It's just the beginning for Spenda!, page-8702

I'm not at all posting rabidly. I'm responding to ridiculously misleading posts.

Now I'll give you a backhanded compliment here - I think you're the only one of the negative posters that has a clue. Which is why your posts surprised me so much. And because you actually have a clue, I asked if your posts were serious.

Firstly, I'm not doubting or disputing your facts and figures. They are what they are. But this is where I take issue. You're being wilfully ignorant in a big way, and I'm wondering why.

You've stated that "95% recurring revenue is a big negative for me". 95% recurring revenue is NEVER a negative. It's extremely impressive. Now, your issue is that it took $3m to generate $80k.

I'm sure you are well aware that Spenda let customers go last Q, and yet still grew their customers by 12%.

I'm sure you're well aware that Spenda were still just implementing the DW for much of the previous Q, and had derived barely any revenue from same.

I'm sure you're well aware that it has been said many times that full utilisation of $30m of the current DW will lead to breakeven, and that is tipped to occur by end of financial year.

I'm also sure you're well aware that CC have just contracted to use Spenda's software in 205 stores. This will generate significant revenue and some of the previous Q costs would have been accrued due to establishing this deal.

It has also been said that there are numerous similar deals in the pipeline, and some that are bigger. I'm sure you've watched those webinars also.

When all of these deals are implemented, and revenue starts rolling in, if the company can sustain those 95% levels of recurring revenue, can you please explain without being wilfully ignorant, how this can possibly be a negative?