You mean, if they announce that they are then CF+ and we can see...

You mean, if they announce that they are then CF+ and we can see in the results that there is a sustainable stream of revenues that will pay for the costs. Then yes, +1. It is extremely unlikely in my opinion. You have to recognise here that such a performance would be a step change from what we have seen and I therefore would expect an announcement about "something" supporting such new $. Nor the CC deal nor the Capricorn new project have announced revenues anywhere near close to what's needed to bring them CF+.

At some level, that's ok. What I want to see is a credible path. "We will make X out this, and Y out of that, and X+Y > costs". Something sensible with no hyperbole.

The point about lending is important and please hear me out here. You could think of the SP as a multiple of revenues. Something like SP = Lending multiple x Lending revenues + Payment multiple x other revenues. The lending multiple is these days extremely low. If you look at other lenders, it is less than 1 sometime... If SP is a measure of success, they must absolutely generate other revenues in a big way. And in a transparent way too. AF needs to understand this and go back on what he said sometime ago, merging payments and lending as "the same".

The idea of spinning out the lending arm is to allow that new unit to develop more institutional grade sources of funding, while allowing the listed company to enjoy a better revenue multiple. It is also helping to "look the part", as the boring people can then be fronting with suits... That point is very important. Currently, there is in my mind no chance that AF can look credible in front of people who may lend tot he company $100m+ for funding their lending book. Zero chance. I would even go as far that it reflects poorly on the fund that lent them $50mio (Dinimus). They had to be desperate to deploy capital to agree to fund Spenda given their financial performance and car salesman of a CEO.

If that style works in tech - so be it. It surely does not work in financial services.