I think I need to get off my butt and read this thing properly...

I think I need to get off my butt and read this thing properly

I have puzzled quite a bit over the material difference between expenses on income statement and cashflow. Trying to get to the bottom of this....

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5	Column 6	Column 7
1	Income Statement	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012
2	Revenue	165	151.5	150.9	115.8	105.4	88.4
3	Employee Expense	82.1	77.3	68.9	52.9	49.9	38.2
4	Other Expense	48	48.3	37	28.3	27.1	23.3
5	Employee + Other	130.1	125.6	105.9	81.2	77	61.5
6	Cashflow Statement
7	Customer Receipts	162.2	152.9	134.6	101.7	92.9	59.3
8	Payments to suppliers and employees	142.9	134.1	121.6	91.1	84.2	50.4
9	Difference (income statement - Cashflow)
10	Money in	2.8	-1.4	16.3	14.1	12.5	29.1
11	Money out	-12.8	-8.5	-15.7	-9.9	-7.2	11.1
12	Difference as % Income statement
13	Money in	2%	-1%	11%	12%	12%	33%
14	Money out	-10%	-7%	-15%	-12%	-9%	18%

Note that (unlike every other year) in 2012 expenses on the income statement were higher than on cashflow statement. This goes against what you are saying somewhat, though it's possible that a different accounting method was being used prior to the IPO in 2013.

Also note that the AASB15 rules don't apply to any of these figures as these rules have not been implemented yet.

There's also the fact that employee expenses are incurred unrelated to work directly billable to clients. What you're saying is that leads are some special case that drops off the income statement while other employee expenses remain. Not saying this is wrong but it is interesting. It would also need to account for a $13m difference (being costs spent on leads that have not become cases yet). If true this would make lead generation a very significant expense.