Not sure why the $21m in funding related costs is being examined...

Not sure why the $21m in funding related costs is being examined with such negative sentiment.

Perhaps it could have been broken down more but would serve no purpose other than allow some to pick holes where there aren't any.

Annual report:
" Includes $21.315 million of bank fees, advisor fees, non-cash amortisation of borrowing costs and other costs directly associated with various debt funding streams that have been expensed during the year."

On advisory side Greenhill has a scoreboard - three material mandates. Advisory typically comes with a fixed plus success fee. Given the quantums of the transactions a +2% fee wouldn't be out of the question which would account for a large chunk of the 21m. Add to that any defence advisory for m&a activity over the course of the year and the numbers add up pretty quickly. No surprises there.

The debt funding, fees would have been paid for work done and commitments put in place. Ltr chose to pursue alternatives which were deemed superior. Had those not been available its likely the debt facility would be in place now. Its good to see they had a number of plans in place and running in parallel given the difficult sector sentiment. Prudent financial management.

Equity advisory fees would be fairly material as well which is again pretty standard in a complex transaction over the course of the year. The takeover bid threw a spanner in the works which had to be worked through, that would not have been easy. Not many would appreciate how complex this would have made the funding.

End of the day it is a fee for service which has served the company pretty well, a small price to pay in the context of the final outcome, remained independent with funding through construction + rampup.

I am all for questioning odd things and healthy criticism but this probably isn't one that warrants such debate.

Aimo

Greenhill creds