PNV - Banter and General Comments, page-10581

it's not a good thing that the "insiders" are still top 20 shareholders. what should be happening is new bigger investors come in at much higher prices so whilst founders make money, the new bigger players support increasing future returns

that's not happening because the company hasn't delivered anything other than increased revenue with increased losses - revenue growth stocks are out of favour and wont return until interest rates fall. no one is touching it until it actually proves itself and whilst it continues to focus on peripheral things rather than a bankable future no one will care (other than gamblers).

the question about what to do with the cash is a silly one because the assumption sitting on cash is instantly dismissed clearly comes from people who don't understand the environment and only interested in go for broke. buffett's berkshire, apple, microsoft have traditionally sat on large cash balances because a) with high interest rates you get a reasonable return - note they sat on cash even when rates were low. what is the return on all these growth options? no idea because the company is only making a bets. you've assumed every global expansion will be automatically successful and much higher than 5% without any evidence whatsoever b) a cash balance provides strategic options c) when the market is no longer conducive to capital raisings for loss making businesses you have a buffer

you've also wrongly assumed the choice is no investment vs go for broke investment in growth. there are many different ways to invest in growth and they should all be measured by profit - not revenue. revenue is only for a path to profit and not a return to shareholders in itself. some people need to get off their high horses and black and white view of the universe and provide some actual facts regarding how current strategy is actually performing for shareholders rather than offer opinion.

I've asked before so what is the end outcome of this go for broke? what is the small profit next year - $0.1m, $1m, $2m on revenue of $100m? and what is a significant profit in 2025 $3m, $10m on revenue on $100m or $200m? if go for broke was so good, why wouldn't the company keep going for broke and indefinitely delay profit?

the whole point of being a growth stock is to demonstrate future profit potential so the share price increases. that clearly hasnt and isn't happening and that's because management haven't provided a profit strategy. its total rubbish to keep banging on about revenue increases when losses keep increasing. promising some unknown profit without any reference to return on investment is a sure way to disappoint real investors.