Ok, please short WTC. It's a bit pointless if you don't read my...

Ok, please short WTC. It's a bit pointless if you don't read my posts...despite me engaging with yours... I've made my point clear - I don't disagree with you I just think you're making too many assumptions and errors to convince me. For example, as I've already stated WTC transactions are more related to the complexity of shipping. This is not necessarily true for shipping companies, they did poorly when China shut down. And the Panama blockage. So WTC transactions ≠ shipping volume...our Cargowise transactions do not track shipping volume in a linear way. There is some correlation I grant you...but how much? And shipping company revenue is even further removed from WTC transactions.

And your arrow points to the word transactions? I'm fairly certain you've misread it. The way I read this is that they predict a 12pp from the ongoing rollouts (something I mentioned already). I can't remember exactly which ones but I thought DHL were still yet to move all their staff (from across the world) to Cargowise, it's a long ongoing process. It takes a while because you have to dismantle a sticky web. And if you read the entire table that you've excluded you'll see other counterpoints like new products which increase WTC transactions - a good example of increased WTC transactions without any increase in shipping volume. Speaking of new products, some of them that are due to come online soon are for completely new markets and customers adjacent to freight forwarding...very exciting for us and not so much for shorter a.

And then there is the use of PE ratio...it does not take into account the fact that, just like other profitable SaaS and tech companies, profits outpace capex - it cost less for that next customer or transaction.

enjoy reading (or not)
R1