Great post, thanks EB. I probably need to read the activities report again as I only skimmed it today. I am at the stage with Spenda (and other specs I follow for entertainment/learning) where I don't even read the activities report, I simply judge it by the actual cashflow statement. As my earlier comments in this thread have alluded to, the numbers matter. It is easy to spin narrative, but the cold hard numbers tend not to lie. So I'll need to read through again. But I can probably warn now that my comments are unlikely to deviate much from what I've written in this thread so far. For example, when I read stuff like this...
"Revenue generated from this growth in payments flow will be reflected in cash recipients in the coming quarters..."...I can really only roll my eyes. Was that really in the report? It almost sounds like it was written by Fiendish or Lizzy. How long have this management team been promising punters that revenue flow would be reflected in future cash receipts? What was the point of the 31 March all-guns-blazing announcement about $150M in annualised payments flow (with another $100M suggested for June!) if an entire quarter later holders are still waiting for any sign of income from this to flow through? Why didn't the announcement at the time make it clear there would be a lag to any earnings flowing through? But overall, yes if they have really increased payment flows by 500%, and yet revenue is only up 10%, that should imply there are more earnings to flow through. Just remember that when you're starting off a low base, percentage increases always look really good even if the underlying numbers are not. For example, if I open my lemonade stand on Friday afternoon and sell one drink, then all day Saturday I manage to sell 6, I've increased my sales 500%....
On the ARR, yes 95% would be very positive - that provides some certainty to future income - but as Warnie says, are loans really ARR? And again, in context, their FY22 revenue was $2,334,000 so 95% of that is $2,217,000 for the entire year. At this point in time they're burning ($2,620,000)
each quarter. So that revenue generation needs to flow through quick-smart. The good news is that the funding situation is probably better than the 4C reveals, because technically whilst they've only got 4 quarters of funding left, instead of using their own capital for lending, they can now push stuff into the DW. But I'd imagine they'll need to wait for those loans to mature before they can recycle that capital back into their own business to sustain the opex.
Hopefully all of this is a turning point for Spenda and its longsuffering shareholders (especially poor old
@CJTJ laid up in hospital, get well soon!). I guess the problem is, nobody will really know for another three months, until the next 4C is due. In a way, the business is very clever; it manages to put out just enough hooks to tag people along for "just another quarter". Perhaps one of them will finally blow everything out of the water. If so, I'll be the first to say I got it wrong.
Cheers
(20min delay)