@mushroompanda , JAN's numbers in the slides have confused me too as they have changed format for each of the last 3 HY's, when they transitioned to Wayne, then out of Wayne to Sujata. So, simple like-for-like (pun intended!) comparison HoH and YoY was tricky. Am waiting for the Appendix D due in under 2 weeks to make better sense of the movements. I don't understand the cost improvements, particularly as there was mumble of a cost reclassification from opex to cost of sales which messes up the GP's, GP margins etc vs the historical xls I have been keeping ....

I didn't read anything sinister into the like-for-like revenue comment at first glance, but will watch out and have a closer look when I see the Appendix 4D. Thought it was a fair callout given that the still-lingering revenue from those 2 should-have-long-been-dead contracts could distort the comparison of continuing revenue numbers.

Re: cash headlines. I read the $10m as a roundup and didn't think too much of it. Sneaky powerpointing though - absolutely guilty of that myself in the past because it works!

JAN has been a story of 2 half's - 1H has been weaker than 2H in the past 2 years. So, I want to actually compare H-to-H rather than YoY to put 1HFY25 in better context.

Hi @mushroompanda - unless I'm missing something they are claiming a 5% increase in cash at the end of the half compared to cash at the end of the previous corresponding half, so cash balance at the end of H1 of FY2025 ($9.6m at 31-Dec-2024) vs the end of H1 of FY2024 ($9.2m at 31-Dec-2023), however the cash balance still dropped half a million between the start of this latest half (30-June-2024) and the end of this latest half (31-Dec-2024), so the left column is all about what happened during this latest half, whereas the right column is all about comparing this latest half to the first half of the previous financial year.

And this graphic below:

...only refers to the Half vs Half comparison, and not the actual performance over this latest half. Is that what you're saying - that the graphic suggests they improved cash over the half, and the reality was that they only improved their cash balance (at 31-Dec-24) over the cash balance they had 12 months prior despite having a net cash outflow over this latest half?

If so, I get it. However I have found that's the nature of many presentations - they highlight whatever metrics are positive and you have to read the detail to find the negatives. There is the odd company out there that seems to do the opposite, burying the positives - and I have to work those out for myself - and Lycopodium (LYL) is one example - Here's how LYL reported their H1 of FY2023 results:

The stuff in the green squares was added by me - they did NOT highlight the magnitude of the dividend increase and they gave no percentages for their other comps, just an arrow indicating that they were higher.

Six months later, LYL reported their results like this:

Here's my analysis of that result:

---

I won't go on, it's just interesting how promotional some companies can be; not intentionally misleading, but potentially misleading for those who briefly skim through presentation graphics, and then other companies seem to go out of their way not to talk up their own results. I prefer the latter type.

It's a shame companies can't report to you like you are their partner who has been away for 6 months and let you know they things they'd want to know if they were in the same boat - aka the Buffett Method - that's what he looks for but rarely finds.

It should not be so hard to say we were up $0.5m on pcp but down $0.5m on last half. Given the seasonality in our business (or whatever drove it), we see this as a positive / negative outcome - or not relevant in the Longer term, or whatever they really think.

That's what you'd tell a business partner who had been away for 6 months. But it's rare you'd ever get this level of candour. Still if the market standard is to operate this way, that's the norm we're dealing with.

Instead I think you need to take all the numbers and metrics they give you, run your own variance analysis vs pcp and prior period (and rec to the totals they provide). They you can assess what they should be saying vs what they are saying (and rounding for their benefit).

Added benefit of this approach is you can quickly see when they drop a previously reported number / level of detail.

Management spend a lot more time looking at their financials than we do, so you have to assume they are deliberate in what and how they report - we generally see the numbers that support the story they want to sell + statutory disclosures.

I generally like JAN and am watching but new mgmt still have a way to go to prove they're on the right track for me.

Disc: Not held

@jcmleng I was also going to mention how often re-classify the different segments, making comparisons very difficult. I also wish they’d drop the like-for-like revenue comparisons - it just comes across as needy and desperate.

@Bear77 You’re not missing anything. I just think it’s a silly way to present the numbers, trying to highlight any remotely positive statistic.

I'm just not a fan of these types of "stats crime". I get how it happens - the numbers come in, they’re underwhelming, so they mix and match, cherry-picking the biggest figures to paint a better picture. Then, next half, they do it all over again.

I've even worked for companies where this type of behaviour is prevalent. The real danger is if you see this at the very top level of the company, then this could be a practice that runs throughout the entire organisation. It becomes a case of “toxic positivity,” where everyone’s a cheerleader, and real problems are never confronted.

At the end of the day, this is a company that has made multiple failed acquisitions, lost some of its most valuable customer contracts (PISA for Schools), and only grew revenue by 3% last year. There are plenty of real issues to confront.