BYL originally stated that FY2015 NPAT would be, “. . ....

BYL originally stated that FY2015 NPAT would be, “. . . dependent upon the outcome of a contract variation and insurance claim – minimum NPAT of $2.9 million with upside to $9.2 million.”

This suggests the sum of the claims was the difference – that is $9.2m – $2.9m = $6.3m. But this is after tax, so before tax it would be $9m. As the insurers paid $2.5m, I assume the contract variation sought is for about $6.5m before tax, or $4.55m after tax. To put the residual $4.55m into perspective, it is $4.55m ÷ 126.5m = 3.6c per share – that is, a welcome 1-off, but not massively significant in the long term.

I do not really know, but I have the impression that the contract variation with Main Roads WA is more a matter of bureaucratic process than being a difference of opinion. It is often a routine matter to get numbers into a government agency's budgets, but it can be extremely difficult to find extra funds if a budget line-item goes over budget. Government agencies are notorious for being populated by process-driven, risk-averse individuals, so rather than a senior Main Roads WA employee resolving the matter, it is tossed into a dispute resolution process to obviate any personal risks.

Investors seem to be warming to BYL  – it was a welcome spot of green in a background of red today. Apart from hauling in some NPAT from FY2015, FY2016 should be a good year, because it will not have the front-end costs and delay that the RIO contract caused in FY2015.