Why the need to change?

Finweek English Edition - - MARKET PLACE -

Bal­win re­sults saw 277 sold prop­er­ties not yet regis­tered. This hurt prof­its, with HEPS down 36%. Had these 277 units been trans­ferred, HEPS would have been down 13.8%, the de­crease in part due to a ram­pup of ex­penses ahead of the large Wa­ter­fall de­vel­op­ment. What I find odd is that the com­pany is con­sid­er­ing how it recog­nises prof­its; cur­rently it is on reg­is­tra­tion of the ti­tle deed and Bal­win wants to change it to be on oc­cu­pa­tion or reg­is­tra­tion if there are guar­an­tees in place for the pur­chase price. The ques­tion is, why the pro­posed change? The com­pany says this will give it more con­trol over rev­enue and I agree with that, but the net impact will be one-off in the first year it in­tro­duces the change, there­after it is in the sys­tem and won’t have much of an ef­fect. So why the change only a year af­ter list­ing? Surely Bal­win should have known about this is­sue and made the change prior to list­ing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.