Slide 6 if the results announcement states underlying EBITDA at...

Slide 6 if the results announcement states underlying EBITDA at $15.2m.

On slide 12 another underlying EBITDA is stated as ‘pre AASB 16’ at $12.7 million. I suspect this is the true underlying EBITDA; deducting normal rent costs. This is the number that should be made prominent!

At say 12 times EBITDA, a non-market practice misquoted amount of $2.5m equates to nearly $30m of market valuation.

There is then an attempt on the same slide to state underlying operating cashflow at $10.9m, being the statutory operating cashflow less lease liability payments (old operating leases excluding interest component under AASB 16 on balance sheet method already netted off in the Operating cashflow).

The continuing error also appears to be on slide 12, the stated operating cashflow excluding interest and tax, whereby interest costs include operating lease interest costs. See note 8i in the statutory accounts which breaks out the interest expense components; they should be netting this interest component for a true underlying operating cashflow amount.

My own key unknown remains the doctor vendor arrangements post acquisition-are they being paid market salaries and is their new ‘take’ on par with their pre acquisition profit shares? If not, the real risk exists they’ll head for the hills once their lock up periods end. This has been repeated time and time again with medical roll ups. Doctors are a proud and notorious lot to deal with.