Of course it is but the board is controlled by someone who is using the AHF resources to prop up his operations elsewhere. You can't tell me that AHF is or should be incurring ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE CHARGES of $340,000 per quarter (as per the 9.6 Q3 CF projection included in the Q2 CF report).
To date, AHF has incurred the following ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE CHARGES:
* Q1/17 --> $171,000 (per Q1 CF report)
= Jul16 --> $67,400 ADMIN (AGM16)
= Aug16 --> $50,300 ADMIN (AGM16) = Sep16--> $53,400 ADMIN (AGM16)
= Q1/17 total --> $171,100 ADMIN (AGM16)
Right, bang on the Q1/17 figures, as per the Q1 CF report.
The Q1 CF report however projected that the Q2/17 ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE CHARGES cost would be $130,000, even lower than the Q1/17 result /outcome. refer item 9.6 of the Q1 CF report.
* Q2/17 --> $340,000 (per Q2 CF report), however this was originally projected at 9.6 of the Q1 CF report at $130,000 (so a $210,000 variance between projected outcome published at end Oct16 and actual outcome, achieved <2 months later).
= Oct16 --> $49,500 ADMIN (AGM16)
= Nov16 --> $????? ADMIN (AGM16) = Dec16 --> $????? ADMIN (AGM16)
= Q2/17 total --> $49,500+ ADMIN (AGM16)
Restating the above for what we do however know (ie: the AGM financials were actual cash based so directly translatable to the CF reports), the following is alarming (especially as the Q1 CF report was signed off by Michael, as indeed was the Q2 CF report:
= Oct16 --> $49,500 ADMIN (AGM16)
= Nov16 --> ))) $290,500 ADMIN + CORPORATE (per Q2 CF report) = Dec16 --> ))) Combined with Nov16.
= Q2/17 total --> $340,000 ADMIN + CORPORATE (Q2 CF report)
* Q3/17 --> $340,000 (per Q2 CF report, projected)
= Jan17 -->)))
= Feb17 --> ))) $340,000+ estimated as per Q2 CF report, 9.6 projection issued at end Jan17) = Mar17 --> )))
= Q3/17 total --> $340,000+++ ADMIN + CORPORATE (Q2 CF report)
If so, this will put the ADMIN cost function at >$851,000 at end of Q3/1`7 despite there being one less member on the Board and next to no action happening. Yet, across at TAU, effectively 70% of the direct cost + overhead cost allocation attributable to the TAU corporate function is now being recovered via recosting arrangements shifted via AHF. In effect, Michael has turned TAU's corporate /HQ functions into a profit centre, at AHF's expense.
Add to this, the non-cash equity-settled share-based payments of $871,282, and it can be seen that in the first 9 months of F17 alone, ADMIN + CORPORATE has so far cost AHF >$1.72M with arguably yet another big projected chunk to come as part of the Q4/17 CF projections. For a business which is meant to be producing milk, Michael & Co are quite literally milking it dry. Nothing else explains the massive costs being generated here as against little to no return yet showing up for it.
Mind you, having last year dumped their previous KPIs /incentive rewards program (which was milk, production and revenue generating), for an alternative scheme that was selfishly aligned to TSR (except that these were missing the actual foundation drivers otherwise required in order to propel the business forward), very likely Michael will now dump this scheme as well in favour of some other vended scheme to make it even easier in order to generate a return on his commitment. Pity however the commitment to shareholders.
Mind you, over at TAU, they have been waiting on their transformational XGM since end Oct16:
* adjourned on the morning of 21/12/16 when it was due to be held;
* adjourned to January - never occurred;
* referenced in H17 for early March - never happened;
* then suggested for a NOM by end March for an Apr17 resumed XGM - didn't happen;
* now going into May17 with no expert's report, no NOM, no XGM.
It seems that the policies, attitudes and approaches of the parent (TAU) are being repeated by the child (AHF) with TAU still as the controlling, interfering parent.
So, yes, AHF's situation may well be better than what "a lot of people realise" but this is in spite of Michael's efforts, not because of them.
