@Just_a_guy ,
Normalising each half-year for the long list of NRIs (which are becoming more recurring than not over time for EAS, but that's a separate matter) the second-half did look to me to be disconcertingly weak:
Madamswer's "Normalised" EBITA ($m)DH19 = 2.3
JH20 = 3.4
DH20 = 3.5 (+55% on pcp)
JH20: 2.9 (-16% o pcp)But I think I have cracked the code (at least part of the code).
The answer lies in (contextually highly material) movements in the provisions for ASIC advisor levies due to a combination of change in the number of advisors as well as the big increase in the per advisory levy, effective Feb 2021.
From the notes to the Dec 20 accounts:
View attachment 3523910As can been seen, there was a
~$220k easing in the provision in DH20, followed by a
~$1m increase (from $0.698m @ 31 Dec 20, to $1.72m @ 30 June 20) in JH21:
View attachment 3523937Now I'm not sure to what extent the company recognises revenue recovery, if at all, nor the timing of such revenue recognition but what I think I can say - without being prescriptive - is that, while the DH20 appears to have been modestly overstated, the underlying JH21 result looks like it is a lot stronger than suggested by the $2.9m figure I derived.
No matter how it is sliced, a $1m movement in this provision in the half is highly material in the context of a $2.9m half-year operating profit number.
.
