Another Impairment Charge at Half Year?

A quite interesting Market Update that has been issued.

If one ignores the vague caveat in the Release on revenue to date to October 2016 of , "...up circa 0.6% on a comparable site/working day basis ....", the only operational difference so far between the first half FY 16 and the first half FY 17 is the addition of Liverpool Diagnostics on 19 Oct 2015 - est. revenue of $7.2m per the ASX release of Aug 2015 (say an ave. of $600,000 per month, ignoring seasonality) and Sunrise Radiology on 17 Aug 2015 - for which no apparent market release of size of operation has been made, so one assumes that this particular acquisition has no material contribution to company revenues.

Therefore to achieve a more appropriate comparison one could simply add 3 1/2 months of $600,000 to the first half FY16 result and come up with adjusted revenue of some $79.5m last year compared to the current forecast of $79-80m for the first half FY17. So no real growth by the company at all in a market that has increased by 4.3% per CAJ's own comments on page 2 of their ASX Release.

I was wondering how the Auditors will reconcile this for the half year results to the statement within Note 13 in the Annual Report for CAJ for 2016 on page 46 which states, "Following the twelve month budgeted outlook (which incorporates the government's announced removal of the bulk billing incentive and related impacts) to 30 June 2017, a revenue growth assumption of 5% per annum is assumed for the remainder of a period of a period of 5 years."

Not knowing how the CAJ impairment methodology works, it would still seem to be a safe bet that there is a reasonable indicator of impairment (which I believe that is the term used in the Standards).