Accounting For The Cost Of Going To Work

Time spent in peak hour traffic, unreliable (and crowded) public transport, the cost of petrol and the ever-elusive quest for a parking spot — the daily commute has long been synonymous with inconvenience and expense.

But as companies urge their employees to reclaim their desks, a fresh wave of calculations has entered the scene and many are now meticulously tallying up the cost of heading into the office compared with working from home.

“Getting back into the office can be great for productivity but it comes at a cost to workers,” says Angus Kidman, money expert at comparison website Finder.

“Whether it’s paying for parking or fares to catch public transport, commuting into the office can be a hefty cost for consumers travelling into the office every day.

“But while remote work eliminates the need for commuting and transport costs, there are still plenty of other costs to be considered working from home.”

It’s no secret that patterns of work have changed drastically since the early days of 2020.

Where once we were content with the daily trip into the office — complete with full corporate wardrobe, coffees, lunch and drinks after work — the pandemic highlighted the ease with which many of us were able to work from home. Fast forward a few years and hybrid work arrangements are now more commonplace. However, in recent months we’ve seen many larger companies beginning to put their foot down on flexible working arrangements.

The truth is that thanks to the rising cost of living and those unrelenting interest rates many Australians are now paying more regardless of where they choose to work. But it seems a conservative estimate of around $10,000 per year to go to the office is the norm when you consider travel, food and your work wardrobe.

Research from Finder reveals consumers spend $122 per week on the commute which amounts to $5,856 over a 48-week work year.

Once we’re at work the spending doesn’t stop, with data indicating Australian workers spend around $1548 a year in their lunch hour — and that doesn’t include your morning coffee.

Commutes and coffees aside, the other big expense with working from the office is undoubtedly the corporate wardrobe although, according to experts, these days it’s more acceptable to be a little less corporate than we may have been used to pre-pandemic.

“Even prior to COVID we were witnessing a more relaxed workplace dress code and now that people have had a taste of dressing more casually, we won’t be in a rush to get back to the corporate that we used to know,” says stylist and corporate image consultant Caitlin Stewart.

“Designers have amended their offerings to reflect greater comfort and versatility in their garments so when curated carefully additional comfort elements can be implemented and still look professional.”

Stewart says a corporate wardrobe update can cost anywhere between $3000-$5000.

She also says while most men are still opting for suits in a corporate environment, the days of office heels and a full face of makeup for women are definitely over.

“A woman can look exceptionally polished in professional, flat loafers and a light face of makeup or just a clean and fresh face.”

Naturally, the actual costs people incur in the office or at home will depend on their specific circumstance but for Simon Kuestenmacher, co-founder of The Demographics Group, the bottom line is clear.

“There’s no question working from home is a cheaper option for many employees — especially in the capital cities,” he says.

Corporate image consultant Caitlin Stewart says comfort dressing can still be professional for women as well as men.

“There’s no tolls, no public transport fees, cheaper lunch, and you can get away with a smaller work wardrobe. Of course, working from home can incur extra costs but these are minimal compared with what it costs to actually physically go into the office each day.”

Undoubtedly, the biggest out- of-pocket expense in the current economic climate when working from home is increased electricity usage and associated bills.

Data from Finder estimates the extra electricity used when working from home will add between $324 in summer and $340 in winter to the average quarterly electricity bill — or an average of around $110 per month.

“You can claim a portion of those costs through tax, but the rules around that are being tightened this year,” warns Kidman.

According to figures from the ATO, almost nine million Australians claim about $22 billion worth of work-related expenses, many relating to working from home.

Other costs to consider in an home office include furniture, equipment, and software. However, according to Kuestenmacher, companies will often foot part of that bill for employees.

Further, experts say the savings associated with working from home are not just financial.

“One of the drivers for people to continue working from home is the cost of lost time that many people experience because of long commutes,” says Dr Penelope Williams from QUT’s Business School and the Centre for Decent Work and Industry.

“For many, the extra time they get back by not travelling to and from another workplace, not only helps them achieve better work-life balance, but also increases their productivity.

“It’s important to consider the financial aspect just as much as the impact of social connections, career advancement, networking and development opportunities.”

That being said, Williams points out that there are physical and mental benefits and challenges for both office and WFH environments.

“It’s really dependent on the needs of the individual and the requirements of the workplace.”

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.