I'm particularly unsure for the following reasons: Yes, staff...

I'm particularly unsure for the following reasons:

1. Yes, staff numbers went from 15 at June 2015 to 23 at June 2016. Looks like an impressive rise, yes. But on the other hand, at June 2014 they stood at 19. So, in terms of the annual average, I'm not sure that we can conclude as big a surge as what might appear.
2. Further to the above, staff costs over the annual periods, have remained relatively flat: FY16 $1.41m, FY15 $1.39m, FY14 $1.40m, FY 13 $1.36m, Fy12 $1.41m.
3. Whilst there was a substantial increase in indirect operating costs in FY16 (versus pcp), this was almost entirely attributable to "postage, printing & stationary". Does this indicate a cost investment heralding substantial increases in revenue to the tune of that displayed in H2 FY16? Perhaps. I personally don't know."

@MarsC,

Not sure where you got your staff cost figures of $1.41m for FY16, and $1.39m for FY15, because from Note 3 of the Annual Report, I added the figures for Salaries & Wages to Superannuation and got $1.298m for FY16 and $1.217m for FY2015, so a reasonably meaningful 8% increase, year-on-year.

But, looking at annual staff cost numbers is not very helpful, because while the full-year numbers for FY2016 vs FY2015 might show a certain degree of change, this doesn't tell us anything about what is happening with the employee cost dynamic on a half-yearly basis (i.e., JH16 vs pcp and HD15 vs pcp).

And because the company only provides an annual breakdown of staff costs, and not half-yearly figures, we are unable to know for sure what the shape of the curve looks like over the half-yearly time frames.

The best we can do is extrapolate.

Here's my attempt at it:

Given what we know on head count at the end of each financial year (i.e, JH14/Jh15/JH16 = 19/15/23), an educated guess suggests that DH15 employee costs were lower than DH14, and therefore JH16 employee costs were therefore substantially more than 8% higher than JH15.

And that, in turn, DH16 employee costs ended up being substantially higher than for the DH15 period (given average employee numbers at the end of DH16 will have been around 23 (assuming they didn't add any more staff since the end of FY16), compared to probably 19 (the average of 23 and 15, being headcount at 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2015, respectively) for the DH15 period.

So, for what its worth, here is my best guess at the average employee numbers and, resulting staff costs, on a half-yearly basis for the past few half-years:

DH14: Average Employee Numbers (AEN) = 18 ; Total Staff Costs = $640k
JH15: AEN = 16 ; Staff Costs = $580k
DH15: AEN = 16; Staff Costs = $610k
JH16: AEN = 20; Staff Costs = $690k
DH16: AEN = 23; Staff Costs = $800k

Where I am going with this half-yearly drill-down, is to try to get a feel for what employee costs have done in the previous half versus pcp. Because, if I know that, then given I know what operating profit has done (they told me that, it's up 4%), then I can solve for what the Revenue line has done in the half. And this is a very important figure for me, because it informs the top line organic growth rate of the business.

Now I readily concede that this sort of exercise, because of some of the assumptions required, can never be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to be indicative.

To that end, from the table of figures above, it can be seen that - based on my figures - that employee costs are expected to have been some 30% higher in DH16 than in the pcp.

Working this figure through the financial model, to reproduce management's 4% Pre-Tax Profit growth guidance, generates a solution for implied DH16 Revenue growth of around 15%.

So I think that when the company reports its interim results in a few weeks' time, I think we have sufficent clues to conclude that the momentum seen in JH16 will have continued into the December half, and I strongly suspect we will see reported top-line growth for DH16 come in well above historical average rates, as well as above system growth rate.

I'm therefore looking for an interim Revenue number close to $3.4m (which will be 10% higher than the JH16 figure and 14% higher than the figure for DH15).

That deals with DH16; JH17 is another matter altogether.

For JH17 is cycling the very strong JH16 number, being 33% growth on JH15, as you point out. I don't expect the company to beat that lofty starting base.

So I think that market will be pleased with the quality and composition of the upcoming result, but it might be disappointed with the full-year result which I suspect will not show any positive JH growth on pcp.

The market might be mature enough to acknowledge the effect of the very strong JH16 number, but knowing the market's laziness like I do, I suspect it won't. Instead, it is more likely to shoot first, then question later.

So, to summarise, I don't think the upcoming result will result in a share price response that could present you with a buying opportunity. But the full-year result might do.

But, like you, I'm not sure what the full-year result will look like, let alone how the market will respond.