Hi ausheds, Let me look at it from a glass half full...

Hi ausheds,

Let me look at it from a glass half full perspective...

Have a look at the table "Summary of Financial Position" on page 8; you will see that while total (gross) assets have indeed decreased from $61.6m in 2019 to $37.8m in 2021(-39%), shareholder funds/net assets have actually increased from $10.7m to $30m (+180%) over the same period. This is due to the decrease in debt & other liabilities from $50.9m to $8.8m from 2019 -21. Pretty impressive hey!

NTU could have easily avoided the reduction in their gross assets if they chose not to book a $24.8m impairment against their processing plant in 2020 and they could also have capitalised their 'exploration and evaluation expenditure' of $13.6m in 2021 and $22.3m in 2020 instead of expensing them through the P&L, as most developers would do. Looking at HAS' 2021 HY report I note that they are carrying $62.3m in 'deferred exploration and evaluation expenditure' as an asset on the balance sheet. No such assets on NTU's books.

By my reconing if NTU had chosen not to write down their plant and capitalised their E&E in 2020, they would have reduced their statutory loss from $54.3m to $7.2m, and would have actually booked a statutory profit of $5.1m in 2021 and had $60.7m in additional assets. It looks to me that NTU are actually understating their financial position, whether it is due to managements undue conservatism or a cunning ploy to disadvantage us simple retail punters will depend on your perspective, and there is no prizes in guessing which way you and your downramping buddies will jump.

I'm not sure how one company can adopt the opposite approach to accounting for E&E to another company in the same industry and both get the auditors tick, but it demonstrates that you need to look beneath the bonnet and not just at the shiny paint job when comparing vehicles.

p.s. I can't wait to see @ossieboy 's nuanced & considered rebuttal, apparently he a financials guy...lol!