Just to clarify, Claude indicated that initially he also looked...

Just to clarify, Claude indicated that initially he also looked at ACV, but in 2019 when reassessing based on cashflow sold out.

Frankly I'm closer to Claude's view......with cashflow of ~11-12m for this financial year, and Pbt negative, the company still looks over-valued at ~80m (6-7 times cashflow, and forget about materially PbT and EBITDA negative).

Also just to clarify what Luke said.....he wants to like the company and what they do, but the fact that customers are either delaying payment and/or delaying signing up for 'mission critical' software seems to bring into question how mission critical this is.

I've got a small stake as I have the same sentiment as Luke (and Andrew Page also has this same view of how impressive the software appears to be.....at least from what mgmt are communicating), but the fact that revenues/cashflow have not matched mgmts ACV numbers and it has taken 3 mths to negotiate contracts brings into question the entire thesis. Even if they do reaffirm ACV above 20m, (a) it would have to be materially above that to show mgmt have achieved something other than just not show they have lost some contracts, and (b) demonstrate through revenues/cashflow that ACV = something tangible that shareholders can see.

I agree with @Hogana123 that it seems strange that they have brought on what seems (at least in the US) a very well credentialed exec without factoring their cashflow situation, but again for the last 2-3 years we've had great quarterly/semi-annual writeups of all the progress and successes, but valuation eventually has to ignore the hype and be based on something tangible.....cashflow/revenues/profits