End May Update, page-21

Thanksfor the feedback Pioupiou. I agree with you that the business is inherentlyprofitable and scalable geographically and vertically, and that getting thebalance right is a dilemma. To explore the profitability of the ANZ businessfurther (but using my preferred lens of cash flow):

• I will use my earlier estimate of $33M in surplus cash flow (after deducting its portion of corporate costs) from the ANZ business in FY21. As at 31 December 2019, total equity was $71.6M including $49.6M in cash not yet invested. For simplicity, I will assume the equity has been invested equally between ANZ and NA as I have no data on how this equity is split. So, for just the ANZ business, I expect it to be generating net cash of $33M on its equity of $35.8M. That is a net cash return on equity of 92%. Even if all the equity was in the ANZ business (which is obviously not correct) this return is 46%.
• Due to the large amount of cash on the balance sheet ($49.6M at 31 December 2019), NEA’s returns on capital invested is even higher than these percentages.
• So yes, ANZ is already very profitable and improving profitability more each year while net cash grows faster than costs.

If NEAhad stayed in ANZ, and not used its cash flow for expanding into NA, it wouldhave so much cash it would have to return it to shareholders each year individends or capital returns. As an investor always on the lookout for highly profitableand growing businesses, I would much rather NEA invest its surplus capitalwhere it can generate these kinds of net cash returns (well above 46% andgrowing). Hence I applaud management's move into NA when it did, as they are likelyto be generating returns by FY22 that are much higher than I can get byinvesting elsewhere.

The sameprinciple applies IMO for the next geographical move. When the combined netcash flow for ANZ and NA, after all corporate costs, becomes sufficientlypositive (likely in 2 years IMO), I would strongly support reinvesting thatsurplus cash in growth in another region or two. Their business model has wellproven that such investment will generate the best returns forshareholders. I would not support raising more capital to do this earlier,but even doing this would generate returns much higher than the cost of capital(I don’t want this due to the market not liking it).

Furthermore, NA will grow its surplus cash much faster than ANZ is currentlydoing due to the size of that market and NEA's lower penetration. My ball parkfigure for NA in FY23 is that just the growth in net cash flow after corporatecosts is likely to be in the range of an additional $25M on top of the netpositive cash flow in FY22. So it's not out of the question that the NAcash generation in 3 to 4 years time will exceed what is needed to expandgeographically at a manageable rate. Starting a small dividend return couldthen be an option.