Below is the link. Some off-the-cuff notes, and I'd love to hear...

Below is the link.

Some off-the-cuff notes, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts.

I particularly want to go back and listen to the part toward the end where Brad says, (I think I got this right) that if the business grows at similar rate the Gross Revenue will be 50m in 3 years. I'd like to see the math on that. That was not how my math worked out. Also, I like that he had a hint of irritation on how everyone is now talking about profit where a couple years ago we were saying, "Spend to grow!" He's right, and I think I know the answer to why that is: These modest growth rates (relative to total dollar, 20% is a lot when a company has 100's m in rev but not some much when only 20m) are not what we were looking for from a company that only has small dollar revenue and so, since we see that growth is mid, we want some profit. Shareholders want profit. And also EBITDA profit is not a thing. I took accounting. That's just some accounting bs companies use to trick shareholders. You might as well say "Imaginary profit" (Charlie Munger). And one more thing, I think it is true what he says about why PRO doesn't get more attention or has a bad rap among institutional investors. 1) 40 years of being a fledgling software company doesn't look great, 2) low share count (liquidity); and 3) seemingly unrelated product offerings. (My note, but ultimately low share count is an investors friend) And yet, it seems they start every event talking about being a company for 40 years. For my money, they should have started over with new name and new ticker when they went exclusively Emite and Snare (2017?) and left the past behind.

With all the foregoing criticisms, I have to say I like his answer re last year's spend. The ipaas (did I get that right?) and Philippines seem like really good moves. If this company is what he says it is as far as the quality of the products and it's position in the market and the insane number of global big companies and yet the revenue is only 20m than it needs more rev per customer, and it seems they are moving in that direction with Snare Central and ipaas.

I'd like to see someone else take the reins if the stated '24 goals aren't achieved. That is only fair. He's got 10m in the bank on a company that only has 20m in rev, he's got 2 big initiatives completed (ipas and Philippines), staffed-up, what else does he need? He's even got a head start, given that he indicated some big invoices didn't go out until just after end of reporting period. Either big rev growth or profit or a reasonable combination of both (yes, I'd accept bs EBITDA "profit" with really good growth, say 25% minimum)

One other thing, one of the reasons PRO doesn't get any attention is because they don't get on any podcasts, blogs or on any twitter threads. This is how micro caps are recognized these days. I don't know why they don't change this? Maybe it is best to wait until they are profitable.

Your thoughts?