Financial Year |
EBITDAF |
less Adjustment |
less DA |
less I |
times 0.72= Normalised NPAT |
eps |
2013 |
$391m |
-($16.4m + $4.2m) |
$150m |
$57m |
$147.1m |
10.5cps |
2014 |
$504m |
|
$161m |
$84m |
$186.5m |
13.3cps |
2015 |
$482m |
$17m/0.72 |
$170m |
$99m |
$136.4m |
9.7cps |
2016 |
$493m |
$13m/0.72 |
$182m |
$97m |
$141.1m |
10.1cps |
2017 |
$523m |
$5m |
$189m |
$95m |
$168.5m |
12.0cps |
Notes:
1/ 'eps' figures based on 1,400m share being on issue
2/ FY2013 earnings modified by adding back IPO costs and loss on sale of German Geothermal Asset.
3/ FY2015 and FY2016 earnings reduced by property/land sale profits (adjusted to reflect that non-core property land sales are not generally taxable.)
4/ FY2017 result adjusted to remove profit on carbon credit sales.
Conclusion: Pass Test
Further Note: I have put up these results in tabular form so that you can see the working, and an interesting point that is evident from it. If you take the best year (FY2014) and the last reported year (FY2017), then the $18m fall in profit should be read in context with the $28m increase in depreciation charge over the two years. IOW leave out the depreciation (which is dubious in these power generating assets anyway) and the FY2017 result was actually the best of the lot ( I guess this is why management like to use EBITDAF when reporting their results?). Quite impressive nevertheless.
SNOOPY
PS Eagle eyed readers will notice that some earnings figures have changed from when I did them two years ago.
1/ I previously made a different adjustment in FY2013 to reflect an impairment charge that was never included in EBITDAF to start with. I also did not adjust for the two factors that I did adjust for in this year's analysis. (my mistake)
2/ In FY2015 I assumed that the profits on the property sale I adjusted for was taxable. I have now changed my mind and decided it was probably not taxable.
Bookmarks