IAM Overview, page-28

Finally, a voice of sanity and reason !

You are right !

Perhaps the people that have demoed this system will be in a much better position to tell whether the platform is usable.

The BPO part being a viable business has some merit.

Perhaps, to cut down costs to ensure that a better value has been delivered is obviously the focus. It seems though that IAM is trying to hard to sell Lilly and klip while their USP is BPO.

Since the system may be customised for solving a specific complex problem the usability of this system may be much higher than compared to something off the shelf.

I think you have struck the right chord there.
Why would they sell the Klip and Lilly because selling a BPO business is not sexy !
Throwing the AI and Big data has been the focus of a lot of these tech companies and hence the chap1 and chap2 compliance in place now with ASX.

The part about all the jobs being done in the CRM is also a bit misleading because opening a document happens on a browser so it is debatable whether the data does leave Australian servers. A person in Philippines when opens the document (PDF) it is assumed to have been accessed in Philippines.

I also find it a bit sus that they went into extreme details about why the code cannot be copied and who did the code.

My only contention is that the revenue is not scalable.

Look at it medium term say 5 years.

- The current valuation at 133 mil what revenue does this company need to show to sustain this ?
- How will IAM derive revenue ?

If the value is in personnel doing the work then deriving revenue in millions is harder than it looks. Personnel churn rate , competitiveness, cultural inhibitions, force majeur all come into play.

- What is expected revenue after 5 years ?
- Are performance shares based of revenue ?

Software has very natural returns to scale, because all engineering costs are up front. The marginal cost of serving one more customer is very low. Thus the best software gets more customers, and more money for investment in engineering, making it even better, making it more popular, etc. The cycle ends up in monopoly or near-monopoly.

With service businesses - I am afraid it is not the same.