Hrfacebuk,
Your post is clear and cogent. Thank you for that. In fact, it acted as a trigger for me to check out the data. Below are the data for total income for the first half for the last five full financial years. Except in Sept 12, they has not been a half yearly degrowth.
Sep-15 Sep-14 Sep-13 Sep-12 Sep-11 CAGR
243.33 230.96 200.58 129.37 148.28 13.18%
As far as quarterly numbers go, it is clear that Q1 numbers look a lot weaker than Q4 of previous year and this is evident when one looks at the numbers and has also been reiterated by management multiple times. But Q2 numbers almost always look stronger than Q1 numbers; including for this year.
The abiding concern ( even for someone like me who inherently sees a lot of growth left in this company) though is that management needs to be more nuanced in their guidances, especially since now the stock is under the limelight. The days of escaping unscathed from over ambitious guidances are over for this stock. It has to pay the price of being an outperformer and that normally is nuanced and conservative guidances.
The multiples are coming from growth estimates. Underpinning them is the degree of credibility of these estimates; both on a numerical and time scale. If over time there is an established pattern of over guidance and achievement of targets, but over delayed time horizons, one can be sure the multiples will very quickly reflect that.
Having said this, I agree with your behavioural observations. My only fervent request to the management is to get their guidance philosophy right. And the deeper concern is whether this tendency to over guide is a reflection of a mindset which is getting increasingly disconnected with ground reality; given the spectacular growth over the last few years.
I also agree that it is not a bad idea to discount management guidance in this case. Keep in mind, if everyone does this, that is essentially a PE erosion which is the direct outcome of their cowboy attitude to guidance
The next quarter holds the answer.