News: GAP Gale Pacific Sees HY Loss Of About $3.6 Mln, page-12

I don't know that it was $1m+ but I postulated that taking such a hit might prove economically rational. As for choosing that figure for the hypothetical, basis as follows:

The announcement mentions a variation from previous guidance of a loss of between $1.5m to $1.8m to a (pre-audit) loss of $3.6m which I take as a variance of between $1.8m to $2.1m.

I read the announcement as attributing the variation to various EMEA issues (as described) and this "unforeseen incentive". 2 reasons provided covering approximately $2m. One might argue that one amount might be lesser or greater and there may be other (smaller) factors but overall not an unreasonable basis for selecting $1m for the hypothetical.

I am absolutely speculating and I'm doing so because the combination of words used (in my opinion) doesn't open itself up to a lot of alternatives. Particularly when my interpretation of the announcement is that they've taken this provision in the period ending December 31.

How does your suggestion of a customer asking for better terms manifest as a provision in the period just ended? As I've said, it is possible they just missed it but for those words to show up after the end of a period suggests to me either excessive customer pressure or a glaring internal omission. Just when did this unforeseen incentive become visible? Would you not expect incentives impacting FY ending December 2019 would be known a bit earlier than January 24 2020?

This is all my opinion which I declared as opinion in my first post with a stated hope that the company WOULD go to the ACCC IF a reportable situation had eventuated in Australia.

But I believe all of the above is entirely plausible. There may be completely innocent explanations (or simply legitimate commercial pressure) but none have occurred to me as yet.

Instead of repeatedly nitpicking an admitted hypothetical why don't you propose an alternative set of circumstances or just accept it for the one of many possibilities it represents.

I would have thought that parsing announcements and exchanging ideas to consider the underlying company circumstances that gave rise to the situation (and timing) was a useful exercise but you appear to think not.