This is an overly optimistic take that ignores major structural...

This is an overly optimistic take that ignores major structural risks in Zip’s business. Comparing revenue multiples across BNPL companies without considering fundamental differences in business models, risk profiles, and market positioning is misleading. Affirm commands a higher multiple because it operates in a deeper credit market, has stronger partnerships, and a differentiated revenue model. Meanwhile, Zip is still struggling to prove long-term profitability despite years of trying.

The idea that Zip is not in a saturated market is just not true. BNPL is not a revolutionary concept anymore. It is just another form of short-term credit. In Australia, Zip is not just competing with Afterpay but also traditional credit cards, banks, and interest-free finance options from retailers. In the US, it is an even tougher market. Companies like Klarna, Affirm, and PayPal have significantly stronger brand recognition, merchant networks, and financial backing. The argument that there is room for multiple players does not change the reality that Zip is a small fish in a tank full of sharks.

The argument that Zip customers are not financially stretched also ignores a key point. Zip's average customer is not spending more because they cannot. Just because one person maxes out their Zip Plus account does not mean the majority of users will. Zip's reliance on small-ticket discretionary spending makes it particularly vulnerable in an uncertain economic environment. Even if rates come down, it will not magically make BNPL consumers start doubling or tripling their spending overnight.

On bad debts, the logic presented is flawed. Zip may have increased revenue while keeping bad debts stable, but that does not mean they are immune from credit risk. Provisions are one thing, actual charge-offs are another. Zip’s customer base is inherently riskier than traditional credit, and in an environment where consumer savings are declining, job markets are softening, and discretionary spending is already stretched, the risk of rising delinquencies is real.

The idea that they have handled bad debts does not mean they will continue to do so when credit conditions inevitably tighten.The idea that rate cuts will solve everything assumes too much. BNPL was never a sustainable high-margin business to begin with. The golden era of easy money is gone, and BNPL has already been exposed as a business model that struggles under real economic pressures. Zip is still loss-making, still reliant on external funding, and still playing catch-up with much bigger competitors. This is not a company positioned for massive upside. It is a business fighting just to stay relevant.