Good growth in the northern hemisphere, it will be interesting to see how the new regulations in the UK will play out long term.
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141029/pdf/42t8yrsp3dg9rw.pdf
This is an overall increase of 12% in EFTSU compared to the prior corresponding period
(pcp) which in turn had grown by 25%.
“We are committed to recruiting genuine students and to complying with Streamlined
Visa Processing requirements. As such, growth rates in Australia may temporarily slow
compared to pcp as these measures aimed at ensuring quality impact.”
Price run way ahead of itself, healthy correction with the current earnings.
EPS probably around 21-23 mark for the year so do look expensive
This is the comment the market must have reacted to; "We are looking at flat growth for University Programs moving forward" So they are saying any growth will come from SAE and be in low single digits at group level.
Steady state business.... NPAT grew 12%, EBITDA 13%. What negative growth? Yes, there was a goodwill impairment and some acquisition costs, but they are one-off expenses. Cashflow looked very impressive to me: the balance sheet continues to expand.Who knows what Mr Market reacts to! But surely the reaction is more likely simply to the drop in EPS, its pretty significant and negative growth in earnings is not what the market would have expected.
The reference to "flat growth" in the UP segment is after considering the loss of the Macquarie contract. If they completely replace that profitability by the end of next year I believe that is a very good result IMO.
See post here.A while back somebody put up a post showing when all NVT University Partnerships are up for renewal. I can't locate this info but would be grateful if someone can supply this data.
What negative growth?
EPS, but now I check I am confused! EPS fell significantly for the half ending 12/14 according to the half year report, down to 8.3c, yet the Investor Presentation for the same period says EPS up 11% to 10.7c.
I was working off the report rather than the Investor Presentation, now I wonder why the discrepency - its a massive difference in terms of impact on the business
EDIT - its the NPAT reporting that is way different, $30m on the report and $40m on the presentation.
I must be having a blonde moment and missing something!
EDIT @ - looks like another case of using unreported NPAT for Investor Presentation as opposed to reported NPAT in Financial Report, its goodwill impairments that have been excluded from presentation.
Just a difference between normalised and reported statutory numbers. I think they put $9m one-off goodwill impairment on the Macquarie U withdrawl.
Thanks skc, so how should I interpret the results, it seems to me the impairment is real, and has a real impact on NPAT and therefore EPS, should I largely ignore the impact because it is expected to be a one off? That seems to lead down a dangerous path to me! Would be grateful to hear your thoughts.
.....
If, say, you are using a PE multiple valuation method, then you certainly shouldn't take the lower reported EPS (you'd be too conservative). You might choose a lower PE multiple, however, to account for the increased uncertainty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?