Leighton Holdings, the company that has made a habit out of disappointing shareholders with profit downgrades and project write-downs, did it again yesterday when it confirmed what many in the market already knew: its Airport Link project would not meet its June 30 timetable.
Construction companies live and die by their ability to estimate costs and meet deadlines. Leighton has failed several times in the past 18 months, resulting in a share price that is among the worst performing on the stock exchange.
In a statement to the ASX yesterday, the Leighton chief executive, Hamish Tyrwhitt, said the delay - which could be up to 51 days - would have no impact on its full-year profit, which was downgraded by one-third in March.
What he did not say was that for every day the $4 billion-plus Airport Link project was delayed, it would cost Leighton $1.2 million in liquidated damages. If it takes until August 20, that would add up to $61 million. For Tyrwhitt to say the delay will not impact the full-year results suggests the company made some provisioning in its shock profit downgrade in March.
The next project to watch is the delivery of the Victorian desalination plant, due later this year. Any delay in this will also result in liquidated damages.
But worse than the cost of the liquidated damages is the cost to the company's already damaged credibility. Losses forecast from the Brisbane toll road and the Victorian desalination plant total more than $1.2 billion, following a series of write-downs in the past 18 months.
This is a company that desperately needs fresh blood at the board level after so many problems, including the departure of senior managers it can ill afford to lose.
Leighton has also been the subject of an investigation by the corporate regulator, over alleged breaches of continuous disclosure last year. This was settled on March 17, with the company agreeing to pay $300,000 in penalties and to implement a formal review of its continuous disclosure policies and procedures. It refused to admit liability.
Yesterday's announcement wiped 3.6 per cent off the share price, which closed at $19.25. The fall was sharply lower than the overall market decline of 2.2 per cent.
Worsening conditions in the US and renewed chaos in Europe, coupled with a business survey and construction index showing a weakening in Australian business conditions, will put added scrutiny on Wayne Swan's budget today as he throws every accounting trick in the book to meet a targeted surplus.
Sources in the infrastructure sector are concerned that the few projects that get up will be based on accounting treatment rather than rational selection. The speculation is that the $4 billion Pacific Highway upgrade will be selected and classified as a contingent expense to avoid hitting the federal budget's bottom line. The $1.6 billion freight terminal in south-west Sydney that is expected to take thousands of trucks a day off the city's roads is rumoured to have used accounting to avoid being treated as a liability, again to avoid blowing out the budget's bottom line.
If Swan resorts to such accounting tricks, he will do himself and the budget no favours, as the government tries to meet a promise to bring the budget back to surplus after a huge spending spree during the global financial crisis.
One of the biggest issues facing the budget is the size of tax collections, which have grown less than expected because of several factors, including reduced capital gains tax revenue owing to the poor performance of the sharemarket and falling property values. Yesterday's market battering was a timely reminder of how volatile global markets will remain as the US and Europe battle tough economic conditions.
To put it in perspective, capital gains tax as a share of gross domestic product tripled to 1.5 per cent in the five years to 2008. When the financial crisis hit, causing tax losses, the share fell to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Deloitte Access Economics says this translates into a fall of $11 billion compared with the peak in 2007-08.
In addition, company and superannuation taxes, as well as the new mining tax, are also forecast to fall short of official expectations, caused mainly by the poor earnings from non-mining sectors including retail, tourism and its related sectors, and manufacturing. Even the miners are unlikely to contribute as much revenue as expected, as most of them have allocated substantial capital investment to new projects, and have offset a large part of their tax bill with depreciation. NAB's survey for last month would not have helped sentiment as it recorded that business conditions fell three index points to zero. The bank said the weakening business conditions reflected a decline in profitability and trading conditions. "That may well mean that employment growth will weaken further in the face of poorer activity outcomes," it said.
Nobody denies that a return to a budget surplus is a good objective the argument is more about timing and the big rush to get there when so many things are up in the air. The latest developments in Europe and the horrible US job figures out last Friday are a timely reminder that if there is another financial crisis, , the tightening would be a big mistake.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What happened with Leighton Holdings' Airport Link project and why should investors care?
Leighton Holdings confirmed the Airport Link project would not meet its June 30 timetable, with a delay of up to 51 days. For investors this matters because construction delays can mean extra costs, higher risk of write‑downs and reputational damage — all of which have already contributed to Leighton’s recent profit downgrade and weak share performance.
How much could the Airport Link delay cost Leighton in liquidated damages?
According to the article, the Airport Link carries liquidated damages of about $1.2 million per day. If the delay extended to August 20, the firm could face up to roughly $61 million in liquidated damages.
Will the Airport Link delay affect Leighton’s full‑year profit?
Leighton’s CEO, Hamish Tyrwhitt, said the delay would have no impact on the company’s full‑year profit. The article notes Leighton downgraded full‑year profit by one‑third in March, suggesting some provisioning for problems may already have been taken.
Which other Leighton projects should investors watch for delays or write‑downs?
Investors should watch the Victorian desalination plant, due later this year, because any delay could also trigger liquidated damages. The article also highlights losses forecast from the Brisbane toll road and the desalination plant, with combined write‑downs over the past 18 months totalling more than $1.2 billion.
How did the market react when Leighton announced the Airport Link delay?
The announcement wiped 3.6% off Leighton’s share price, which closed at $19.25 on the day — a larger fall than the overall market decline of 2.2%. The article suggests the hit reflects investor concern about the company’s record of downgrades and project issues.
Has Leighton faced any regulatory action related to disclosure or governance?
Yes. Leighton was investigated by the corporate regulator over alleged breaches of continuous disclosure last year. That matter was settled on March 17, with the company agreeing to pay $300,000 in penalties and to carry out a formal review of its continuous disclosure policies; Leighton refused to admit liability.
What governance concerns at Leighton does the article highlight for shareholders?
The article says Leighton ‘desperately needs fresh blood at the board level’ after repeated problems and the departure of senior managers. For shareholders, weak governance and executive turnover can increase execution risk on large projects and hurt corporate credibility.
How do wider economic conditions mentioned in the article affect investors in construction stocks like Leighton?
The article points to worsening conditions in the US and Europe and a weakening in Australian business and construction indexes. These factors can increase scrutiny on government budgets and project funding, raise market volatility, and pressure earnings in non‑mining sectors — all of which can amplify risk for construction companies and their investors.