Fair enough - and good point about the whole-year timing. We...

Fair enough - and good point about the whole-year timing. We disagree on many things about the stock and the business but you have a good eye for detail and some of the catches you've made inform my (slightly moderated) thinking on GSW.

I think the "loss making" issue and the "disaggregation" issue go hand in glove. I think GSW's core business could lose 5x as much as it seems to - now - and I wouldn't be quite as skeptical. GSW core, if it is functioning correctly, can and should be in VC territory, like you say.

The problem is that the acquisitions can't possibly be treated in the same way. They are mature businesses with product lines that have attracted a certain amount of customers. They aren't doing rocket ship growth - Occam's Razor suggests that if any of these businesses had rocket ship potential they would not have sold to GSW for a modest multiplier on revenue. I'm not going to - like some of the more vocal commenters here - pronounce them "virtually bankrupt" or anything like that - but their contribution to the bottom line suggests that not only are they moderately-growing and/or unreliable, they are also not good cash cows.

Better disaggregation would help us get a better sense of this, but they have not only lumped together 3 very different businesses, they also piled up most of the corporate expenses in a single number so we don't really know how expense LOGO (or anyone else is to run).

Honestly I think these guys may have had a good business in there somewhere, but I think the ASIC cases, the domicile shift, etc. are all massive distractions and we'll never know. I think this business should have stayed with the VCs for another round and fear that they will poison the well for other startups in Australia.