I'm well aware of what was in the 9/2 announcement.
Bettt said the deal was "done, and being completed as we speak".
The ASX announcement (from 2 days ago) says the company "is in the process of appointing a US based investment bank to investigate any POTENTIAL proposals".
2 very different points of view.
I have lost count of the number of times Bettt has mentioned in the past couple of days what a certainty a takeover is. I laugh at the $8 and $10 figures I have seen him mention.
I have actually started to wonder whether his real name is Joel or Bane!
-----------------
It has been well over a week since I created a lengthy post about my research on GSW, including detailed information on the numbers. I have felt inclined to comment many times, but have refrained.
I will now point out some more recent observations.
GSW advised in their Prospectus that they have a 100% retention rate (as at the date of the prospectus).
Announcing the loss of the Fruit Box and Fantastic Furniture would have alerted the market that the 100% retention rate was a thing of the past.
GSW announced they had a large number of customers at IPO, and yet cash receipts for last quarter (12 months later) were $160k.
The revenue figures they quote are just spin and a deflection in my opinion, refer to my post about how I think they do it (totally legal I'm sure, but questionable given how their contracts work).
In the latest announcement they announced 90% retention.
What the real question is, is what percentage of enterprise customers are presently using the platform?
I could pretty much guarantee that "retained" customers include customers who are no longer using the platform as per their "contract", but have not advised GSW of a formal cancellation.
Management will now be receptive towards a takeover approach because, in my opinion, they are concerned about potential action from Fidelity and other CR subscribers. A takeover would fend that off.
Let's look at some quotes from management from only a few short months ago,
"One of the potential risks is the group faces is an acquisition by prospective larger clients or tier 1 competitors prior to full growth capability having been realised". 31 /10/2017 plus other previous mentions (annual report).
Do they think they are there now?? (Just over 3 months later).
CBA and N A Williams deals had already been announced by then.
So, is it still a risk, or are the "deals" announced since meaning full growth capability has been realised?
On Friday we learnt of the loss of further contracts that were announced to the market in April and May 2017.
The relationship with CBA has not got any better, and CBA have said the deal is only a pilot at this stage.
No update on NA Williams since it was announced 3 or 4 months ago (although the ASX have not queried this through their releases to date).
Who knows what the Amazon deal is or isn't worth. I can guarantee you Amazon worry about themselves first, second and third. They will want to pay as little as possible, and a very small (in comparison) company won't have much, if any, bargaining power.
Guaranteed revenue from
CBA - $0
NA W - $0
Amazon - $0
YUM - $0
These will be the assumptions (given how GSW contracts work) I will be using, until I see confirmation through delivery and cash receipts figures.
You can believe a takeover if you want, I will only be believing it when I see it.
Back in to hibernation.
Expand
