with ~ 33% indicating they were unhappy – a potential indication of accounts they could be outsourced.

Figure 57: How was the performance of your current ESP Provider?


Figure 58: By ESP Provider – How was the performance of your current ESP Provider?


Figure 59: Are you happy with the overall performance of your ESP provider?


Figure 60: By ESP Provider – Are you happy with the overall performance of your ESP provider?


More than 81% of the

respondents noted they were

happy with their service provider’s performance

34



Cost

A large proportion (~38%) of the ASX 200 companies spend around $10,000-$50,000 per year on ESP services. It is unsurprising that the larger the company the more they spend. However, we do not there are some outlier – with some companies outside of the ASX20 spending above $1m in ESP servicing.

Figure 61: How much does your company spend each year on outsourced Employee Share Plan services?


Movement in registry and ESP service providers

Unsurprisingly registry and ESP service providers are usually the same. We will need a richer history of data before we can comment on the trends.

Figure 62: Are you using the same ESP Provider and Registry Provider?

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Employee Share Plan Survey 2017, Australian Registry

Service Provider Survey, 2017

Figure 63: By ESP Provider – Are you using the same ESP Provider

and Registry Provider?

Source: J. P. Morgan – Australian Employee Share Plan Survey 2017, Australian Registry

Service Provider Survey, 2017

35



Appendix: Industry Overview

The Australian share registry industry has evolved significantly in the last two decades from an internally performed function to a fully outsourced model. Due to the scale advantages for outsourced models and specialised systems that the function requires, it was too costly for companies to continue to perform the function internally. Additionally, growth in share ownership as well as the listing of government and mutual organisations with large shareholder bases saw the outsourcing model evolve over time.

While initially the outsourced function was provided by accounting firms which already had relationships with companies (mainly through the audit process), industry consolidation started to occur when specialised outsourcing companies (mainly with an IT focus) started to build scale.

Notable industry consolidation in the last couple of decades in Australia includes:

KPMG Registry (Jul-97) Computershare

Ernst & Young Registry (Jul-97) Computershare

Coopers & Lybrand Registry Services (Sep-98) Link Market Services

BT Registries (Aug-01) Computershare

Pitcher Partners Registry (Apr-04) Link Market Services

Following years of consolidation, the registry services market has been reduced to two dominant players focused on companies listed in the ASX/S&P200. While a number of other registry service providers exist in the market, the scale of their operations limits these providers to only a few large companies and the small end of the market, which only requires a basic, and cheaper, service offering.

In December 2009, Link Market Services made an offer to acquire Newreg Pty Ltd, the parent company of Registries Limited, the #3 player in the Australian registry service provider market. However, in March 2009, the ACCC announced that it would oppose the proposed transaction, having formed the view that the acquisition would be ‘likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the national market for the provision of securities registration and related services’.

Registries Limited was subsequently purchased by one of its major shareholders, and rebranded to the parent company’s name, Boardroom Limited.

36



Competitor profiles

Computershare Investor Services (CPU.AX)

Computershare is a provider of registry and financial services to companies in Australia, Asia, North America, Europe and Africa. Computershare provides services to over 100 million security holders worldwide, and holds a dominant position in the Australian market. A/NZ contributes ~15% to overall group revenue.

Link Market Services (LNK.AX)

Link Market Services Limited is a provider of registry and financial services to companies in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India. The company was previously a JV between the Australian Stock Exchange Limited and Perpetual Limited before being acquired by Pacific Equity Partners in 2005 for A$132m.

Boardroom

Boardroom Limited is a provider of registry and financial services to companies in Australia and Asia. In Australia, Boardroom Limited (previously known as Registries Limited) has been operating since 1983 and has more recently increased its market share to ~5% of the market. In 2012, Boardroom Limited announced a collaboration with Capita Registrars Limited, a UK’s registry provider.

Other

Security Transfer RegistrarsSecurity Transfer Registrars is a provider of share registry services to Australian companies with a small market capitalisation. Security Transfer Registrars has been operating in Australia since 1983.

Advanced Share Registry Limited (ASW.AX)Advanced Share Registry Limited is a provider of share registry services to over 170 clients located throughout Australia and in a select number of overseas markets. Advanced Share Registry Limited has been operating since 1996 and primarily services small to medium sized resource companies. In July 2009, Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Limited (SOL.AX) took a placement of two million shares in the company and purchased a further two million shares from the founder and major shareholder. SOL now holds 10.5% of share capital in the company. Link Market Services also has a 9.7% holding of ASW.

37



Key Share Registry Providers Competition Analysis – Major Markets

In 2004

NOW

Source: Company reports, J.P. Morgan estimates. Note: GSA stands for Global Share Alliance

38



J.P. Morgan Australian Registry Services Survey 2016/2017

39



40



41



42



43



44



Australian Share Registry Service Provider – Employee Share Plan Survey 2017

45



46



Analyst Certification: The research analyst(s) denoted by an “AC” on the cover of this report certifies (or, where multiple research analysts are primarily responsible for this report, the research analyst denoted by an “AC” on the cover or within the document individually certifies, with respect to each security or issuer that the research analyst covers in this research) that: (1) all of the views expressed in this report accurately reflect his or her personal views about any and all of the subject securities or issuers; and (2) no part of any of the research analyst's compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the research analyst(s) in this report. For all Korea-based research analysts listed on the front cover, they also certify, as per KOFIA requirements, that their analysis was made in good faith and that the views reflect their own opinion, without undue influence or intervention.

Important Disclosures

Company-Specific Disclosures: Important disclosures, including price charts and credit opinion history tables, are available for compendium reports and all J.P. Morgan–covered companies by visiting https://jpmm.com/research/disclosures, calling 1-800-477-0406, or e-mailing [email protected] with your request. J.P. Morgan’s Strategy, Technical, and Quantitative Research teams may screen companies not covered by J.P. Morgan. For important disclosures for these companies, please call 1-800-477-0406 or e-mail [email protected].

Explanation of Equity Research Ratings, Designations and Analyst(s) Coverage Universe: J.P. Morgan uses the following rating system: Overweight [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will outperform the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] Neutral [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will perform in line with the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] Underweight [Over the next six to twelve months, we expect this stock will underperform the average total return of the stocks in the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team’s) coverage universe.] Not Rated (NR): J.P. Morgan has removed the rating and, if applicable, the price target, for this stock because of either a lack of a sufficient fundamental basis or for legal, regulatory or policy reasons. The previous rating and, if applicable, the price target, no longer should be relied upon. An NR designation is not a recommendation or a rating. In our Asia (ex-Australia) and U.K. small- and mid-cap equity research, each stock’s expected total return is compared to the expected total return of a benchmark country market index, not to those analysts’ coverage universe. If it does not appear in the Important Disclosures section of this report, the certifying analyst’s coverage universe can be found on J.P. Morgan’s research website, www.jpmorganmarkets.com.

Coverage Universe: Parameswaran, Siddharth: AMP Limited (AMP.AX), ASX Ltd (ASX.AX), Challenger Limited (CGF.AX), Computershare Limited (CPU.AX), IOOF Holdings Limited (IFL.AX), Insurance Australia Group (IAG.AX), Medibank Private Limited (MPL.AX), NIB Holdings Limited (NHF.AX), QBE Insurance Group (QBE.AX), Steadfast Group LTD (SDF.AX), Suncorp Group Ltd (SUN.AX)

J.P. Morgan Equity Research Ratings Distribution, as of July 03, 2017

Overweight(buy)

Neutral(hold)

Underweight(sell)

J.P. Morgan Global Equity Research Coverage 44% 45% 11%IB clients* 52% 50% 31%

JPMS Equity Research Coverage 44% 50% 6%IB clients* 68% 65% 46%

*Percentage of investment banking clients in each rating category.For purposes only of FINRA/NYSE ratings distribution rules, our Overweight rating falls into a buy rating category; our Neutral rating falls into a hold rating category; and our Underweight rating falls into a sell rating category. Please note that stocks with an NR designation are not included in the table above.

Equity Valuation and Risks: For valuation methodology and risks associated with covered companies or price targets for covered companies, please see the most recent company-specific research report at http://www.jpmorganmarkets.com, contact the primary analyst or your J.P. Morgan representative, or email [email protected].

Equity Analysts' Compensation: The equity research analysts responsible for the preparation of this report receive compensation based upon various factors, including the quality and accuracy of research, client feedback, competitive factors, and overall firm revenues.

Registration of non-US Analysts: Unless otherwise noted, the non-US analysts listed on the front of this report are employees of non-US affiliates of JPMS, are not registered/qualified as research analysts under NASD/NYSE rules, may not be associated persons of JPMS, and may not be subject to FINRA Rule 2241 restrictions on communications with covered companies, public appearances, and trading securities held by a research analyst account.

Other Disclosures

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jpmorganmarkets.com/



https://jpmm.com/research/disclosures

47



J.P. Morgan ("JPM") is the global brand name for J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("JPMS") and its affiliates worldwide. J.P. Morgan Cazenove is a marketing name for the U.K. investment banking businesses and EMEA cash equities and equity research businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries.

All research reports made available to clients are simultaneously available on our client website, J.P. Morgan Markets. Not all research content is redistributed, e-mailed or made available to third-party aggregators. For all research reports available on a particular stock, please contact your sales representative.

Options related research: If the information contained herein regards options related research, such information is available only to persons who have received the proper option risk disclosure documents. For a copy of the Option Clearing Corporation's Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, please contact your J.P. Morgan Representative or visit the OCC's website at http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/risks/riskstoc.pdf

Legal Entities Disclosures U.S.: JPMS is a member of NYSE, FINRA, SIPC and the NFA. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a member of FDIC. U.K.: JPMorgan Chase N.A., London Branch, is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and is subject to regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and to limited regulation by the Prudential Regulation Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Prudential Regulation Authority are available from J.P. Morgan on request. J.P. Morgan Securities plc (JPMS plc) is a member of the London Stock Exchange and is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Registered in England & Wales No. 2711006. Registered Office 25 Bank Street, London, E14 5JP. South Africa: J.P. Morgan Equities South Africa Proprietary Limited is a member of the Johannesburg Securities Exchange and is regulated by the Financial Services Board. Hong Kong: J.P. Morgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited (CE number AAJ321) is regulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong and/or J.P. Morgan Broking (Hong Kong) Limited (CE number AAB027) is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Korea: This material is issued and distributed in Korea by or through J.P. Morgan Securities (Far East) Limited, Seoul Branch, which is a member of the Korea Exchange(KRX) and is regulated by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). Australia: J.P. Morgan Australia Limited (JPMAL) (ABN 52 002 888 011/AFS Licence No: 238188) is regulated by ASIC and J.P. Morgan Securities Australia Limited (JPMSAL) (ABN 61 003 245 234/AFS Licence No: 238066) is regulated by ASIC and is a Market, Clearing and Settlement Participant of ASX Limited and CHI-X. Taiwan: J.P.Morgan Securities (Taiwan) Limited is a participant of the Taiwan Stock Exchange (company-type) and regulated by the Taiwan Securities and Futures Bureau. India: J.P. Morgan India Private Limited (Corporate Identity Number - U67120MH1992FTC068724), having its registered office at J.P. Morgan Tower, Off. C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz - East, Mumbai – 400098, is registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a ‘Research Analyst’ having registration number INH000001873. J.P. Morgan India Private Limited is also registered with SEBI as a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (SEBI Registration Number - INB 230675231/INF 230675231/INE 230675231), the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (SEBI Registration Number - INB 010675237/INF 010675237) and as a Merchant Banker (SEBI Registration Number - MB/INM000002970). Telephone: 91-22-6157 3000, Facsimile: 91-22-6157 3990 and Website: www.jpmipl.com. For non local research reports, this material is not distributed in India by J.P. Morgan India Private Limited. Thailand: This material is issued and distributed in Thailand by JPMorgan Securities (Thailand) Ltd., which is a member of the Stock Exchange of Thailand and is regulated by the Ministry of Finance and the Securities and Exchange Commission and its registered address is 3rd Floor, 20 North Sathorn Road, Silom, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500. Indonesia: PT J.P. Morgan Securities Indonesia is a member of the Indonesia Stock Exchange and is regulated by the OJK a.k.a. BAPEPAM LK. Philippines: J.P. Morgan Securities Philippines Inc. is a Trading Participant of the Philippine Stock Exchange and a member of the Securities Clearing Corporation of the Philippines and the Securities Investor Protection Fund. It is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Brazil: Banco J.P. Morgan S.A. is regulated by the Comissao de Valores Mobiliarios (CVM) and by the Central Bank of Brazil. Mexico: J.P. Morgan Casa de Bolsa, S.A. de C.V., J.P. Morgan Grupo Financiero is a member of the Mexican Stock Exchange and authorized to act as a broker dealer by the National Banking and Securities Exchange Commission. Singapore: This material is issued and distributed in Singapore by or through J.P. Morgan Securities Singapore Private Limited (JPMSS) [MCI (P) 202/03/2017 and Co. Reg. No.: 199405335R], which is a member of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited and/or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Singapore branch (JPMCB Singapore) [MCI (P) 089/09/2016], both of which are regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. This material is issued and distributed in Singapore only to accredited investors, expert investors and institutional investors, as defined in Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act, Cap. 289 (SFA). This material is not intended to be issued or distributed to any retail investors or any other investors that do not fall into the classes of “accredited investors,” “expert investors” or “institutional investors,” as defined under Section 4A of the SFA. Recipients of this document are to contact JPMSS or JPMCB Singapore in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, the document. Japan: JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Tokyo Branch are regulated by the Financial Services Agency in Japan. Malaysia: This material is issued and distributed in Malaysia by JPMorgan Securities (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (18146-X) which is a Participating Organization of Bursa Malaysia Berhad and a holder of Capital Markets Services License issued by the Securities Commission in Malaysia. Pakistan: J. P. Morgan Pakistan Broking (Pvt.) Ltd is a member of the Karachi Stock Exchange and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia: J.P. Morgan Saudi Arabia Ltd. is authorized by the Capital Market Authority of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (CMA) to carry out dealing as an agent, arranging, advising and custody, with respect to securities business under licence number 35-07079 and its registered address is at 8th Floor, Al-Faisaliyah Tower, King Fahad Road, P.O. Box 51907, Riyadh 11553, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dubai: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Dubai Branch is regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) and its registered address is Dubai International Financial Centre - Building 3, Level 7, PO Box 506551, Dubai, UAE.

Country and Region Specific Disclosures U.K. and European Economic Area (EEA): Unless specified to the contrary, issued and approved for distribution in the U.K. and the EEA by JPMS plc. Investment research issued by JPMS plc has been prepared in accordance with JPMS plc's policies for managing conflicts of interest arising as a result of publication and distribution of investment research. Many European regulators require a firm to establish, implement and maintain such a policy. Further information about J.P. Morgan's conflict of interest policy and a description of the effective internal organisations and administrative arrangements set up for the prevention and avoidance of conflicts of interest is set out at the following link https://www.jpmorgan.com/jpmpdf/1320678075935.pdf. This report has been issued in the U.K. only to persons of a kind described in Article 19 (5), 38, 47 and 49 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (all such persons being referred to as "relevant persons"). This document must not be acted on or relied on by persons who are not relevant persons. Any investment or investment activity to which this document relates is only available to relevant persons and will be engaged in only with relevant persons. In other EEA countries, the report has been issued to persons regarded as professional investors (or equivalent) in their home jurisdiction. Australia: This material is issued and distributed by JPMSAL in Australia to "wholesale clients" only. This material does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of the recipient. The recipient of this material must not distribute it to any

https://www.jpmorgan.com/jpmpdf/1320678075935.pdf

http://www.jpmipl.com/

http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/risks/riskstoc.pdf

48



third party or outside Australia without the prior written consent of JPMSAL. For the purposes of this paragraph the term "wholesale client" has the meaning given in section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. Germany: This material is distributed in Germany by J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Frankfurt Branch which is regulated by the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht. Hong Kong: The 1% ownership disclosure as of the previous month end satisfies the requirements under Paragraph 16.5(a) of the Hong Kong Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission. (For research published within the first ten days of the month, the disclosure may be based on the month end data from two months prior.) J.P. Morgan Broking (Hong Kong) Limited is the liquidity provider/market maker for derivative warrants, callable bull bear contracts and stock options listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited. An updated list can be found on HKEx website: http://www.hkex.com.hk. Japan: There is a risk that a loss may occur due to a change in the price of the shares in the case of share trading, and that a loss may occur due to the exchange rate in the case of foreign share trading. In the case of share trading, JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd., will be receiving a brokerage fee and consumption tax (shouhizei) calculated by multiplying the executed price by the commission rate which was individually agreed between JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd., and the customer in advance. Financial Instruments Firms: JPMorgan Securities Japan Co., Ltd., Kanto Local Finance Bureau (kinsho) No. 82 Participating Association / Japan Securities Dealers Association, The Financial Futures Association of Japan, Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association and Japan Investment Advisers Association. Korea: This report may have been edited or contributed to from time to time by affiliates of J.P. Morgan Securities (Far East) Limited, Seoul Branch. Singapore: As at the date of this report, JPMSS is a designated market maker for certain structured warrants listed on the Singapore Exchange where the underlying securities may be the securities discussed in this report. Arising from its role as designated market maker for such structured warrants, JPMSS may conduct hedging activities in respect of such underlying securities and hold or have an interest in such underlying securities as a result. The updated list of structured warrants for which JPMSS acts as designated market maker may be found on the website of the Singapore Exchange Limited: http://www.sgx.com.sg. In addition, JPMSS and/or its affiliates may also have an interest or holding in any of the securities discussed in this report – please see the Important Disclosures section above. For securities where the holding is 1% or greater, the holding may be found in the Important Disclosures section above. For all other securities mentioned in this report, JPMSS and/or its affiliates may have a holding of less than 1% in such securities and may trade them in ways different from those discussed in this report. Employees of JPMSS and/or its affiliates not involved in the preparation of this report may have investments in the securities (or derivatives of such securities) mentioned in this report and may trade them in ways different from those discussed in this report. Taiwan: This material is issued and distributed in Taiwan by J.P. Morgan Securities (Taiwan) Limited. According to Paragraph 2, Article 7-1 of Operational Regulations Governing Securities Firms Recommending Trades in Securities to Customers (as amended or supplemented) and/or other applicable laws or regulations, please note that the recipient of this material is not permitted to engage in any activities in connection with the material which may give rise to conflicts of interests, unless otherwise disclosed in the “Important Disclosures” in this material. India: For private circulation only, not for sale. Pakistan: For private circulation only, not for sale. New Zealand: This material is issued and distributed by JPMSAL in New Zealand only to persons whose principal business is the investment of money or who, in the course of and for the purposes of their business, habitually invest money. JPMSAL does not issue or distribute this material to members of "the public" as determined in accordance with section 3 of the Securities Act 1978. The recipient of this material must not distribute it to any third party or outside New Zealand without the prior written consent of JPMSAL. Canada: The information contained herein is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, a prospectus, an advertisement, a public offering, an offer to sell securities described herein, or solicitation of an offer to buy securities described herein, in Canada or any province or territory thereof. Any offer or sale of the securities described herein in Canada will be made only under an exemption from the requirements to file a prospectus with the relevant Canadian securities regulators and only by a dealer properly registered under applicable securities laws or, alternatively, pursuant to an exemption from the dealer registration requirement in the relevant province or territory of Canada in which such offer or sale is made. The information contained herein is under no circumstances to be construed as investment advice in any province or territory of Canada and is not tailored to the needs of the recipient. To the extent that the information contained herein references securities of an issuer incorporated, formed or created under the laws of Canada or a province or territory of Canada, any trades in such securities must be conducted through a dealer registered in Canada. No securities commission or similar regulatory authority in Canada has reviewed or in any way passed judgment upon these materials, the information contained herein or the merits of the securities described herein, and any representation to the contrary is an offence. Dubai: This report has been issued to persons regardedas professional clients as defined under the DFSA rules. Brazil: Ombudsman J.P. Morgan: 0800-7700847 / [email protected].

General: Additional information is available upon request. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but JPMorgan Chase & Co. or its affiliates and/or subsidiaries (collectively J.P. Morgan) do not warrant its completeness or accuracy except with respect to any disclosures relative to JPMS and/or its affiliates and the analyst's involvement with the issuer that is the subject of the research. All pricing is indicative as of the close of market for the securities discussed, unless otherwise stated. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. The opinions and recommendations herein do not take into account individual client circumstances, objectives, or needs and are not intended as recommendations of particular securities, financial instruments or strategies to particular clients. The recipient of this report must make its own independent decisions regarding any securities or financial instruments mentioned herein. JPMS distributes in the U.S. research published by non-U.S. affiliates and accepts responsibility for its contents. Periodic updates may be provided on companies/industries based on company specific developments or announcements, market conditions or any other publicly available information. Clients should contact analysts and execute transactions through a J.P. Morgan subsidiary or affiliate in their home jurisdiction unless governing law permits otherwise.

"Other Disclosures" last revised July 01, 2017.

Copyright 2017 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This report or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. #$J&098$#*P

http://www.sgx.com.sg/

2017 Australian Registry & ESP Provider Survey Report Share... · 2017 Australian Registry & ESP...

Documents

Transcript of 2017 Australian Registry & ESP Provider Survey Report Share... · 2017 Australian Registry & ESP...