Strange post.
Which claim do you think I made which I didn't give facts to back up? The most important thing to me, as I said, is the bottom line. The company's stated ambition is for $200M revenue in FY23. This falls well short of what investors were lead to expect when over a year ago guidance was to have a RRR of $150M by the end of FY21. That clearly implied total revenue for FY22 would be well above $150M. If they simply thought June would be a big month they shouldn't have called it a rate if they mentioned it at all.
Is any of this 'making claims you need me to back up'?
I stated that they didn't give guidance because it would look terrible (unless they set it too high, which of course would be a bad idea in the long run). Surely you don't need me to back this opinion up since you acknowledge it to be true.
Take a moment to consider this next one. Take all the time required for it to sink in. You personally just said that if they gave guidance, the market would react badly so it's good they didn't give it. What does that tell you about your own opinion of the figures we can expect to see? Here is your exact quote: "after how the market has reacted to their giving of guidance its no wonder they are sheepish to provide it."
Wouldn't it be better if you were able to confidently say 'The expected figures are so good and it's great to see such encouraging guidance'?
As I said about JC changing role, it's not that big a deal. I'm not sure why you felt the need to discuss that, but okay.
As for growth, they're claiming over 40% organic growth, and only $200M revenue ambition for FY23. I already explained this enough for it to be obvious, but, some quick calculations: They claimed a RRR of $150M as guidance by the end of FY21 (do you need me to back this up?) which I think is fair to say gave the message that total revenue for FY22 would be greater than $150M. Last week, before Friday, I was critcised for saying I expected FY22 total revenue to be below $150M but we now can clearly see it to be the case (don't accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims, if you disagree or want me to explain this just ask and I gladly will, but at this point I figure it's overwhelmingly obvious and not needing explanation).
Crunch your own numbers. Their own ambition is less than what 40% organic growth alone would bring in, but they also plan to have acquisitions in both FY22 and FY23.
I was previously not concerned about dilution because I trusted management. If we were truly seeing the organic growth they promised, sure, the dilution would be in exchange for more than compensatory value to the company, but the figures don't add up, and of course with a lower share price, dilution is an even bigger issue.
You say I'm like the boy who cried wolf. I started expressing concerns in the 20s and sold in the mid 20s, holding only about 15% of my original holding for a bit of diversity. I then figured even that was a waste of time and sold the rest for 21c. It's now in the teens. Sound like the boy who cried wolf? All along, for over a year, I've explained why I think and expect what I do, for both TA and FA. Crying wolf would be to simply say 'It's going down! Get out now!'. I don't care if anyone believes me, I don't particularly want anyone to believe me, I'd rather they worked it out for themselves and either told me they agreed and disagreed, and certainly I don't want anyone to make any investment decisions based on what I say without them doing their own due diligence first.
Expand
