Ann: Appendix 4E - Preliminary Final Report, page-46

My reading of AASB16 is that you recognise the asset and the liability and then you apply the components - depreciation and interest. So yes it does create a higher depreciation but as there was very little asset versus liability difference it also suggests that there would have been an operating cost very similar to the depreciation and interest that the company now recognises. I am no practising accountant but in fact, what it suggests to me is that by moving the cost into depreciation it in fact improved the EBITDA of the company which would have recognised these leases as operating costs. I suspect its ongoing at that level.

Personally the software write-off is a bolt from the blue for me but all in all, that's only $3million (including the contract) and if I am right then the operating expenses benefitted by more than that from the AASB16 application.

The huge problem with earnouts is that they are future costs so, in fact, you have to pay them after you have already worked out your cost and goodwill. So each measured change - normally each financial period will create a charge or release to the income statement per IFRS.

This link courtesy of Pwc is a good reference point.

https://www.pwc.com/jp/ja/ifrs/publication/pwc/2012/assets/pdf/contingent-consideration1207.pdf

It does establish a need for having a normalised Profit analysis.