I added a new chart to my spreadsheet, which might be of...

I added a new chart to my spreadsheet, which might be of interest. Ignore the projected cashburn, since it doesn't even include ETF, but the projected expenses (from the quarterly) probably do.

Quarterly expenses breakdown over time.

The trends are pretty clear.
Product Operating Costs - the main expense that is in an uptrend. I expect that includes brokerage costs, which are variable (we may pay ~$5 for each trade processed).
Ads - the main one in a downtrend. Currently $75k, but seemingly approaching 0.
Leased assets - fixed, and small.
Staff - quite fixed, 2nd largest expense.
Admin - quite fixed.

With 1 variable expense and 4 mostly fixed expenses, any increase in revenue should make a big difference to cashflow. The current growth rate suggests increasing revenue is likely.

And another one including total expenses and revenue too, to help visualise.



Total expenses was quite flat so far, but it'll have to change to an uptrend soon, since ads have little room left to fall, and product operating costs is variable. But revenue should increase faster than the expenses.

Revenue was increasing quite linearly, and quickly.



And another thought just popped into my head.

My old analysis shows that in FY19, the revenue breakdown was as follows:



I forget where I got those numbers from. I probably calculated them from the annual report.

But that should help me to calculate the % of trades that were free trades in the quarter.

So assume that 45% of revenue this quarter was from trades, as per the FY19 average.

Revenue was $1.178m. 45% of that is $530.1k. Divide by $9.50 flat brokerage. = 55,800 paid trades.
Total trades was 78,452.
=22,652 free trades. (presuming $5 cost of providing a trade, means $113,260 spent on providing free trades. I don't begrudge that, since it's the cost of organic growth - the referral system, and avoids spending even more on ads).

=28.9% of trades were free trades.
=71.1% paid trades.

Even people making free trades will contribute a little to interest revenue, and they might simply be new members (active clients grew by 30.1% this quarter) who are using their 5 free trades and will then likely start paying for trades.

Doing the same calculation for Q319 shows 79.7% paid trades (20.3% free trades). That is higher paid trades. Q120 did have a higher growth rate of active clients however, but I'm thinking the EOFY sale may have increased the % of free trades this quarter.

That depends on the '45% of revenue this quarter was from trades' assumption being accurate, but it's an interesting observation, and should be fairly correct.