AFR is significantly less rabid about GSW in that article than many posters have been.
It is a sensible tactic to have PWC review their disclosure compliance and help with a company update.
Trumpeting binding, multi-year 'contracts' with 'assured commercial outcomes' was at best, a square peg for their round Saas hole.
If only GSW is bound (to supply and pricing), is it technically correct to refer to the contracts as 'binding', or is the counterpart also bound say, to exclusively use GSW - if they use it all, which they are not bound to do?
It seems their disclosures characterised 'contract' events in a manner that was inconsistent with, or at least unsuitable for, their model.
Of course, hardly Robinson Crusoe on the good old ASX, in respect to quality of disclosure.
Personally, I think some sort of 'mea culpa' from GSW will go further than weasel words that try to convey that it was all the fault of misperception by readers. The power of an apology should not be underestimated!
Then, they can get on in future by just saying big name company x, y and z are trialling or using their product and the market can judge by revenue pattern if it's living up to it's promise, over time.
No idea if the tech is any good, or easy to supersede, but there must be a few using it. The point was well made by some posters that AFR didn't find many companies who ditched it outright, and presumably they asked a few, although in the alternative, maybe most did not respond at all.
I hope for holders' sake, they reveal good growth in their 4C, and compose a crystal clear and straightforward update. Seems pretty clear it will slump on open, but you never know what will happen when there are some bigger players, reluctant to be scorched.
Expand
