Love the interchange between Houston and Borski today and love that he did not get harangued into stating something he did not believe. I also love that he also believes that the terms "recurring and non-recurring revenue are lables/slogans and not useful and goes to gloss around the terms. He adds that it is not that useful and it is important not to be lulled into the term.
He said that GPTV revenue is no more predictable long term than one can predict the success of a new merchant, to which I totally agree. The new merchant may be a competitor of an existing merchant with existing GPTV and have a better product (or a better product may come onto the market somewhere else) and the existing merchant, therefore, ceases to exist or its GPTV is reduced. Or, ASIC may find an existing merchant is carrying out illegal activities, not through ISX but by scamming a customer when calling the customer using one of the telecom's phone technology and ASIC shuts the existing merchant down (as did happen).
For Borski to ask Houston "you agree that the market values...." is a misleading question. I am part of the market and I totally disagree with Borski and the ASX/ASIC premise and have repeatedly said so over time. So no, the entire market does NOT agree.
See
Post #:66633004 ,
Post #:66532821,
Post #:66510637 and Post #:64670284