No.
Only Hackett holds a SSN position @21.364M shares or 10.81%.
To trigger a SSN, one would need to hold >9.9M shares (>5%) based on 197,633,109 Stapled Securities on issue following the CVN conversion. Even if we were to take the highest possible shareholder from out of last year's T20 and ascribe to that shareholder all of the sold shares to date (ie: HSBC with 6.035M shares), then almost all of the shares traded in the lats 3 days would need to have gone to that one particular source.
Far more likely, then, that several of the large shareholders with holdings >100,000 shares have sold down. For example, today's average trade was 20,700+.
May, to date, however, 5,034,000 shares have traded on the ASX. To match out this volume, you have to go all the way back to 23 March 2017. That is, the entire traded volume of May to date is approximately equal now to all the traded volume that has occurred between 23/3 and 28/4 (ie: 5.335M from 23/3; 4.95M from 24/3 ==> 28/4).
More of a worry to Michael though is that with the SP at 10c (down ~30% in 3 days), his TAU net asset position has taken yet another hit.
TAU holds 15.194M AHF shares directly whilst Michael through other entities holds a further 6.17M shares. At Dec31, TAU valued its AHF shares at 17.5c, so at $2.65M. Tonight, these same shares are worth (to TAU) $1.52M, meaning that TAU has taken a hit since Dec31 of $1.13M. As a result of this, TAU's net asset position at Dec31 of $8.376M is now looking decidely weak at tonight's $7.246M (everything else being equal).
Considered in another way, at Jun30, TAU had NA of $9.044M. This has since nosedived by at least $1.8M to $7.246M and it hasn't arrested itself.
As for that de-merger and long since delayed revised NOM, independent accountant's report, resumed EGM and new business acquisition, these all now appear to have flat lined. More the point, with the type of business that TAU is in, it is well shy of the minimum ASIC prescribed NA position of $10M+ in required assets, perhaps by near on $3M or more. Unfortunately however, Michael has all this to blame on no-one else but himself.
AHF has been badly managed on his watch. There appear to be reasons for this with costs out of control, or with expenses well out of kilter with the matching revenue profiles, etc.
CAPEX seems to have either all been wasted or, if not wasted, has simply been ignored, whilst such things as feed costs etc have all skyrocketed despite the state of the pastures, etc.
Business margins are off but this also is a symptom of what else might well be going on with expenses out of control.
My old favourite of ADMIN + CORPORATE is a relative beauty with these costs hovering somewhere between 7.6 - >10% of the combined revenue weight of the Company. Cross charging of shared office etc has not worked because a darn sight more in benefits, visuals and facts were presented /provided when the costs were at a more pedestrian $250,000 in F15, as against the F16 cost of $338,000 and the more recent F17 cost of >$400,000e (in the shared charges sense only). Yet against this same backdrop:
* the external corporate PR agency has been dropped (since at least Sep16);
* Keith Jackson has gone (Nov16);
* shareholder comms, emails, etc have all been dropped (2017 YTD); and
* the Company Secretary /CFO has gone MIA (current time).
So, if anything, shared costs (broadly) and ADCORP should be going down or at least remaining static rather than going up.
But let's move beyond this and go to another tiny little metric ==> the "raw" "happy" cow /feed ratio, where the period ending cows is applied to determine a relatively rough cost measure relating to the associated feeding cost of those cows. Here's the results:
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
Column 5 |
Column 6 |
Column 7 |
| 1 |
Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
Herd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Ave Herd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
Ave Herd
(Weighted)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
Feed costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
Feed Cost Ratio
FCR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
FCR
(Weighted)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
H17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
3,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
3,231
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
3,206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
$1,498,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
$464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
$467
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
2H16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
3,302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
2,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
2,872
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
$2,409,979
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
$809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
$839
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 22 |
H16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
2,657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 24 |
2,141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 25 |
2,313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 26 |
$1,029,278
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 27 |
$481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 28 |
$445
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 29 |
2H15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 30 |
1,625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 31 |
1,547
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 32 |
1,520
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 33 |
$1,404,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 34 |
$908
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 35 |
$924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 36 |
H15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 37 |
1,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 38 |
1,468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 40 |
$228,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 41 |
$404
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 42 |
$404
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 43 |
Ave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 44 |
2,442
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 47 |
$1,313,912
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 48 |
$538
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**/ Ave herd (revised) applies the following ratios:
- in HY (Jul & Aug calculated on Jun herd size; remainder calculated on Dec herd size), and
- in 2HY (Jan – Apr calculated on Dec herd size; remainder calculated on Jun herd size)
**/ FCT (weighted) is based on the Ave Herd (weighted).
But for all of that CAPEX work done and all that fodder that's been laid to ground, the H17 FCR costs per cow were only slightly down in H17 on the corresponding values of H16, whilst the FCRw for H17 was actually up in cost by >5% YoY between H16 ($445) and H17 ($467). Considered in another way ---> all this money spent; all this fodder sown; so little cost or productivity improvement to show for it. So, what gives? Poor pasture? Incompetent management? Special dietary requirements to make those cows smile all day long?
The following comment (which no longer seems to be resonating) was made by AHF at the time of the profit results release in late Augu16:
----
"While it is early in the season, the farms experienced very good winter rains and grass growth.
The current budgeted fodder expense for the 2017 FY is $2.5m for an expanded farm base. The more favourable weather conditions should result in lower operating costs and the expanded farm base will see milk volumes increase from 12.5m litres to approximately 16.5m litres with a full year contribution from all farms."
----
If so, then at the moment, they would /should be planning on spending <$1.0M on feed costs during 2H17 (ie: 1.498 + 1 = ~2.5). Note also the 16.5ML production forecast which, since then, has jumped all over the place.
The 16.5ML production forecast for F17 was also stated in the H16 financial results commentary release from Feb16:
----
"
Production volumes for FY17 are forecast to be 16.5m litres, which is an increase of approximately 35% on the expected FY16 full year production. This reflects planned herd increases a
s the El Nino weather event subsides and the expectation of reversion to average or above average winter rainfall in south west Victoria and elsewhere."
----
Another ratio however to also look at is the FCM ratio (being the feed cost to milk production ratio. These results are similarly of increasing interest as the following demonstrates:
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
| 1 |
Period
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
Milk Production
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Feed costs
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
Milk Feed Cost Ratio
MFR (c/$)
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
H17
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
9,253,416
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
$1,498,302
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
16.2
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
2H16
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
6,011,171
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
$2,409,979
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
40.1
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
H16
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
6,488,829
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
$1,029,278
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
15.9
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
2H15
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
5,500,000e
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
$1,404,000
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
25.5
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
H15
|
|
|
|
| 22 |
1,698,912
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
$228,000
|
|
|
|
| 24 |
13.4
|
|
|
|
The final production figures for F15 (so therefore, 2H15) could not be located, so had to be extrapolated form other data. Once again, the costs have been significant in this area of activity, especially in the Jan-Jun16 time period and even ongoing into H17 where the costs are incrementally higher than they were in H16 (circa, a cost differential of at least $30,000). The cost differential however to H15 is $260,000, so something's gone astray here NWS all of the CAPEX, fodder, irrigation, water licensing and other "happy cows" activities that have all been engaged in.
Equally, looking back at the FCR (weighted) ratio, one could well argue that the costs have kept on rising from $404 in H15, to $445 in H16 to the current $467 in H17. On a countback basis, this reflects a cost differential of $71,000 (H17 to H16), or $202,000 (H17 to H15). Once again though, the massive 2H16 blip is simply unexplainable even in the wake of there having been the tail end of an El Nino weather event. This is demonstrated by the following:
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
| 1 |
Period
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
FCR
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
FMR
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
Midpoint
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
H17 – H16
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
$71,000
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
$30,000
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
$50,000
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
H17 – H15
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
$202,000
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
$260,000
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
$230,000
|
|
|
|
In many ways, what this suggests is that feed costs have been out of whack when compared with previous corresponding periods by a factor of between $50,000 ---> $230,000, or >$140,000, at the midpoint.
And yet all this comes on the back of what the actual milk production has been over time and what (back at H16) it was forecast to be for F17 (note the nuances, here). So, if for example, you were to go off the H16 results commentary of Feb16, then, milk production should have been as follows:
http://www.stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=AHF&E=ASX&N=754502
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
| 1 |
Period
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
F17f
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
YTD
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
Delta
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
Q1
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
3.7ML
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
4.21ML
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
+0.51ML
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
Q2
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
4.95ML
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
5.04ML
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
+0.09ML
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
Q3
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
3.55ML
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
3.46ML
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
-0.09ML
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
Q4
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
3.9ML
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
3.9MLe
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
0.0ML
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
Total
|
|
|
|
| 22 |
16.1ML
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
16.6ML
|
|
|
|
| 24 |
If Q4 goes to f/cast
|
|
|
|
Interesting figures. interesting results. Interesting times.
