>I ignore your afterpay analogy because its useless and baseless.
It's perfectly useful. Your argument is that IOU's share price is somehow proportional to their cash flow. I'm reasonably certain Afterpay has never had positive cash flow at any time they have been a public company.
Afterpay was worth 170 odd million market cap with worse performance relatively on your metric for IOU. $1 cap raise - 6 months later they had made 800k revenue for the quarter with a million in staff costs alone.
If that's a useless and baseless analogy, explain why? If cash flow is king, why did the market value that at that time (and continue to value it despite never having positive cash flow..), so much more than the value proposition IOU has?
Stig :
>the market consensus is the cost isn't justified by any metric it's using
Their target investor market is clearly wrong. Next report should heavily focus on how they extract money from people they lend it to. (Joke, sort of)
>Just for curiosity what do you value isentric at with a revenue of 10m
I'm not sure the total size and quality of iSentrics customer database. I doubt they have captured a lot of useful data as they mostly process payments. This is probably the reason iSentric had such issues with share price- I can't work out the actual realistic value. They have service deals with 20 out of 57 banks in Malaysia as well as an unknown (this is a problem) number of other companies. They seem to offer mostly back end solutions which, sure, are probably good if a large proportion of banks use them, but will the banks be using them for 10 years? I suppose they spend a lot of money on compliance as per their p&l's which at least indicates they take what they're doing seriously from a legal viewpoint - keeping up to date with how the industry changes. It's good but, eh. Investors of any type probably do not value this as it doesn't generate revenue, just avoids potential loss. Looking at what they do, they seem to constantly try to spend money to grow elsewhere. The core iSentric business could probably run at a profit if it just sat still, and could likely operate with minimal significant costly overhauls for at least 5 years. So If they have consistent 10 million revenue and no value adding like assets/ really good IP etc, then eh, probably 20-28, depending on actual operating costs.
>how can the 5 cent SP even exist.
Trashed investor sentiment. Because as is clear from most peoples position on HC, they don't understand the value of IDSB over growing the BNPL book. (Many people appear to think the money is "gone", rather than being replaced by an asset). I think marketing themselves as a BNPL to investors - to try to gain hype etc - was a mistake. Their actual investor presentation focuses on BNPL being an integrated part of their entire offering, which is, yes, not as enticing, but certainly a more reasonable business model. To be fair though as soon as they said "BNPL" their share price mooned, so, the market sort of incentivised them to keep saying it.
I also note that Isentrics previous dud status does not help them today. I think (hope) that they've paid enough attention to the digital finance world to now understand where the money is.
Expand
(20min delay)