To clarify my original point i was meaning a disproportionate...

To clarify my original point i was meaning a disproportionate amount of the cash flow ($30m of the $70m) from the historical period you quoted was coming from FY15 the oldest period and potentially the period which is no longer reflective of the current operating performance of the business .

@Klutch,

Looking at single-year cash flow performance can be a bit misleading because the numbers can be skewed significantly depending on how working capital (which, in TRS's case essentially comes down to the timing of payments to trade creditors given that inventory levels don't change much from one balance date to another , and that the company has no debtors).

In the case of the FY2015 cash flow performance, this was boosted by a $7m working capital reduction. In the following year there was an $8m increase in working capital ($10m reduction in Trade Payables). In other words, FY2015's cash flow was elevated, and FY2016's cash flow was commensurately diminished.

So really, what you need to do is to combine at least two subsequent years in order to obtain a less statistically messy reference base.

And better, even, to look at a minimum of 3-year rolling figures in order to isolate the movements in working capital which, in the case of this company, ends up being a meaningful magnitude in the context of the average level of the Free Cash Flow.

Besides, on the basis of your reservation about much of the "value" being back-loaded in a single legacy year, then if you look at the most recent free cash flow performance (i.e., $19m in FY2018), that implies a FCF multiple of a little more than 3 times (!)