You can look at the financial accounts, and use whichever...

You can look at the financial accounts, and use whichever numbers suits your argument best. Yes Dabozza on the surface it can be rightfully argued that there has been an increase in the number of shares issued over the past years, and that will have an initial negative impact on EPS.

But why were the shares issued, and where to from here?

Firstly note a loss in FY20, return to (marginal) profitability in FY21, and according to yesterday's announcement a further increase of 30% normalised EBITDA in FY22.
Thus we are seeing the first real signs of a significant turnaround in the company's top and bottom line numbers. That might not be seen as an appreciable change in EPS at this stage because of the shares issued, but now let's consider what the increase in shares actually mean.

The previous management team had this company flailing, with no real consideration of profitable operations - they continued to win work with minimal margins, and overall that led to annual losses. The appointment of Jason Dixon etc, which included the inclusion of the Turmec Agency agreement came at a cost of the Performance Shares you refer to (which still required particular financial hurdles to be issued).

You will note the award of the first Turmec contract earlier this year. This, and any future contract, will add to future earnings.

You will note that the company had a successful capital raise in Dec 2021(27.1 million shares at 17.5 cps), which not only improved the company's working capital position, but also enabled the advancement of the PFAS technology solution. We are still to see how this plays out, but I hold strongly that this might be the jewel in the crown!

Then we have the acquisition of Ignite a few months ago, for shares and cash. It was reported as being EPS accretive.

Both PFAS and Ignite are still to figure in financial accounts, even though both are likely to contribute to future years EPS.

So yes, on the surface you can argue that there's nothing to see here. And without that "deep dive" that you confess you haven’t made then just move on to look elsewhere. Whilst I'm somewhat "underwater " at present my feeling is that the company has signalled its turnaround strategy is working, contracts are being won with improved margins, and it's water division, with the PFAS solution, is much-awaited.