Share
3,595 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1361
clock Created with Sketch.
03/02/22
17:08
Share
Originally posted by Warnie:
↑
Yes probably are now unfortunately The main issue is the DW now becomes a necessity rather than an extension of the core business Forget the $18m insto raise, and the 3 business purchases, along with the $60m for APPstab (absolutely ridiculous) that was all either overpriced or none of it required imo Well the APPstab was needed but the price paid was criminal Smart way... Get Spenda products (transactional ones) generating rev to a point whereby it covers costs and generates some profit (proof) To do this you don't go and ramp up the wages to 1.5m quarter it's just dumb as you are now having to fast forward the non proven lending arm which hand strings the rest of the business and puts it all at risk of failure Use past history not so long ago - Wages were $300k quarter and other overheads around $265 quarter Taking out the current loan income, the business would be more or less cashflow positive today Then you pilot a lending product (not buy an existing one) by putting on someone in that field of expertise, plenty out there You then can raise say $5m via share issuance and run the pilot (proof) while continuing to increase the Spenda transaction levels 10/100/1000 fold Imagine sitting here today with Spenda generating $2m quarter through transactions only with over heads of say $600-$800 quarter Suddenly you have a proven and sustainable business where you can then value add with bnpl and lending etc but the terms would be more favourable and you haven't diluted the crap out of all holders before you even start The SOI now needs consolidation 100:1 with a cornerstone insto (bank like) It's just not how I would have gone about it all but hey could be proven wrong in the end There should also be a CEO and that's not AF as founder of the software He talks in liquid form it doesn't work in the main arena, he's better off sitting in the trenches where he's the expert not up front imo no one cares how or what the software really does, you take clips off transactions by enabling B2B via card payments and extended terms simple explanation only required We can also lend the users funds which we will introduce once the transaction volume is sustainable to cover expenses As someone who owns a lending business it's not all roses, very capital intensive and the more you lend the more you need the less the margins as bad debt kicks in and overheads can blow out Here it's blown out before it's even started which makes it tough for all Now it's a company with 3B plus SOI, bugger all income, over inflated market cap, extending only funds it has access to, to a high risk market with little security, it just beggars belief to be honest I think the business has merit IF it can take market share but it's already noosed itself on a few levels The last one changing the company name to Spenda - Why would you do that? You have a software product suite Spenda, along with 3-4 other addon businesses, I don't know why you would call the company the name of your software eps if your next aim is to lend high volume I prefer the name Cirralto and Spenda is the product suite it owns and sells or the transactions is Spenda and the lending arm is say Funda - people can then relate the two - one helps with my transaction workflow and invoicing - one helps if I need credit terms Anyway rant over
Expand
"Forget the $18m insto raise, and the 3 business purchases, along with the $60m for APPstab (absolutely ridiculous) that was all either overpriced or none of it required imo Well the APPstab was needed but the price paid was criminal " Where does your $60m price for Appstab come from? The deal was done on 6 December 2019 (https://hotcopper.com.au/documentembed?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvSTYP4A61yBaZo%2BV2ke92GA%3D%3D ) for CRO to acquire Appstab in an all scrip deal, where the existing Appstab shareholders were to receive 825m CRO shares that were trading at $0.007 at that time, giving a value of $5.775m.