You seem a little annoyed when someone focuses on the underlying numbers rather than the spin and management narrative.
The reason for comparing results against the prior corresponding period (PCP) is precisely to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.
Above I have made two such comparisons. I compared the latest quarter with 2Q24. And I also compared the change from 1Q24 to 2Q24, to the change from 1Q25 to 2Q25.
Many costs and revenue flows for an infant formula business are uneven throughout the year and the business is cyclical in nature. For instance, you will have periods of increased manufacturing (and relatively higher cost) whereas in other periods sales of those products will be higher (for instance, various shopping events and seasons where consumption is stronger). If you simply compare one quarter to the quarter in isolation you will not account for these factors. Hence why PCP comparisons are the norm.
On both comparisons to the similar period last year, it is clear that the cost base (which you described as unsustainable) remains the same. Sales also remain the same now. You referred to a premium formula push, but of course you know that this product is not even in the market yet. So in short there is nothing to suggest that the increase from Q1 to Q2 this time around is any different from what has occurred under the previous management.
What ever happened to the calculations you wanted to share with us all, which were going to show how AHF will get down to a $1M loss in FY25?
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)