NZK

HY23 was structurally loss-making (it contributed -153.7% of FY23 EBITDA and -1,294.9% of FY23 NPAT), so the shape signal points to an H2-weighted year in a normalised cycle. On a simple annualisation, HY24 statutory EBITDA of NZ$36.9m sits above the top of the revised pro-forma guidance range of NZ$27.5m — but that is not a like-for-like comparison because guidance is pro-forma and the company has not disclosed the reconciling adjustments in the supplied excerpts. The release supports the upgrade but does not support a stronger conclusion than "management expects H2 pro-forma EBITDA of roughly NZ$5m–9m", which would be materially softer than HY24 on a pro-forma basis and implies H2 seasonality or biological caution.

• What are the reconciling items between statutory EBITDA of NZ$18.5m and pro-forma EBITDA of NZ$10.7m, and how do they behave in H2?
• Why is implied H2 pro-forma EBITDA (roughly NZ$13m–17m on an H1 pro-forma base of NZ$10.7m) consistent with the revised range, and what biological assumptions sit behind it given documented water-temperature pressures?
• Is the sub-2% capex-to-revenue ratio sustainable, or is catch-up capex deferred into FY25 as the revised sea-farm strategy is rolled out?
• Dividend policy after balance-sheet repair is not addressed; with NZ$25.2m net cash, capital return framework remains undefined.

This briefing cannot assess the durability of the biological recovery or the sensitivity of the guidance range to further water-temperature or mortality events, as neither is quantified in the supplied data.