Thanks - I didn't know that about the SGX - do you know who won...

Thanks - I didn't know that about the SGX - do you know who won that bid? I see a couple of problems with your strategy. First, I think quite a few of the shareholders came in at a significant multiple to the share price implied by even a $10m valuation, and so they might be reluctant to sell down now at that kind of price and realise their loss. (On the other hand, they are may be coming to realise that the business will possibly never realise a price much more than $10m in, e.g., a trade sale.) Second, the renewable revenue is currently sitting on around $2.5m. The question is, how much would be the bare minimum cost to service that? I don't have enough info to speculate on that (and, as a substantial shareholder, you sound like you're close to management and might know a lot more) because I don't really know the breakdown of that revenue, but I have a feeling that, because of the upfront loaded license model (where the clients pay most of it upfront and then 20% or so maintenance), it could be stretched across a number of sites (three or four banks and a few exchanges), and products (Razor (including the limits module at ANZ, and different types of risk modules across a number of clients), PTX and the treasury system). Because these systems are cross-asset, global, and the clients have head offices in all of the time zones, the costs of servicing the maintanence contracts are likely to be non-negligible - I would have thought 5-10 decent people. If you cut too hard and the clients think that the company is being stripped back to basics and don't feel they are getting sufficient support, they may try to stop paying maintenance, take the code out of escrow and hire one or tow of the ex-Razor staff to support it themselves. This is all guesswork, but I find it hard to see a steady state profitability of more than around $1m a year, and the question is, how many years can you stretch that out for in order to make good on your investment?