Thanks for this @mikebrisy holds together in my mind and thanks @Rocket6 for valuation work.

more on market buying from directors: another 32k

This is a great point @mikebrisy and perhaps I have a little ownership bias here but is it fair to compare across 2 static points with a massive perturbation in the middle? Forecasts are for decent growth in the next FY and EPS may follow?

in any case the other thought I have with the run of director buying we’ve seen is that if all these directors believe the stock is undervalued (hence their buying) should they be considering buying some shares back with their 670 mil cash?

@mikebrisy @Solvetheriddle good comments, gents.

@Solvetheriddle agree there are some hairs and you articulate them well. But there normally will be when we get offered a price like we are today, so we are left to weigh up the key question of whether the issues are structural/fatal for the business. I like a contrarian bet and this is always the first question I ask myself when a stock has been beaten up. In short, I don't think this is the case (and this applies to your EPS concern too @mikebrisy).

What I do think is in my favour: any sort of pent up demand for a few years (Covid 19 relevant here) creates extrapolation from the market and subsequent disappointment when this doesn't continue. I think it is wise, as you point out @mikebrisy, to completely eliminate those years in any analysis of historical and future earning. But we also needed to wait until those previous comparions and business activity were normalised so we could get that insight. So why has the stock performed so badly for a number of years? Likely a combination of post-covid normalisation, margin compression (inc cost inflation), US-related headwinds and recent valuation pressure. Am I missing anything?

I had a similar bet on Codan when it too had issues with the gold side of the business. The demand tap turned off (irrespective of the reason) and the market shunned them. Like Sonic, Codan was a little misunderstood at the time and were actively trying to diversify their business (noting that their gold business is still quality, just cyclical).The opportunity is different here. With this valuation, I don't think we need to see significant improvement across key metrics; slow/gradual improvement will suffice. I saw enough in FY25 reporting, in addition to recent share price pressures, to alleviate some of these concerns (high single digit revenue and EBITDA growth, NPAT, EPS and dividend stable).

@mikebrisy outside of the 'is/are these issues structural' question, the next critical question as you suggest is what is the catalyst? Depending on how much you believe management, they expect a 19% increase in EPS in FY26 (combination of organic growth, margin gains and cost cuts at LADR). I am also hoping we see post-synergies from the LADR acquisition. This speaks to your point a little @mikebrisy and would help contradict the slow capital killer argument. As above though, I would argue we don't need to see this with the current valuation, but if FY26 does result in an uplift of EPS of anywhere north of 10% we are likely to see a re-rate.