How a S$1 Million Gain Masks a 75% Revenue Collapse at Rich Capital

Introduction: The Alluring Headline vs. The Real Story

On the surface, the latest financial report from Rich Capital Holdings presents a story of a remarkable turnaround. The company proudly announced a swing from a net loss of approximately S0.50 million in the first half of the previous year (1H2025) to a net profit of S0.53 million in the first half of this year (1H2026). This shift from red to black ink is the kind of headline that catches an investor’s eye.

But what if this impressive turnaround isn’t as straightforward as it seems? A company’s financial health is rarely captured by a single number. The most insightful details are often found by looking beyond the headline profit figure and into the underlying operations that drive the business.

This article explores three surprising takeaways from Rich Capital’s latest financial report. By digging just a little deeper, we can uncover a more nuanced story about where the company’s profit came from, the health of its core business, and its true cash position.

Takeaway 1: The Profit Came From a One-Off Sale, Not Core Operations

The first and most critical takeaway is that the company’s profitability in this period was not driven by its primary business activities. The entire net profit—and more—can be attributed to a single, non-recurring event.

According to the report, the net profit was “mainly attributable to the gain on disposal of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Rich Batam Private Limited.” This one-time sale generated a precise gain of S$1.066 million.

The implication here is profound. Without this subsidiary sale, the company’s ongoing operations would have resulted in a significant loss. In fact, the company’s own cash flow statement strips out this non-cash gain to reveal an “Operating loss before changes in working capital” of S$500,000 for the period. This is a critical distinction for anyone evaluating the health of a business, as it highlights the difference between a sustainable profit generated from core operations and a temporary boost from a one-time financial event.

Takeaway 2: The Core Business Actually Shrank Significantly

While the bottom-line profit looked healthy, the performance of the company’s actual business operations tells a different story entirely.

Group revenue decreased by a massive 75%, falling from approximately S0.89 million in the first half of the previous year to just S0.22 million in the first half of this year. This is a stark indicator that the company’s core business is contracting, not growing.

The company explains this steep decline by stating that “most value of the projects have been completed or near completion.” In simple terms, revenue from its existing construction and subcontracting projects is drying up. This shrinking scale is further confirmed by a corresponding 75% decrease in the cost of sales, showing that the company’s operational activity has scaled down significantly across the board.

Takeaway 3: A Curious Case of Improving Margins and Worsening Cash Flow

The report reveals two related but seemingly contradictory financial movements: the company’s profit margins improved even as its cash position weakened.

First, despite the huge drop in revenue, the company’s Gross Profit Margin actually improved, rising from 8.90% to 9.90%. The report attributes this to a “change in the revenue mix,” as higher-margin subcontracting services became a larger part of the smaller revenue total. Think of it like a shop that used to sell many low-profit t-shirts and a few high-profit jackets. If it stops selling most of the t-shirts and only sells one jacket, its total revenue plummets, but its average profit margin on what it did sell goes up.

However, this paper-based improvement masked a more serious issue. Despite the reported net profit, the company’s cash position weakened. The “Net cash used in operating activities” was **S0.32 million**, meaning the day-to-day business burned through cash. This is where the story comes full circle. The S1.066 million gain from the subsidiary sale was a non-cash accounting entry, not an infusion of operating cash. The cash flow statement correctly strips out this gain, revealing the underlying operational reality: the business lost money.

Conclusion: Looking Beyond the Bottom Line

Headline financial numbers, like net profit, can be misleading if taken at face value. As the case of Rich Capital Holdings shows, a positive bottom line can often hide a more complex operational reality.

A quick look beyond the headline revealed three key facts: the profit was the result of a one-off subsidiary sale, not core operations; the core construction business shrank by 75%; and the company’s day-to-day operations were burning through cash. These details paint a much different picture than the initial profit announcement suggests.

The next time you see a company announce a major swing to profitability, what’s the first question you’ll ask about where that profit really came from?

WATCH THE EXPLAINER VIDEO BELOW:

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST BELOW:

Related stories: AIMS APAC REIT Forward-Thinking 1H FY2026