Can I put an alternative view / interesting question? Consider this:
1. "... at 30 November 2015, it had achieved $28m of Australian run rate revenue. This revenue run rate does not include a contribution from the new major customer win announced to the ASX on 7 December 2015."
2. "For H1 FY2016, subscription revenues for the Australian business are expected to be between $13.3m and $13.7m."
So if the run rate is already $28m p.a. why would not the run rate for H1 16 be at least that much, i.e. revenues for the first half of at least $14.0m? If they are expecting less than that, does it not imply falling run rate revenues?
I don't get it.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- NEA
- Ann: Revenue guidance achieved, strong growth in 1HFY16
Ann: Revenue guidance achieved, strong growth in 1HFY16, page-14
Featured News
Add NEA (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
EQN
EQUINOX RESOURCES LIMITED.
Zac Komur, MD & CEO
Zac Komur
MD & CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online