THE STUDY GIVES ME

INSIGHTFUL PERSPECTIVES
ON NEW OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES.

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017

Insights into market dynamics, financial dynamics and other factors.
CONTENTS
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................3

OUR METHODOLOGY AND KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................... 4

DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES DEMAND DIFFERENT CONTROL PREMIUMS ..............8

CASH OR SCRIP: DOES CONSIDERATION TYPE MATTER?........................................ 10

TIMING WITHIN THE ECONOMIC CYCLE ..............................................................................12

THE TOEHOLD..................................................................................................................................... 15

SIZE DOES MATTER .........................................................................................................................16

BEHAVIOUR OF THE ACQUIRER IN DETERMINING THE OFFER PRICE............... 18

About RSM
OUR DEDICATED CORPORATE FINANCE PROFESSIONALS OFFER
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE AND EXCEPTIONAL INDUSTRY AND TECHNICAL
SKILLS TO ASSIST YOU IN MAKING STRATEGIC BUSINESS DECISIONS.

We provide intelligent, rigorous and independent services across:

ƒƒ Mergers, acquisitions and business divestment
ƒƒ Transaction support and due diligence
ƒƒ Capital market support
ƒƒ Financial model construction and review
ƒƒ Litigation support and forensic investigation
ƒƒ Valuation and expert reports

For further information regarding any aspect of RSM’s Control Premium Study, please
contact one of our team below.

Andy Gilmour (Perth)

E: andy.gilmour@rsm.com.au
T: +61 8 9261 9447

Glyn Yates (Melbourne)

E: glyn.yates@rsm.com.au
T: +61 3 9286 8167

Ian Douglas (Sydney)

E: ian.douglas@rsm.com.au
T: +61 2 8226 4551

2 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

FOREWORD
Welcome to RSM’s 2017 Control Premium Study.

In 2010 we released our inaugural study in which we analysed

the implied control premiums observed in 212 successful
takeovers and schemes of arrangement completed between
1 July 2005 and 30 June 2010. In 2013 we expanded our data
set to 345 transactions, covering the 7 year period ended
30 June 2012.

In this study, we have updated our analysis to include successful

takeovers from the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Financial Years
(FY), together with takeover offers initiated prior to the end of
FY2016 and now successfully completed. This additional data has
expanded our data set to 463 transactions covering the 11 year
period ended 30 June 2016.

The results of our analysis indicate that control premiums were

influenced by a number of factors including:

ƒƒ Industry sector

ƒƒ Consideration type

ƒƒ Timing within the economic cycle

ƒƒ Toehold (extent of existing acquirer holding in the target)

ƒƒ Size/market capitalisation

ƒƒ The relationship between the prior 52-week high and

the initial level of offer tabled

When considering change of control transactions, the control

premium is a fundamental component of value and when faced
with a volatile economic environment, it is critical that directors
and investors duly consider this component when assessing
equity values for potential Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A)
transactions over FY2017 and beyond.

We hope you find the results of our study of

interest and value. Should you seek further
information or wish to discuss our findings in
more detail, please contact the authors.
Andy Gilmour, Glyn Yates and Ian Douglas

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 3

 OUR METHODOLOGY AND
KEY FINDINGS

METHODOLOGY
RSM has analysed successful takeover offers and
schemes of arrangement completed between 1 July 2005
and 30 June 2016 for companies listed on the Australian
Securities Exchange (ASX).

We have calculated the implied control premium as (offer price

– share price)/share price, based on the closing share price
of the target company at 20, 5 and 2 days pre and post
the announcement of the offer. Our analysis and commentary
is, however, primarily focused on 20 day pre-bid premiums,
which, in our view, are less likely to be influenced by bid
speculation. Accordingly, we consider the 20 day pre-bid
data as providing the most reliable observation of any control
premium implicit in the transaction.

In the period of our review, we observed a total of

617 transactions. Of these, 154 transactions were excluded
due to insufficient available data to calculate control premiums
based on pre-bid share prices.

Where the offer included scrip of the acquiring entity,

the closing share price of the acquirer on the day of the offer
has been used to calculate the value of the offer.

In our 2010 study we commented that the control premium

distribution resembles a “bell-shaped” curve. The data,
however, is not within generally accepted limits of a “normal
distribution” in either the original studies or the new overall
sample, which is more abnormal. Consistent with our former
studies, the 2017 results exhibit bunching, fat tails and a
positive skew. The most noticeable consequence of this
data pattern is that median values lie consistently below
the average (mean). However, the directional findings, whether
using averages or medians, are largely unaffected, especially
when compared with the holistic data set.

4 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

KEY FINDINGS
2013 study v 2017 study – a comparison

ƒƒ The average implied control premium at 20 days pre- ƒƒ Scrip deals, which offer “relative” consideration,
bid for the Australian market lies at 34.5% (based continue to attract lower premiums than cash only deals,
on transactions completed in the period FY2005 – where consideration is absolute. However, the average
FY2016). We note this is 0.8% lower than the average control premium for scrip deals has increased 1.4% since
control premium observed in our 2013 study of our 2013 study to 31.3% for the 11 year period ended
transactions completed in the 7 years to FY2012. FY2016. Conversely, the average control premium for
cash only deals has decreased 1.9% to 35.9% in our
ƒƒ The median control premium offered at 20 days pre-
current study. This trend reflects a rising popularity
bid in Australian transactions has also decreased from
of scrip deals for small transactions and in volatile
29.0% in our previous study to 27.0% in our 2017 study.
industries such as mining and exploration which,
This represents a decrease in control premiums in
we note, represent a larger proportion of transactions
the four years ending FY2016.
in the FY2013 to FY2016 financial years as compared to
ƒƒ The average implied control premium peaked at 45.9% prior periods.
in FY2010, before experiencing a moderate decrease
ƒƒ Size matters - there appears to be a strong negative
to 40.1% in FY2011, 39.5% in FY2012 through to 28.3%
correlation between market capitalisation and the level
in FY2016.
of control premium paid. Our analysis shows the control
ƒƒ Consistent with our previous studies, observed premium declines as target market capitalisation
premiums continue to fall in the days immediately increases and that the control premium is appreciably
pre-bid, which may indicate bid speculation higher in transactions involving targets with a market
and / or information leakage in the market. capitalisation of less than $50 million.
ƒƒ Industry sector continues to significantly influence ƒƒ Behaviour of acquirer - The similarity between
the control premium required to complete a successful the 52 week high of the target’s share price prior to
transaction. Sectors that are traditionally priced and the announcement of the offer and the offer price
valued on upside potential revealed considerably higher indicates that there is a clear correlation between
premiums (e.g. metals and mining, biotechnology the two.
and energy) than those where valuations are more
typically limited to asset base (e.g. real estate and
financial institutions).

Increase /
Control Premiums 2013 Study 2017 Study
(Decrease)
Number of transactions 345 463 118
Average Control Premium
20 days pre announcement 35.3% 34.5% (0.8%)
5 days pre announcement 29.3% 28.3% (1.0%)
2 days pre announcement 26.5% 26.4% (0.1%)
Median Control Premium
20 days pre announcement 29.0% 27.0% (2.0%)
5 days pre announcement 29.3% 23.3% (6.0%)

2 days pre announcement 26.5% 21.1% (5.4%)

Average and median control premiums 2013 & 2017 studies

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 5

6 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017
 Average and median control premiums by financial year of bid as at 20 days Pre-Bid

Financial Year

CONCLUSION

In this study we have explored factors relating that fuels risk appetite, and helps drive share prices. Thus we
do not find it surprising that our analysis indicates there is a
to the target, which may exercise influence clear correlation between the offer price in M&A transactions
on the control premium required to be offered and the prior 52-week share price high of the target
to shareholders of ASX listed companies company, as the 52-week high could be perceived to provide
both a familiar and recent benchmark of value to acquirers
to encourage them to approve change of and acquirees alike.
control transactions.
In our opinion the control premium is influenced by these
factors and to varying degrees, at different times within
Our results indicate that certain attributes such as industry the economic cycle. The post- GFC commodity boom saw
sector and size affect or influence the observed control control premiums at their highest levels between FY2009
premium. Other factors such as consideration type and and FY2012. Since that time,control premiums have been
capital structure may influence the control premium in their trending back towards pre-GFC levels, so it will be interesting
own right, but we consider the distinction between primary to see what level of control premiums are paid in FY2017 and
and derivative influence is difficult to assess. beyond.

Interestingly, our analysis shows that existing knowledge of

a target (as a consequence of a toehold) can lead acquirers
to pay significantly higher premiums than are otherwise
observed – perhaps as a result of lower perceived business
risk in the transaction.

Finally, underlying the specifics is the external influence of

the economic cycle, which creates the fear and optimism

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 7

DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES
DEMAND DIFFERENT CONTROL PREMIUM
Our analysis highlights the considerable variability in average In both our 2013 analysis and our latest study,
pre-bid control premiums across different industry sectors.
While control premiums for nearly all industry sectors the bid price appears to “anchor” on the asset
reduced slightly in our current study on both an average and value, but stocks that were previously acquired
median basis, we observed an increase in the 20 days pre-bid at a modest premium to asset value are now
premiums in the metals and mining and energy sectors from
our 2013 study. being acquired at a discount. It seems that
the reduction in real estate control premiums
Sectors such as metals and mining, health care and from 20.7% in our 2013 study to 16.9% may
telecommunications, IT and software exhibit above average reflect the broader perception of asset
control premiums (ranging between 30% and 40%) whereas
control premiums in the real estate, industrials and banks
values returning to their normal valuation,
and diversified financials sectors exhibit a tight range around following a period of perceived undervaluation
15% to 25%. Control premiums observed for energy stocks immediately post GFC – particularly in the real
begin above the overall average at 20 days pre-bid and 5
days pre-bid but fall rapidly to below the average 2-days
estate sector.
pre bid suggesting a high level of bid speculation relating to
The variability in control premium between industry sectors
these stocks.
means the relative proportion of transactions from different
industries has a major bearing on the overall average control
The higher premiums in the metals and mining, energy, premium observed. We note, however, that the split of
technology and health care sectors may suggest that transactions across sectors has not varied greatly since our
bidders in these sectors are focusing on the future cash flow previous study. Our data suggests that cyclical / volatile
potential of businesses. However, buyers of financial and sectors such as metals and mining (28.9%), energy (12.5%)
property stocks are paying only for assets in place. These and technology (8.9%) combine to represent 50.3% of
conclusions are broadly supported by the typical valuation transactions. It could be argued that such a high proportion
methods used in these sectors and a comparison of control of transactions from these sectors may lead to control
premium to price-to-book ratios where assets tend to be premiums in the Australian market varying more over time.
“marked-to-market”. For example, in our latest study, pre-
bid real estate stocks were trading at a price-to-book ratio
of 1.0x and attracting an average control premium of 16.9%,
whereas in the 2013 study, the average control premium was
20.7% and the price-to-book ratio 0.8x.

8 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

 Our analysis highlights the considerable
variability in average pre-bid control
premiums across different industry
sectors.

Number of Average Control premium

Industry
transactions 20 5 2

Metals & Mining 134 35.8% 32.4% 29.9%

Energy 58 37.6% 29.7% 25.0%
Health Care 23 41.2% 43.5% 39.2%
Real Estate 30 16.9% 15.6% 14.2%
Banks and Diversified Financials 34 23.4% 22.2% 24.4%
Industrials 52 38.6% 28.7% 25.7%
Telecommunications, IT & Software 41 46.2% 30.6% 35.4%
Other 91 31.0% 22.7% 20.1%

Average control premium (FY2006 – FY2016) segmented by industry

Median Control Premium by Industry

41.1%

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 9

CASH OR SCRIP:
DOES CONSIDERATION TYPE MATTER?

Cash remains the most popular form of consideration, with Our current study reinforces the findings of our previous
the relative proportion of 100% cash takeovers increasing studies that control premiums in cash transactions are higher
compared to other forms of consideration. Cash accounted than scrip transactions. The average control premium at 20
for 317 (68.5%) of the transactions in our current data set days pre-bid in cash transactions was 35.9%, considerably
which compares 67.5% in our 2013 study. Scrip transactions higher than scrip and scrip/cash transactions, where the
fell as a percentage of overall transactions in the current observed premiums were 31.3% and 31.2% respectively.
study from 24.5% to 23.5% with 109 transactions completed
using scrip only consideration. The remaining 37 transactions Cash is an absolute measure of consideration whereas scrip
comprised both cash and scrip. is relative. This may explain why control premiums in scrip
transactions appear to be lower than cash transactions as:
Transactions by consideration type
ƒƒ From a business-specific perspective, target
shareholders can expect to participate in synergistic
Cash/Scrip 8.0% gains in the combined entity.
ƒƒ From a general market risk perspective target
shareholders effectively receive an option to benefit
from market risk volatility.
Scrip 23.5%

We note that the average control premium

for scrip has increased by more than 1% in
comparison to the 2013 study, however it is likely
Cash 68.5%
this is simply attributable to a change in industry
mix in which the transactions have occurred.

10 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

 Control premiums segmented by consideration type current
versus previous study
(average and median premiums measured at 20 days pre-bid)

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 11

TIMING WITHIN THE ECONOMIC CYCLE
The expansion of our dataset has enabled us to perform ƒƒ Following a period of relatively high activity and lower
an analysis of the control premiums over 11 financial premiums from FY2006-FY2008, FY2009 saw average
years, during which time Australia experienced a and median control premiums both rise considerably on
mining boom (2005 –2012), the global financial crisis low transaction volumes.
(2007- 2009) and the recent post-boom ‘hangover’
ƒƒ In FY2010, the average control premium continued to
(2013-current). Our analysis provides further insight as to
rise and peaked at an average of 45.9% and median
how control premiums have fared through these distinct
of 42.9%.
economic periods.
ƒƒ In FY2011, the average control premium began to
Our expanded analysis indicates: contract, reducing to 40.1% and again to 39.5% in
FY2012.
ƒƒ The number of completed transactions peaked at 68 ƒƒ From FY2013 onwards, a period of reduced transaction
during FY2007 and fell to a low of 25 in FY2009 as capital activity has occurred while average premiums
markets effectively froze during the GFC. Transaction have returned to normal levels, near the 34.5%
levels then rose in parallel with the mining boom through 11 year average.
FY2010 (45) , FY2011 (61) and FY2012 (52) before falling
back to levels seen during the GFC in FY2013 (26),
FY2014 (37), FY2015 (26) and FY2016 (29).
ƒƒ The lowest average control premium of 25.7% was in
2008, while the lowest median control premium of 14.0%
was in 2013.

Average and median control premiums by financial year of bid

as at 20 days Pre-Bid

Financial Year

12 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

We consider that several factors explain the control premium ƒƒ In FY2013, a dramatic fall in commodity prices brought
volatility over the 11 year period analysed, namely: about an end to the mining boom in which the lowest
annual median control premium of 14.0% was recorded.
ƒƒ In FY2008, the lowest average control premiums This reflected a higher number of outliers in the sample
recorded coincided with the ASX reaching record levels, as well as potentially, a sense of uncertainty among
as acquirers appeared to baulk at paying ‘normal’ acquirers due to the volatility of commodity prices.
premiums over traded share price. This may have ƒƒ Since 2013, median control premiums have returned
reflected a belief that a certain premium was already to normal levels while average control premiums
inherent in the share prices with the ASX at all-time have gravitated around the 11 year average of 34.5%
highs during this time. as Australia contemplates the post-mining boom
ƒƒ Equally, while the ASX and other global markets ‘hangover’ and which industries might fill the void
continued to fall heavily during the GFC (circa 2009), left by resources. It will be interesting to see how
average and median control premiums increased as control premiums perform as the Australian economy
buyers may have considered fair value in the context of endeavours to navigate this new economic cycle and
lower traded market prices and were therefore willing to stimulate growth, particularly given the uncertain global
pay a higher premium. political climate brought about by recent election results
in traditionally stable countries such as the United
ƒƒ The ASX recovered strongly in FY2010 increasing from States and the United Kingdom.
lows of circa 3,200 to 5,000 points and with that, came
a sense of optimism that the GFC may be over. In that
environment and with share prices yet to reach their
FY2008 highs, buyers appeared to look beyond share
prices to future cash flows and were willing to pay a
higher premium in order to get deals done. By FY2011,
optimism had waned and control premiums pulled back
with acquirers becoming more cautious.
ƒƒ The impact of an active metals & mining sector in
FY2010, FY2011, FY2012 (respectively 35.6%, 27.9%
and 32.7% of all transactions) has influenced the control
premium, which, in this sector, has been impacted by
exchange rates. In essence capital provision in mining is
highly internationalised and the attractiveness of deals
relates in part to the AUD/USD exchange rate. The rate
rose from between $0.77 and $0.94 in FY10 to between
$0.94 and $1.10 in FY2012. In those 3 financial years the
average control premium for mining at 20 days pre-bid
fell from 48.5% to 22.4% and the median from 37.0% to
21.4%, illustrating how international competitiveness
may also impact the level of premium available to
acquiree shareholders. Conversely, in the period
subsequent to FY2012 the AUD/USD exchange rate has
fallen to a range of $0.70 to $0.77 in FY2016; which was
met with a corresponding rise in control premiums in the
mining sector, with an average and medium premium
of 36.8% respectively. The movement in the premium
in this sector, given the relatively high proportion of
mining transactions, has accordingly impacted the overall
premium.

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 13

14 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017
THE TOEHOLD
Our most recent study confirms our finding in the previous The table below indicates that the highest average and
studies that control premiums vary considerably based on median premiums are paid when the existing shareholder’s
the level of existing shareholding in the target, with higher toehold is between 10 - 20%; being 40.4% and 33.3%
premiums being paid when acquirers have a material stake in respectively. This would indicate that existing shareholders
the target. Our analysis indicates when buyers already hold are prepared to pay the highest premium when it results in
between 10% and 50% of the target’s equity, the average their stake increasing from being a substantial shareholder
control premium is around 40% and the median between to having significant influence, or a greater than 20% interest.
30% and 35%. In contrast, when the acquirer has a lesser or When the existing shareholder already has significant
no shareholding, the average premium is around 30% and influence, they may not be prepared to pay as higher premium
the median premium in the range of 20% to 25%. to simply increase this influence or they may already have
enough influence to be able influence the shareholder vote in
Our findings are consistent with the view that, when their favour.
considering a change of control transaction, an existing
shareholder, who may well have board representation, is likely
to be better informed and more committed to the target.

The knowledge of operational strengths

and potential of the business, together with
the associated ability to quantify the risks and
rewards of ownership are likely to be amongst
the factors which lead the informed buyer
to pay more for perceived benefits of synergy.
In addition, behavioural finance research
has shown that greater commitment to a target
does lead to a greater degree of “optimism
bias” often leading managers to overestimate
their capabilities and to overpay for acquisitions.

Number of Average Control Medium Control

Toehold
transactions premium premium

0 189 29.85% 22.81%

>0%<=10% 42 31.81% 30.48%
>10%<=20% 137 40.42% 33.33%
>20%<=50% 56 36.89% 30.22%
>50% 39 35.31% 24.29%

Average and median control premium (FY2006 – FY2015) segmented by toehold

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 15

SIZE DOES MATTER
To explore the relationship between control premium and A range of factors may explain this trend including:
the size of the target, we have classified targets based on
their market capitalisation, and then analysed average and ƒƒ Larger firms are likely to be more heavily traded and
median control premiums for each band 2, 5, and 20 days closely scrutinised by analysts and market participants,
pre-bid. Market capitalisation was computed 20 days before than their smaller counterparts, which could lead to
bid announcement to mitigate any bid effects on value. Band share prices more accurately reflecting intrinsic value.
sizes of less than $25 million (m), $25m to $50m, $50m to
$100m, $100m to $500m and greater than $500m were used ƒƒ Smaller firms, by contrast, are less well followed
to achieve statistically reasonable sample sizes. In addition, by analysts and often less understood by market
breakdowns of less than $12.5m and greater than $1 billion participants and may be subject to discounts relating to
were computed to explore effects at the top and bottom of lower liquidity.
the spectrum.

Our results show that, as size increases, the size of the

control premium (average and median) decreases across all
bands at all of 20, 5 and 2 days pre-bid. Our analysis shows
that the starting values and the degree of change for the
bands is significant: for entities of less than $50m market
capitalisation both average and median control premium at
20 days pre-bid is above 40% whereas, for entities of greater
than $500m market capitalisation this value is less than 25%.

Average Control Premium by Market Capitalisation

16 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

 The control premium when
segmented by market
capitalisation is also influenced
by the industry mix within each
size band.

At the lower end of the spectrum (below The control premium when segmented by market
capitalisation is also influenced by the industry mix within
$100m) we generally see much greater
each size band. For example metals and mining represents
differences between median and average values 28.9% of overall transactions but 48.9% and 31.5%
suggesting considerable variability in control respectively of transactions within the less than $25m and
less than $50m bands. Energy, which represents 12.5% of
premiums offered with a significant number
overall transactions, constitutes 6.3% of transactions less
of upside outliers. than $25m, yet 16.7% when market capitalisations reach
up to $50m. Similarly, telecommunications, IT & software
Where market capitalisation was below $12.5m the premiums which represent 8.9% of total transactions, represent 17.0%
paid climb to 65% on an average basis at 20 days pre-bid, and of transactions less than $25m. As the control premium for
do not fall below 40% at any stage pre-announcement. Whilst metals and mining, telecommunications, IT & software and
the sample is small (43 entities) our suspicion is that, allied energy is generally higher than for other sectors, this mix
with illiquidity and valuation difficulties, these entities may be will tend to increase the premiums in these size bands. This
targeted for the value of their existing listing – effectively as is particularly apparent given that these firms are the early
“shell” companies. stage exploration and R&D companies, which consequently
makes it harder for the market to value them.

Median Control Premium by Market Capitalisation

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 17

BEHAVIOUR OF THE ACQUIRER
IN DETERMINING THE OFFER PRICE
Our analysis has predominantly centred on exploring One such factor considered in the 2009 US research paper
the relationship between fundamental factors and control A Reference Point Theory of Mergers and Acquisitions by
premiums. However, as deals are ultimately made by Baker, Pan and Wurgler is that a prior 52-week high which is
people rather than entities, it is reasonable to surmise that sufficiently close to the current market value to be relevant,
behavioural and psychological influences may also have may act as a key reference point for the bid price. This theory
a significant influence on the metrics. is supported by anecdotal evidence that the prior 52-week

Distribution of Bid Price around prior 52-week High (all data)

% Difference between bid price and prior 52-week share price high

18 | RSM Control Premium Study 2017

high is often reported in bidder and target statements We have also compared the relationship between
and in the press. In addition, there is logic and symmetry in
control premium and the extent to which the 52-
the argument that target and bidder boards, advisers and
shareholders in the thick of the action of the deal, and with week high exceeds the price 20 days pre-bid.
little time for detailed reflection, may “anchor” on a prior
52-week high as prima facie evidence of the underlying value From this analysis, we can see that when the
of a stock and the quantum of a bid which may need to be share price of the target 20 days pre-bid is at
offered to convince shareholders to relinquish control. or around the 52 week high, the average control
Accordingly, to examine this effect on bids, we have measured premiums tend to be lower, and when that share
the prior 52-week high relative to the price 20 days pre- price falls below the 52 week high, the average
bid to avoid any circularity associated with bid speculation, control premiums tend to increase.
and plotted the distribution of bid prices for all data around
the prior 52-week high, calculated as follows:

Bid price - Prior 52 week high

Prior 52 week high

Our analysis indicates the overall data set shows a tendency

for bid prices to be strongly correlated to the prior 52-week
high price level across the spectrum of transactions.

Not surprisingly, as bidders attempt to attract target

shareholders with an acceptable (but not overpriced) bid,
the highest level of bids is between 0% and 5% above
the prior 52 week high, and with 30% of bids between
+/- 10% of  the prior 52-week high.

Average & median control premium v prior 52-week High relative

to targets share price 20 days pre-bid

Prior 52-week share price high relative to targets share price 20 days pre-bid

CONTROL PREMIUM STUDY 2017 19

RSM Australia Pty Ltd is a member of the RSM network and trades as RSM.
RSM is the trading name used by the members of the RSM network.

Each member of the RSM network is an independent accounting and

consulting firm each of which practices in its own right. The RSM network is
not itself a separate legal entity of any description in any jurisdiction.

The RSM network is administered by RSM International Limited, a company

registered in England and Wales (company number 4040598) whose
registered office is at 50 Cannon Street, 2nd Floor, London EC4N 6JJ.

The brand and trademark RSM and other intellectual property rights used
by members of the network are owned by RSM International Association,
an association governed by article 60 et seq of the Civil Code of Switzerland
whose seat is in Zug.

© RSM International Association

rsm.com.au

Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation