Austin Engineering Limited

Group revenue was $329 million, down 12.7% year on year. EBITDA was $20.4 million, down 52.5% from $43 million in FY25, with EBITDA margin at 6.2% versus 11.4%. EBIT was $10.8 million, down 67.5% from $33.2 million, and net profit was $7.6 million versus $27.7 million last year. Operating cash flow was $26.7 million, up $24.1 million from $2.6 million, supported by a $32.2 million inventory reduction; free cash flow after interest, tax and capex was $19.9 million. Net debt was reduced to $5.8 million from $12.8 million, and the company closed with $17.1 million in cash. FY27 underlying EBITDA from continued operations, excluding foreign exchange, is guided to $17 million to $21 million.

Sybrandt van Dyk described FY26 as “challenging and disappointing,” but stressed the issues were operational and within the company’s control. He said the business has already taken decisive corrective action, with visible early progress in North America, a commercial and operational reset underway in South America, and continued strength in APAC buckets and spare parts. His tone was cautious but constructive, emphasizing that Austin enters FY27 leaner, more disciplined and better positioned to convert the recovery plan into improved earnings.

David Bonomini focused on the earnings decline and the strength of the cash flow and balance sheet. He highlighted revenue of $329 million, EBITDA of $20.4 million, EBIT of $10.8 million, net profit of $7.6 million, and an EBITDA margin of 6.2%; he also noted statutory profit included net material items of $4.2 million. On cash, he pointed to operating cash flow of $26.7 million, free cash flow of $19.9 million, capex of $6.8 million, a $32.2 million inventory reduction, and reduced net debt of $5.8 million, with the year-end cash balance at $17.1 million after dividends and buybacks. He framed the financial controls and working capital discipline as key enablers of the operational reset.

Analysts focused on the shareholder communication format, the unusually low mining-contractor exposure, North American demand, working capital sustainability, and the Chile OEM reset. Management said contractors are not a mainstay because they tend to buy heavier bodies for longevity, while Austin is more exposed to bulk-commodity customers such as iron ore, copper, oil sands and coal. On the OEM contract, management said the relationship is strong, the contract was reset because it had to be profitable to continue, and there was “nothing” given up in the renegotiation; on working capital, they said some release should normalize as growth returns, but raw-material discipline and customer deposits still help offset inventory. Management also said a dividend return remains a board decision, but the board has a bias to pay dividends when capital needs allow.