Knowing how conservative CCP is with accounting, I am convinced it has more likely over impaired the PDL carrying value than under impaired it, particularly because there is no advantage to err on the under-impairment side. There is little to be gained by debating this, because we may never know.
If for the purpose of discussion, we accept that CCP has over impaired by $10m, there is little reason to reverse that amount, other than getting the EOY 2021 accounts approved by the auditors. If that $10m is collected from FY21 to FY25 as $4m, $4m, $2m, $1m, and $1m, you might ask why $12m? That is because that collections' stream would have been subjected to a NPV calculation to get $10m. The numbers are purely to convey the NPV concept, they are not suggested as being accurate.
If CCP reversed that $10m, it would show up as gross profit, because there would be no effective amortisation. By not reversing the over impairment, CCP would spread the profit recognition over more years to fit in with its preferred accounting treatment.
If the same situation faced some competitors, they may bring the profit recognition in early, because they have different agendas that are biased to the immediate term.
The SP has moved up in response to the FY20 Annual Accounts, and the outlook guidance provided a few days ago. Here again, Management conservatism would be at play in the guidance. The least that I would expect is that the bottom-end of the ranges given will increase, and the the gap hence narrowed. Historically, there has been a tendency for the top-end metrics to increase slightly.
(20min delay)