Last Friday, the 15th of November, I, as is customary, the weekend before we release results, I sent the investor decks and the ASX announcements to our board for their consideration. And we had gone through the normal process of the audit as we had for the previous 12 halves with the same auditor. And that was business as usual. On Sunday, during the day, there was interaction between our auditor and some of our finance team around how we were handling supplier payments and how we handled those supplier payments historically and how we should be applying, how we should be handling those supplier payments going forward. At 5:30 P.M. on Sunday, we had confirmation that we needed to recognize those supplier invoices under a different methodology. Instead of the methodology that we, or the accounting standard we had use, which is AASB 137, we should have been using AASB 9. At that time, we were advised that there would be a significant impact to our FY25 earnings, and there would be a significant material impact to FY24 and previous years that have been issued to the market. So what we did is we worked overnight to review the FY25 accounts to see what that impact would be. And by the time we got to circa 9:00 A.M. on Sunday, we realized there was no material change for the FY25 results. However, we had no certainty for FY24 and any of the previous years before that. So under that scenario, in consultation with the board and with our legal advisors, we felt that we had no other option other than to enter into a trading halt to bottom out all the assumptions associated with the supplier invoices that were potentially material to our results. So we entered into the trading halt on Monday. That probably is the reason this took considerable time. By the time we got to Tuesday, the numbers were locked in. However, for certainty, we asked to go into a voluntary suspension on Wednesday to triple-check everything about our assumptions. We then released the announcement last night, which is on the ASX update on voluntary suspension. The impacts of the changes that we will have with regards to our accounts is that even though we haven't published our accounts, there will be a circa AUD 2.5 million increase under the new accounting approach, but to revenue, which flows straight through to EBITDA for the first half of 2025. There is a AUD 1.5 million reduction in EBITDA in FY24, which comprises a AUD 1.5 million increase in the second half EBITDA and a AUD 3 million reduction in the first half of FY24. An approximate 32 million decrease in retained earnings as of 31st of March, reflecting the adjustments related to prior periods or prior years, and an approximate 32 million increase in trade and other payables balance as of 30th of September 2024. I'll hand over to Tony. Sorry, I'll just restate that the restatements are non-cash in nature and reflect tiny difference in recognition across the periods. I'll hand across to Tony Ristevski, our CFO, who will outline the way we did it prospectively and how we will now do it retrospectively. Thanks, John. So John's just gone through the outline as to how we got here. And obviously, explaining and using an example of what this means at a practical level, I can probably best do that in this way. Say for October month end as an example, we did gross TTV hypothetically of around EUR 220 million as the example. And we did EUR 200 million of cost of sale, which would generate roughly 10% margin. So normally what would happen in the October accounts, we would book EUR 220 million to debtors, EUR 220 million to revenue. We will book EUR 200 million to creditors and EUR 200 million to revenue. The net revenue is then EUR 20 million that we'll recognize in the P&L. What we also know is that in reality, that our suppliers won't always invoice us the exact amount. They'll invoice something less, or some invoices won't arrive at all. Typically, there's a degree of error as it relates to our obligations. What we do in the current month, take an estimate around what we believe that error rate could look like. On top of the EUR 200 million of accounts payable that we would recognize, we would reduce that by, say, EUR 2 million. We will book a debit to our accounts payable ledger of EUR 2 million, and we'll credit the P&L for EUR 2 million, thereby increasing revenue to EUR 22 million for the period. That's what we will do prospectively. The auditors have come back to us on Sunday evening and said, "Well, yes, traditionally we've been using the process of estimation, but they believe that AASB 9 is a contractual obligation, and thereby what we have to do is use it retrospectively, the EUR 2 million recognition." So what will normally then occur now going forward in October is we would recognize the full EUR 200 million as a cost of sale, but then what we'll have to go back in time and look at where we were in April of 2024, 6 months earlier. And if there is an accrued amount that's unpaid at that point in time, we'll bring it to account in the P&L for October of 2024. So what this set of invoices only changed prospective view to one of a retrospective view. As you can see from the implications at a practical level through the P&L for the last 18 months, you can see either method doesn't yield a materially different outcome. We've always been quite cautious around understanding the error rate. So therefore, either method in reality, and that unfortunately wasn't evident to us until sometime Monday or Tuesday, to John's point, yields the same outcome. So that's probably in simplicity what the accounting standard implications would be. That being said, we did go back 12 months ago and revisit this process. We did get another Big 4 firm in to revisit the way we did it under AASB 137. And the view there was it was reasonable to take the approach we're taking. And that had been shared with the auditor. So it wasn't something that we would try to be gray on. It's been something that was quite transparent. We know it's material to our P&L. We know that we need to be across this in detail, so we've always been quite transparent in that regard, and that transparency has been amplified by the introduction of the SAP Enterprise Reporting System in the last 18 months, so we've got a little more granular detail as it relates to managing this. As such, you can see the outcome there, as summarized last night in the ASX release. It's pretty much negligible, circa 10 basis points for the half and roughly 3 basis points for last year. So summation of all of the adoption of the new standard means that the change to our results, as confirmed by the auditor, is not material to the company's earnings nor its financial position. So we will be not requesting any additional suspension of the shares, and they'll be back on the market at circa 10:00 A.M. this morning. So with that, we know that there are already some questions online. So I'm happy to take questions, and Tony and I are both happy to take questions at this point. Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please register by pressing star then one on your phone and waiting for your name to be announced. Your first question today comes from Tim Plumbe at UBS. Please go ahead. Hi guys. I'm sure there's lots of questions, so I'll just leave it to two, if that's all right. The first one just around the AUD 2.5 million benefit in the first half of 2025. Do we need to think about another adjustment in the second half of 2025, just thinking about the relationship that you saw in FY 2024? Look, Tim, I think it'd be premature to look forward. Obviously, this is a function of TTV into the future. We've been using a retrospective method, but I think either scenario won't be material in the second half. You can see that in last year's results. So when we are obviously growing by what we expect to grow, and we'll talk about that next week. So we can't talk about that today. But no, I think the short answer there is it would be negligible. Got it. And then just the second one, just so around the payables increasing AUD 32 million, I don't quite understand why they weren't considered payables before and now they are. In that example, Tim, when I said that in the October month-end, we would book a debit of AUD 2 million to the payables account, that's recognizing that we would have an obligation less than what we've booked on face value. Instead of AUD 200 million, we believe we'll be paying AUD 198 million. So what this requires is to gross our creditors back up again. So we're reversing the prospective impact of what we believe we won't pay into the future, which is non-cash, and increasing our liability. So when we book this in the half, what's going to happen is we'll have to increase our liabilities by AUD 32 million in September 2024 balance sheet, and then we roll this back through retained earnings. So each year there'll be a gross up of accounts payable, and then the last point in the gross up is in the March 2023 balance sheet, which is the opening balance sheet for the restatement period of 2024. So the only place that the other side of the journal can go to is retained earnings, which represents multiple years of accumulation of debits representing this methodology. Got it. Okay. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from John O'Shea at Ord Minnett. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Can you hear me okay? Yes, John. Yeah. Thanks for taking my question. I guess my question relates to why the change in view from the auditor now and what prompted the change. Can you give us some insight as to how that happened or some sort of background on that one? I'll start with the commentary that relates to my opening sentences. When we all left work on Friday, there was no indication from the auditor that this was being looked at. Tony, do you want to pick it up related to the SAP potentially? Yeah. Look, well, what we did is in the quarter ending September 2023, we did further enhancements around SAP. We effectively created enhanced functionality that gave us better insights into the auto matching process and better insights into the error rates. So we did a lot more work in that area in the quarter ending, and that work was focused upon by the auditors in the background, and when they started to revisit that, this issue came to bear. Okay, so the internal information or management accounting information you'll now be able to provide then prompted the change in their view? It prompted them to revisit this item, John, as they described it. I think I can't comment internally within the audit firm in terms of technical reviews that occur typically in audits because there is another level of review above and beyond the primary signing part that normally occurs in audits, and then when we look at obviously the enhancements with around SAP, the way in which we can age our AP and the matching process better, the details that we have threw up a lot more questions around the way we do accounts payable. Okay. That was my only question, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Bob Chen at JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hey, guys. Just a couple of questions for me. Just that difference between the invoiced amounts and your accrued amounts, what's the key driver of that? Look, I think in our industry, what happens is there is obviously an accrual that we would take based upon what we believe is the contracted rate We would get an invoice arrive, and at times that invoice might be higher than what we've accrued, and then our team in accounts payable would debate that and most likely end up paying what we believe we owe after an agreement with the hotel. In some cases, they bill us less because we might have matching issues around description of hotel rooms and rates because they are dynamically priced. There is a bit of vagueness there around that, and in some cases, suppliers for whatever reason fail to bill us within the contracted period. There are the different scenarios as to what drives an error rate, and this is common across the industry. This is not unique to us. This occurs across the broader marketplace. So I can put it into some perspective. We have had the opportunity of reviewing some other publicly listed companies and accounts that we've got access to. This occurs in every bedbank business. I've been in this industry for 20 years. My previous employer, we had a similar methodology to the one adopted by us here at Web Travel Group. So it's standard business practice within, I'd say, the broader travel industry, but I can specifically say that it obviously occurs in the bedbank industry. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. And then that sort of six-month testing period, so is it your sort of view that after the six months, or is it a contractual term that after the six months, you're no longer on the hook to make these payments? Yeah. Look, that's part of the standard operating model for our business, and it's also practice. Our business within WebBeds has been doing it for 12 years, so there are very few people who decide to bill you or change the request for any bills that they've already sent after six months. 99% plus are sorted within that six-month period. And we've probably taken more cautiously in the six-month therefore. There's others in the industry that take a 60-day approach, a lot more prudent or aggressive approach, should I say, so we're probably a bit more reasonable in that sort of window. Great. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Wei-Weng Chen at RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hey, guys, so I guess it sounds like the issues are resolved. What's happening between now and November the 27th? I guess notwithstanding the weekend, why are we releasing results only a week later? Is there stuff left to finalize? No. For us, we would have been if this issue hadn't occurred over the weekend, we would have announced our results yesterday. So it would have been on time. As part of the de-merger, we have embedded in our results the Webjet results, and we can't go until Webjet goes. So the sequencing is Webjet goes, and then we would go, even if it's half an hour later. So they're anticipating going Wednesday at the latest, so we will go Wednesday as well. There's no outstanding issues. If the question is, are there other outstanding issues with regards to the audit, the audit still isn't signed off. Obviously, we only locked in these new numbers with the auditor yesterday. So it will go through its normal audit finalization process, which will take a couple of days. But there's no other known items to either Tony or myself. Okay. Cool. That's very clear, and then the other question was, I guess it's best practice to rotate auditors or audit partners every seven years, which I think you guys basically are right now with your current auditor. Are you looking to maybe look to tender out? Look, it's everything around audits. So we've obviously had a change in audit partner in the last couple of years versus what we started in 2018. But look, for us to comment on this call. Yeah. But we did rotate audit partners normally after five years. Yeah. We've done that. So. Just wondering, are we answering questions about your October 14th update as well, or is this just purely on the accounting stuff? Purely on the ASX release that we put to the market last night. All of that, you'll have ample opportunity next Wednesday, Wei-Weng. Okay. No worries. No questions then. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Sam Seow at Citi. Please go ahead. Oh, morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just quickly, you've got the 44% EBIT margin guide out there. I'm guessing this 2.5 is additional to that? It would be. First half 2025? Okay. Cool. And just in terms of the error rate, it looks like it's a benefit to the revenue margin. Maybe does this change in accounting kind of structurally reduce the error rate? It is a benefit to the revenue, and it's not going to be, as Tony highlighted earlier, it's not going to change the error rate. And what we recognize is that that error rate does go up and down, and we've been pretty good at predicting that over the last 10 years. Now we'll just apply whatever it's been from the six-month period, and every month we will update our accounts in that fashion. So we don't anticipate that changing the quantum. We're a revenue margin down the same. Okay. Can you maybe just walk us through the situation where I think in the first half 2024, then you had the AUD 3 million reduction in revenue margin? Just how did that come about? It's purely applying the one method by reversing out the journals, albeit the recognition of the AASB 137 and applying one AASB 9 in law. What we can't control obviously is the error rate by month. Obviously, the actual error rate on a lagging six-month basis is different to the one we had recognized prospectively. That resulted in roughly a small delta there. If you look at that AUD 3 million, I think what the first half TTV last year was around what, AUD 2 billion or thereabouts. It's a small delta. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Your next question comes from Lisa Deng at Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, John and Tony. So a couple of questions. The first one is, so you now can't recognize the error rates prospectively. You must retrospectively recognize. So when can you recognize? If you're reversing AUD 32 million now for the half, I'm guessing, when can you actually recognize the go forward error rate? What we do there in the September accounts, our accounts payable will increase in value. If you then roll forward to October's month end as an example, and the example I just gave, what we'll have to do is look back at the April 2024 accrued but not paid amounts on our ledger. Whatever amount is accrued but not paid will then be recognized into the P&L in October of 2024. Okay. So that's the six-month ongoing. Yeah. The rolling six-month review of accrued but not paid that you can recognize. And that's a method that you've agreed with the auditors, isn't it? Yeah. Correct. Which is why it's stuck that under AASB 9, where I'm going to get into technical, where the view is that a liability can only be recognized if it's paid, canceled, or expired. Technically speaking, it's expired, meaning they haven't paid invoice in the six-month window, you recognize it. Or if it's canceled by virtue of it being paid differently, you recognize it. So I'm going probably into too technical, but there's the way in which the standard drives the recognition. Okay. So just to understand, you're reversing 32, but by the end of the month, whatever, you'll put in an error rate that so it nets out, and then you'll get. You put in an error rate. Lisa, what it would be is the actual unpaid amount in quantum. Yeah. Okay. It won't be a function of cost to sell. What it would be is an absolute dollar value remaining on our books in April of 2024, which we'll recognize, which coincidentally might be hypothetically in line with the prospective amount, which is what it has been since around the last 18 months. So there is no real deviation from one versus another other than the proposed method forces us to gross up the payables account to reflect the future benefit we'll get. Yeah. Okay, and then the second question is, I am quite confused about the timing difference. So we're taking up payables by 32 in September 2024. So that's the end date for first half 2025 financial year. But then why are we reducing the retained earnings in 31 March 2023? That's the end date for financial year 2023. That time gap seems quite large. What happens is you've got to roll back these adjustments through every balance sheet in the current period and the prior year compare period. So you start with September 2024 and get that balance sheet right. And then what will happen is, obviously, there's also tax adjustments along with revaluation adjustments because these are all in euro. So what you'll find is that the EUR 2.5 million, there'll be a portion of that that will go to retained earnings in September 2024 to complete the journals. Because you've grossed up liabilities, put through the credit through the P&L, there'll be a tax benefit from that. There'll be a bit of an adjustment regarding currency to go to the currency reserve, and then the delta go to retained earnings. That adjustment is then rolled back into the March 2024 balance sheet, and then it's rolled back into the March 2023 balance sheet, which is the starting period or the opening period for our 2024 prior year compare. So you have to get all our balance sheets correct using the most recent balance sheet as the correct starting point. So you roll all these amounts back. The AUD 32 million, is it a cumulative sort of error rate adjustment for how many months? It's years in the accounts for March of 2023, but in the current period, it'll be roughly representing six months. So 32 is roughly representing six months. Is that right? Do I understand it correctly? Yes. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Sam Seow at Citi. Please go ahead. Oh, hey, guys. Thanks for the follow-up. This could be a stupid question, but I just want to understand directionally. You're increasing payables, which means you have more to pay. Just wondering how increasing cost to sales increases revenue? What will happen is if you increase payables, say in that example, we booked EUR 200 million in the cost of sales for October and the new accounts payable, that would be the transaction we would book under AASB 9. What we'll also then book is a reduction of our payables based upon what's accrued but not paid in April of 2024. And that amount might be hypothetically EUR 2 million as an example. You get to the same conclusion. It could be EUR 1.5 million or it could be EUR 2.5 million as an example. Is there anything to read into the $2.5 million increase in revenue and the $32 million increase in payables? I mean, it looks like a 7%-8% revenue margin. Is there anything to read into that? Sorry. Come again. Sorry. What's that, Sam? Repeat that, please. I mean, you're increasing revenue AUD 2.5 million. Yeah. Your payables, 32. That looks like an 8% revenue margin. Is there anything to read into that or is that increasing? If you look at it in the context of the last six months, applying one methodology and then backing out the old methodology, the delta there is going to be roughly, let's take a ballpark, around 10 basis points circa. Okay. Thanks, guys. We're probably running out of time. So if we maybe restrict it to two more questions. No problem. We can do that. Your next question comes from Aryan Norozi from Barrenjoey. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Just two from me. The retained earnings adjustment has been restated down AUD 32 million. So my model is saying that the cumulative impact that you've now looked at is AUD 32 million lower and over how many years have you done that cumulative impact, please? Ari, it starts with September 2024 and works backwards, is the way it works. And we don't have that visibility because we don't have the SAP environment working to determine how many years that accumulation works for. So we didn't work backwards to look at anything earlier than March 2023. What we looked at is purely September 2024 and worked backwards from there. But if your retained earnings are down AUD 32 million, that means your profits are AUD 32 million lower. Isn't retained earnings a function of dividends and profits? So if your retained earnings falls. But we start with the September 2024 balance sheet and work backwards. So in September 2024, as an example, the other side of the journal will be retained earnings, where we push through the increase in liabilities, the AUD 2.5 million of additional revenue after tax-affecting currency and rebalance. You've got this adjustment, circa AUD 30 million, going through retained earnings in the current year, as an example. And that same adjustment flows all the way through to get to your starting balance sheet for the comparable period, which is in March 2023. Okay. So the AUD 32 million is just for one year, and it doesn't mean that you've been oversetting profits by AUD 32 million. It just means that there's a corresponding accounting entry to balance the balance sheet, basically. Correct. Yes. Correct. And that is what we've applied to retrospectively apply this accounting standard. Okay. And last one for me, and there's a lot of minutiae questions, but just at the end of the day, your valuation is how much cash your business spits out. So can you confirm, and I think you've said something? Nothing changes in revenue. For everyone, your cash that you generated throughout the last five years and yeah. No, nothing changes at a cash flow level. These are outflows that never occurred. But our cash condition, our cash conversion, is still intact. Perfect. Thanks, guys. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Last one. Yep. Your final question comes from John Campbell at Jefferies. Please go ahead. Thanks, guys. Just around that non-cash in nature, but it will have tax payable implications around timing of tax payments, won't it? It's nominal because it's the web-based business there, John. So it's going to be sort of prior periods. It's not worth opening up the tax accounts for it. Yeah. Okay, so it will have some tax effect, but it'll be trivial in nature. It's trivial in nature. It's not worth opening up prior year returns for the sake of circa 10% before the UAE rates went up to 9%. Yep. Sure. And just the last one, Tony. So obviously, accounting changes to accounting standards are generally discussed with the company sometimes years in advance. And I mean, you've talked a bit about how this was sprung upon you, but have you had discussions with the auditors previously around potentially moving to AASB 9? No. This purely occurred over the weekend, John. Short answer is no. We heard about it, as I mentioned in the opening commentary. We heard about it for the first time. Tony heard about it for the first time at roughly 1:00 P.M. on Sunday. And they confirmed that's the approach they were going to take at 5:30 P.M. on Sunday, which is when I heard about it for the very first time. So no, we haven't heard about it. We haven't had that discussion. And it had never been raised with us prior to Sunday. Okay. So I take it from that that you'd be quite disappointed at how this has come about. At the end of the day, we went into a trading halt for two days and voluntary suspension for one. Our finance team has been working night and day to make sure that these numbers accurately reflect what's in the note, and as the summation, which is agreed by the auditor, which is the changes has now been determined not to be material to the company's earnings and financial position, so it's a lot of work for no change. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Thanks, guys. Look, last one. One more question to go, guys. I'm just conscious we're running over. Thank you. Your next question comes from Ben Wilson at Wilsons Advisory. Please go ahead. Oh, thanks very much for taking my question, guys. Look, obviously, a lot of questions here, but I guess just one residual one, a flow of funds question, which may be useful for context. So look, obviously, there's lots of variations with how this works in the industry, but as I understand it, on a typical basis, say if an OTA makes the booking, they might get the funds upfront, and then they'll pay you sort of around about 25 days after check-in, and then you'll typically pay the hotel about 25 days after that. So maybe if you can sort of confirm or correct that, and I guess that's why you have this issue in that you will recognize the liability to pay the hotel upon check-in, probably. But the final amount actually invoiced and paid can be a little bit different, or in some cases, the hotel might not even invoice you at all. Maybe if you can just sort of confirm that. That's definitely the case, Ben. It's widely been the case for decades in this marketplace. We're not unique in that regard. Yes, but the key thing there is fundamentally, the core principle is that we recognize the obligation and recognize the TTV and the revenue in the month of check-in. Not before, not after. In the month of check-in when we have the legal right to the TTV, and then we obviously then bring to account the obligation for that TTV, and then over time, for different reasons, there'll be invoices that will not match what we accrued. There'll be invoices not presented in the timeframe that we've agreed. They then result in effectively an error rate. This is customary. This is not new. What is new is the fact that the standard in which we've applied has pivoted towards a different standard. That is new. Yeah. Thank you, guys. That flow of funds really helps to explain sort of why this is, and it's obviously industry standard, but it helps to explain why that situation is. Appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Ben. All right. Thanks, guys. Appreciate everyone's patience as we work through this, and we wish you all a great day. Cheers. Thank you. That does conclude the call for today. You may now disconnect.