@MarsC,
I can't recall them in the FY2017 result release actually referencing the provisions that were were raised, in the notes to the accounts (although they did in the Annual Report, obviously).
And I suspect that the reason that they specifically noted them in the FY2018 year result announcement was because of the sheer magnitude of them.
In FY2017 year the quantum of the provision raised was $4.3m, which is a fraction of the $12m figure for FY2018.
Which, again, provides some context of just how aggressive they have been in terms of keeping the FY2018 profit number in check (especially in respect of the second-half, which I see is basically a record half for the company in Pre-Tax Profit terms
[*]).
View attachment 1273424
I would like to have been a fly on the wall during the meetings involving the company's financial managers and its auditors during the preparation of the accounts. ("
Yeah, we know it might look to you folk, over at Grant Thornton Audit Pty Ltd, like we really made $39m Profit Before Tax, and that we are squirrelling away $12m of that, but we think we might, maybe, possibly, need that safety net. No, don't laugh. Trust us; you never know with these sorts of things. While we have never been burnt before, that isn't stopping us from keeping our financial house in order just in case, on the off-chance, we one day will be.")
[*] As an interesting aside, assuming the next two half-years look similar to JH2018, it is probably worthy of remarking that the last time LYL was making as much money as it is today was at the absolute peak of the commodity boom, i.e., during 2012. Again, I think that puts the current financial performance of the company into some sort of context.
It probably also warrants commenting that LYL's share price in 2012, when the company was recording those peak-cycle profits, was north of $7.00. Just saying.
Oh, and another thing: when LYL's share price was $7.00/share, the company had between $25m and $30m of net cash (equivalent to ~60c/share); today it has net cash of $73m (~180c/share equivalent).... Again, just saying.
[Of course, just as it is argued that $4.65 is too cheap, it could well be that the $7.00 price level of 2012 was too expensive, so I expect it is a bit of both.]
(20min delay)