I guess the best one can do is assume that it follows the...

I guess the best one can do is assume that it follows the pattern of the recent past.

So I take that to mean revenue in H2 FY17 to be 10% to 20% less than that of H1 FY17. Now if costs have gone up relative to pcp's, then clearly NPAT will be something else again.
"I guess the best one can do is assume that it follows the pattern of the recent past.
So I take that to mean revenue in H2 FY17 to be 10% to 20% less than that of H1 FY17. Now if costs have gone up relative to pcp's, then clearly NPAT will be something else again."


Well, you would think that, @MarsC.

But if you take the announcement at face value then the funny thing is that current half NPAT is not really down that much; in fact, it is up (!) if one strips out whatever additional costs they are said to have incurred.

If "comparable turnover" equates to FY2016 Revenue, then JH2017 Revenue will be $380,000 down on JH2016.

But based on their indication of Pre-Tax Profit to be $2.6m for FY2017, compared to $2.75m for FY2016, it suggests that JH2017 Pre-Tax Profit will be just $310,000 lower than pcp.


For reference, relevant half-yearly financials, taking guidance at face value, below:

Half-Yearly Revenue
DH2009:  $2.51m
JH2010:   $1.93m
DH2010:  $2.76m
JH2011: $2.63m
DH2011:   $2.90m
JH2012:   $2.23m
DH2012:  $2.99m
JH2013:   $2.12m
DH2013:  $2.88m
JH2014:   $2.30m
DH2014:  $2.84m
JH2015:   $2.32m
DH2015:  $2.98m
JH2016:   $3.08m
DH2016:  $3.36m
JH2017:  $2.70m (Implied by "comparable to previous period, i.e. FY2016's $6.06m)

Half-Yearly Pre-Tax Profit
DH2009:  $1.26m
JH2010:   $0.88m
DH2010:  $1.31m
JH2011: $1.30m
DH2011:   $1.47m
JH2012:   $0.90m
DH2012:  $1.45m
JH2013:   $0.91m
DH2013:  $1.27m
JH2014:   $1.06m
DH2014:  $1.30m
JH2015:   $0.96m
DH2015:  $1.35m
JH2016:   $1.40m
DH2016:  $1.51m
JH2017:   $1.09m (ASW Management)

(Note that June half-years are seasonally weaker than December halves, by around 20% on average at the NPAT level. So JH2016 being up on DH2015 is the exception.)

What is increasingly clear is that business for ASW was particularly buoyant during the course of calendar 2016; therefore those earnings should not be used as the earnings base from which future growth is modeled.