One issue I didn't address was the increased provision for land...

One issue I didn't address was the increased provision for land fill remediation. As most executives would know, one of the first matters of business in their new seat of CEO/CFO/C__ is to position/massage the financials to give themselves the best possible chance of improving on the previous regimes performance and achieving their KPI's. The quickest and easiest way to do this is by accounting entries. More specifically via asset write downs, increased provisions, possibly even derogatory remarks about their predecessor and the mess they have left the company in.

With FY14 being Boucher's first full reporting year in the CEO hot seat, I was not that surprised by a) the impairment of assets ($140m), (b) rectification expense of landfill assets ($69m) or (c) accelerated depreciation of landfill assets ($61m). All in all, a total of $270m of non-cash expenses as a result of the 'Landfill Remediation Review', which I would hazard a guess was commissioned by Boucher.

While this is by no means an uncommon occurrence, this statement in the investor presentation in reference to how the landfill provision impairment was calculated - "provide contingency in all cost estimates for inherent uncertainty" - left me in no doubt that my suspicions was correct. Not only is this an aggressive stance, but my understanding of the accounting standards is that general provisions are not permitted (ie: contingencies are not a valid provision), so how this got through the auditor I'm not quite sure.

Regardless, these 'one-offs' don't impact the long term investment case for TPI, and I've largely discounted them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the provision written back over the next couple of years, and the accelerated depreciation will will only serve to increase future year earnings. All those scenarios benefit the investor.

Anyway, like I said, this matters little in the medium to long term, but some food for thought.

Regards
Gralynchett