....@HotCopter... mmm...a little bit hypocritical...I'll say.... calling people 'conspiracy nutters' ...saying...' I sincerely hope ASIC and the CA bring them down for the value destroyed for all those that came before'.... to ' buzz off'.... and then preaching about 'Not a bad time in the world to be nicer to one another'....
...anyway... 'bottom line'...there is still no merit for the CA.... their business model was explained in the IPO...and it was in clear plain english.... no ambiguity....all contracts are deemed 'non-binding'.... basically 30 days to test it out and cancel whenever they want... and that there are no revenue expectations until post the first 30 days...and will then depends on volume uptake.... so all up to the contractual party to accept/reject the service.....
....so, yes, they are allowed to basically announce a $100 Billion opportunity without any legal recourse under this business model .... and this will be applicable pre & post IPO... or whenever they decide to change the business model....
...but I've discussed this ad nauseam.... let GSW's Tier 1 lawyers do what they do best.... book as many $1500/hr hours as possible, =so that they can claim it back later from the claimants, once they have learned the basics when announcing progress on risky business models from a judge ...~$15M of legal costs & counting....
.....but, if this is going to trial... add another potential 150-500%....because this will probably be appealed until the claimants eventually go broke... especially now that GSW has access to ~$120M of upfront funding as well as insurance policies to see them through this.... or GSW's lawyers might be kind (not usually the M.O. of Tier 1 law firms- they tend to go for the jugular)... willing to help these CA claimants out of this already expensive rabbit hole they are in, by referring to those two cases, where the same thing happened, in the next round of pre-trials....but if I were them, I would only use this card at the end to ensure say a ~$50M legal cost recovery... maybe after say two years of appeals....just to make it worth their while....nothing like another round of good PR...all funded again by idiots...
... so still a significant trading opportunity, if you ask me....and that is why I am still here.... but, still in my high risk/return portfolio bucket based on:
latest $32M of extrapolated annualised revenues....
still have access to another $70M available through LDA, which needs a significant higher price & volumes, to even be viable... so they are expecting significant volumes soon... which are non-dilutive....so price need to be >$4.00/share, by the looks of it...otherwise they would have used their cash to buy-back a few million shares when it was trading 0.16 cents;
And that is where the known unknowns/wild cards come in:
announcing the values of current non-disclosed NDA's (current onboarding).... company's overheads are far too high without any covert on-boarding exercise going on in the background... recent platform usage activity stats is also through the roof.... but conjecture... not enough information available to public to conclude on this;
favourable net legal implications, as above, is a no-brainer for me ...so soon derisk the beta and improve valuation.
Real reason for the recent expert panel.... it takes decades to build a presidential candidate's legacy...he won't be stupid by throwing it all away at a company that will soon be making front page newspapers for fraudulent misrepresentation .... same with the ex-CIA dudes...
So bottom line... that is why I think these guys are going to make a major come-back soon.... we need only one trading halt....complemented with a specific announcement....between today's share price and ....>$4/share... might happen... it might not.... connecting some of the dots above.... with current EV<3 x annualised revenue.... still definitely worth the risk....
... my two cents (... and yippp... definitely still one of those 'conspiracy nutters'...)
