I Googled AASB 115, but the problem is that it's like the Y2K...

I Googled AASB 115, but the problem is that it's like the Y2K scare campaign, every charlatan who can spook business to pay them to ameliorate the coming disaster is out there exaggerating the enormity of the problem. If Management state that it is a problem, then it is one, and if they state it is not, then it is not, IMO.

Simply put, the new revenue recognition requirements do no more than prudent firms did in the past, IMO. If management feared that meeting warranties was an issue, they provided for that. If they feared a customer would not pay them, they provided for that. If they deliberately did not provide for contingencies, it was because they were being dishonest (to get performance bonuses, and sell shares before skipping out). At least under AASB 115, such behaviour is more difficult to indulge in without being legally liable for a breach of the requirements.

I once held shares in a stock that sold some $70 million worth of refurbished equipment to a firm in late June. The new customer had no history, no advertised premises, no money, and it had only applied for an Australian Business Number about a month before EOY. The revenue and profit from that sale was recognised in that year. EPS and its trajectory looked good. The Balance Sheet looked good with the $70 million sitting in Current Assets. It took months before it became patent that the sales price for the goods would not be paid. The SP dropped about 90%. In FY2019, that revenue and profit recognition would not have been allowed, and ASIC, or whomever, would have had a clear case against management. It that case, the CEO got away with it.

The site that I found that explained the AASB-115 issue well is https://www.accru.com/2018/08/aasb-15-summary-five-step-model/

For an entity that tenders for work, and manages each contracted work package separately, the five steps that the above site suggests just look like normal prudent accounting to me – namely:

1. Identify contracts with customers.
2. Identify separate performance obligations.
3. Determine transaction price.
4. Allocate transaction price.
5. Recognise revenue when the performance obligation is satisfied.

A different issue, is treatment of long leases pursuant to AASB 16. If long leases where NWH is the lessee have to be capitalised, then I do not know how the double entries will impact the P&L accounts. If you look at the FY18 Annual Report, and search for AASB 16, you will find words that I have not been able to fully digest, but it suggests that the cost of leasing equipment under operating leases may become more expensive in early years, and I think increases the bias to purchasing equipment via Finance Leases. May be we should not be too keen to see fat dividends in a hurry, and rather allow the company to strengthen its Balance Sheet to own more equipment with less debt.