Share
124 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 2
clock Created with Sketch. 21/02/18
13:29
Share
Originally posted by kordzik
↑
Costs on 4D look pretty bad indeed, but the statutory FY17H basis is not realistic - if that's what you worried about. If you look at the investor presentation, the pro forma costs are "only" ~$15M higher on FY17H ($125M vs $110M), an increase of a tad above 14%, which seems within reason, though still growing faster than the revenue, which is a bad sign I guess. I haven't dug into it too hard, the cost breakdown in the presentation doesn't seem to point to any specific root cause - both periods look pretty similar in comparison (in terms of cost break down), with each cost segment within +/-3% of FY17H.
Expand
I personally wouldn’t care about the pro forma. The cost should be against the revenue. The EBITDA was roughly 10% without the one off item. If it was truely a digital online listing platform( along with the mortgage broker arm), the margin should be a lot higher.
