I wonder what happens when members read our posts.
Do you read to respond? Or do you read to understand?
We hope the latter, but your comments suggest the former.
SPX a mismanaged business that deserves the 1c share price and current market cap. In other markets they may have gone out of business (via the process known as Creative Destruction) or been taken over for a song.
In our view the CEO has let his shareholders and profession down and the directors are complicit ("derelict in their duties" we suggest) for letting him get away with it. From what we can see the CEO and executive has made countless misrepresentations to shareholders and has missed numerous promised outcomes, destroying millions of dollars of shareholder value in the process.
If we had a large enough shareholding and enough board influence, we would terminate the CEO immediately and bring in a career professional who could fix the place. We would take a close look at the board to verify they have the experience, temperament and passion to move the company forwards to create shareholder value. If not, they would be replaced with more suitable candidates also.
There you go. We are now on record.
If one of your passions in life is to keep SPX in the doldrums or to somehow punish them or others, then please carry on. We wish you well. Everyone needs a hobby. If you are interested in discussing what could change and the potential to create some value along the way, stay with us.
We invite anyone who thinks we are here to support the CEO or thinks we have a positive view of what has happened in the past to revisit our words.
We don't.
Read to understand, don't read to respond.
For convenience, we list below the dates and times of our posts (which we have converted to AEDT but may need adjusting to your local time zone) with a handy summary for each:
24/1/25 19:28 - In this we encourages members not to engage in personal attacks, suggested HC could be a great place for grown-up debate on SPX and asked if everyone was interested in discussing the 4c. We also said that our prediction for the 4c (which was after all the topic of the thread) is $3.4m.
25/1/25 00:22 - In this post we put forward an argument that the recent Limepay (or LP as we subsequently referred to it) acquisition had some hidden gems in it. We posit that LP may have been distressed when acquired, but seemed to have a strong pipeline of deals. Evidence of this being the former LP shareholder tranching their remuneration based on rev targets. We then said that margin appeared to be consistent (and offered some evidence on this) and that included Lessn. We then suggested shareholders look out for other announcements regarding the LP pipeline for more clues and suggested that absence of these would be a red flag. Please note in this post we referenced back to the disclosures concerned.
25/1/25 11:42 - In this post we continued our theme that personal attacks on the CEO or each other achieves nothing and suggest that a more professional approach may bear fruit. We suggested putting pressure on the board (the reason, which we did not mention, is that the CEO seems immune to it). We spoke a bit about us having a position in the company (seemed like the right thing to disclose, take it or leave it) and how we think about investing. We introduced the concept of mean reversion (don't take our word for it... Google or ask Mr GPT, Claude, Gemini or Grok about if you can't lay your hands on or understand the literature). We said our thesis is that SPX will mean revert at some point (no idea when, it could be a long way off). Then we talked (again) about how the LP acquisition could be a catalyst to kick off mean reversion.
We note subsequent to this post that a fellow member said there may have been some regulatory issues. It was unclear if this related to just Lessn or LP in general but our thanks go to the member for raising it. We will now investigate further and point out that acquisition of new knowledge like this is the upside of civilised debate in this forum.
26/1/25 12:47 - Here we continue the theme that investing is best done in a business-like way and strongly (strongly) suggested SH starting with the board. We outlined some legal requirements of board members (don't take our word for it... Google or ask Mr GPT, Claude, Gemini or Grok about if you can't lay your hands on or understand the legislation). We again used the tagline, "Spenda shareholders accuse directors of dereliction of duty" which seems like something SPX SH could get behind. From here, we said that if you have lost money in Spenda it's your fault and you need to move on. We offered our experience on how a good and bad investor thinks about losses. We reinforced our thesis that mean reversion will happen (no idea when, it could be a long way off) and that the LP acquisition COULD (it was capitalized in the posting and again here) be the catalyst. Again, we suggest looking out for announcements on LP pipeline deals in coming quarters. Finally, we offered a tip that multiple SPX-style investments could offer portfolio-level out-performance even if one goes wrong. Take it or leave it. We then (carefully) wished everyone a happy holiday.
So, in summary we are viewing SPX (in which we have a position) as a stock with potential upside when mean reversion inevitably occurs. That's our business-like view of the world.
Finally:
If you are disappointed with the company, we agree with you.
If you think the CEO and executive has made countless misrepresentations to shareholders and has missed numerous promised outcomes, destroying millions of dollars of shareholder value in the process, we agree with you.
If you think the CEO has let his shareholders and profession down and the directors are complicit ("derelict in their duties" we suggest) for letting him get away with it, we agree with you.
If you think the CEO should be terminated and a review of the board undertaken, we agree with you.
In fact, it's possible the only difference between us and some of you is that we are able to articulate our position like grown-ups.
Hope this clears things up. Nah-yeah?
Expand
(20min delay)