Well done
@61289439. Truly hoping for a good outcome for you from this. A few general observations on some of the comments made:
From IOU:He said BNPL was never large enough to generate the scale they wanted and then said wholesale funding was difficult because of rising interest rates.- This is what many here have been saying for well over a year. This problem became obvious when they kept pushing the wholesale funding target date out each presentation. It was also glaringly plain from their March 2022 quarterly report when they admitted they couldn't get scale without funding, and they couldn't get funding without scale.
From Clee:The whole purpose for the $50M was for it to be put into BNPL. There was NEVER a discussion about IOU making an asset purchase in relation to IDSB. Clee Capital went to IOU with a $50M pot for the sole purpose of investing in BNPL- Again, this is something many have said for over 18 months now. IDSB was a total pivot - when a company does something left-field, don't make excuses for them. And it’s unbelievable that >18 months on they still haven’t been able to fully close the deal, or properly cross-sell BNPL into the (tiny) IDSB customer base. The warning signs were flashing ever since September 2021. Nobody even knows if IDSB still have the AG Code - a key reason the company promoted for investing in them in the first place.
What will be your ability to raise funds? Clee has already shown they can do this through the 50M raise- This needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The $50M raise happened at peak market-froth and BNPL mania. It’s a totally different world out there now, especially when you can earn 4-5% risk free in US treasuries or a term deposit. But I suspect if there is a change of Board, sentiment may improve and terms of funding would likely be better than with the current board.
Finally: there is plenty of bad behaviour on these threads, and it is particularly unfortunate given the way this situation has now ended (real people are stuck in this with their money trapped; non-holders in particular should remember this when commenting). But putting that to one side, it is also an example of how non- or ex-holders should not be written off when they try to fly a warning flag. NOBODY is trying to manipulate the price lower and get cheap shares, etc. It is, quite simply, a pretty wild company to follow so it's hardly surprising many different people will have a view. I for one never outright warned of fraud (I had no evidence
outright fraud had been committed and I did not want to throw serious allegations around) so I'm not going to pretend I had some sterling foresight. What I
did however warn of was that
IDSB represented the transfer of tens of millions of dollars of shareholder-funded cash to a couple of individuals who ran a small private business with unaudited financials. The minute this happened the sirens started going off because there was simply no visibility on what value for money looked like, and if this was it. Whilst I have reservations about other aspects of Clee Capital, I can totally understand why this is a big issue for them. Perhaps the most surprising thing of all is that they waited so long before they took action.
(20min delay)