A step in the right direction, delivering on the outlook from the Nov2023 AGM.
Free cash flow per share = 13.6c forthe half year.
Dividends reinstated in FY24.
NTA = $1.30
Debt reduced by $15.5M and net debtreduced by $15.3M.
Outlook Feb2024
1. strong cash flows to continue inH2, noting H2 is historically seasonally stronger than H1
2. reviewing non core businesses,with an update with full year results.
3. Full benefits of cost reductionprogram in FY25, some positive benefit in H2 FY24.
FCF per share= ( 23.987 - .404 ) /173.3 = 13.6c
NTA = ( 270.933 – 45.574 ) / 173.3= $1.30
There is a deferred tax asset not onthe balance sheet with the amount only disclosed in FY accounts
not HY accounts.
The reported NTA of $1.33 includes some of the deferred tax asset.
Adjusted EPS = 6.40 / 173.3 = 3.69c
Payout ratio based on NPAT = 1.5 /3.69 = 41%
Payout ratio based on FCF per share =1.5 / 13.6 = 11%
In NPAT there are 2 BIG non cash items , Deprec / Amort = $8.041 M and writeoff of WIP 7.332M.
Adjusted EPS adds back part of the$7.332 writeoff of WIP.
DA = 8.041M is a non cash item where the actual cash item CAPEX = .404M .
SHJ has a history with DA much greater than CAPEX.
My point is Deprec / Amort looks OVERSTATED !
Adjusting the Adjusted EPS for CAPEX rather than DA gives :
Adjust EPS no tax = ( 6.40 + 8.041 -.404 ) / 173.3 = 8.1c
Adjust EPS with 30% tax = ( 6.40 + .7x ( 8.041 -.404 ) ) / 173.3 = 6.8c
40% payout ratio gives a dividend of2.7c to 3.2c.
50% payout ratio gives a dividend of3.4c to 4c.
DIVIDEND POLICY
“The amount of dividends declared by the Board at any time
will be influenced by underlying financial performance and
cashflow, balance sheet, debt and treasury risk management,
working capital needs and competing internal and external
investment opportunities necessary for growth.
The Company’s aim is to pay between30% and 50%
of NPAT as dividends each financial year. “
WHILE THE REINSTATEMENT OF DIVIDENDIS WELCOME, SMALL SHAREHOLDERS ARE GETTING A POOR DEAL
ON THE SIZE OF THE DIVIDEND WHEN COMPARED TO FCF OR EPS ADJUSTED FOR NON CASH ITEMS.
June 2020 as reported by CarrieFellner in the SMH
Justice Lee defends the Litigation Funder Omni Bridgeway $54M take of the $212M settlement amount in the
class action against the Dept of Defence.
“However,without the litigation funder, it was unlikely victims of PFAS contamination would have been able
to battle for compensation in court, Justice Lee said.”
This looks like a PRECEDENT that Justice Lee should approve interest on disbursements in the Mesh class
action run by Shine.
There may be some POLITICS involved given Justice Lee speech at an IMF Brentham ( = Omni Bridgeway ) gig in 2017.
Varying Funding Agreements and Freedom of Contract: Some Observations by The Hon Justice Lee (IMF Bentham Class Actions Research Initiative with UNSW Law: Resolving Class Actions Effectively and Fairly), 1 June 2017
(20min delay)