Every annual report contains forward-looking commitments. Revenue targets, expansion plans, capital allocation promises, operational milestones. Management puts them on the record. Shareholders read the headline numbers and move on.
We don’t. We track every specific forward commitment against actual outcomes in the following year’s report. Across the ASX companies where we’ve tracked 25 or more commitments, several delivered on fewer than half.
These aren’t speculative micro-caps. They’re names most Australian investors would recognise.
Key Finding: Among ASX companies with 25+ tracked commitments, delivery rates ranged from 19% to 83%. The gap between what management promises and what it delivers is wider than most investors realise.
The Standout
Goodman Group (GMG.AX) made 27 commitments across its recent annual reports. Of those, 5 were delivered. 16 were not addressed in subsequent reporting. That’s a 19% delivery rate from a company rated MODERATE on our methodology.
What makes this interesting: Goodman communicates well. The annual reports are clear, well-structured, and management addresses challenges directly. Communication quality and execution quality are different things. GMG rates well on the first and poorly on the second.
The Pattern
Goodman isn’t alone.
| Company | Commitments Tracked | Delivered | Not Addressed | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goodman Group (GMG.AX) | 27 | 5 | 16 | MODERATE |
| Orica (ORI.AX) | 35 | 12 | 15 | MODERATE |
| Amcor (AMC.AX) | 43 | 13 | 14 | MODERATE |
In each case, the annual reports read well. Management communicates clearly. The follow-through is where it falls apart.
What This Means for Investors
A single missed commitment is noise. A pattern across 25+ commitments is a signal. When management consistently sets expectations it doesn’t meet, the question isn’t whether they’ll miss again. It’s whether the market has noticed.
Companies where management consistently delivers on what they promise tend to outperform over three or more years. Our data across 1,086 company-year observations shows that companies rated STRONG averaged 2.6 times higher returns than those rated WEAK.
The full per-promise breakdown, category analysis, and year-by-year trajectories are available in individual company reports.
How We Track This
Our Say/Do methodology works in five steps:
First, we extract every forward-looking commitment from the annual report. Second, we categorise each by type: financial, operational, strategic, or ESG. Third, we check delivery in the following year’s report. Fourth, we score each commitment as Delivered, Partially Delivered, or Not Addressed. Finally, we calculate the delivery rate and track the credibility trend over multiple years.
We do this across 540+ companies on the ASX, NZX, SGX, and US exchanges. The delivery rates and credibility trends feed into the Q Factor score that combines quantitative financial metrics with qualitative management assessment.
Explore Further: Search for any company to see its Q Factor rating and management credibility assessment. Browse all companies →
Continue Reading
How to Read Management Promises in Annual Reports: A Practical Guide
Where to look, what to extract, and how to track delivery in five steps.
Methodology
This analysis is based on publicly available information from company annual reports and represents The Q Factor’s systematic methodology. It is not financial advice. The Q Factor methodology, including the Management Credibility Score, is systematic but inherently subjective. Past execution does not guarantee future performance. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.