Ya I guess sanquine would be the word you could use here. I...

Ya I guess sanquine would be the word you could use here. I personally would prefer ' Bullish ' but whatever. Namely because the main takeaways from what I have been saying here is that its more about ' Underlying ' cash and operating position. And that has been emphasized with my suggestion of a return to a more ' Neutral ' position.

So I don't really care what sort of Accounting Loss they engineer , or as I have previously mentioned for the purpose of receiving the ' FULL ' value of the R&D refund. Because that is equally important to the Company in having the significant past expenditures which have gone into these calculation's being returned to the company for the benefit of the company. So no problems whatsoever in reporting a circa $5 million accounting loss if it means they are getting back the FULL grant of $5 million . And it won't mean anything to the ' Underlying ' figure anyway as you will reverse these expenditures or ignore them in the calculations.

So having paid recognition to these points , it would still be nothing short of exceptional if they were to reverse the previous year's result, as this would represent a swing of approximately $4 million in net income due mainly to ' Top Line ' revenue growth as costs seem to be mainly static if only slightly higher.

And after all, they have only just launched the Business Payments Services on 9th March after two thirds of the first quarter is already behind them .....and which would then make the $100 ARPU all that much more significant to the numbers if they can actually achieve this in the March Qtr.

If they do achieve the $4 million swing back towards profits ' neutrality ' at end of the June Qtr , this could potentially flag a total TTV value of somewhere's in the vicinity of $200 - $225 million for the Full Year. So what happens then when they keep moving towards that figure every single month or 10 or 12 times that figure.

In so far as comparisons to APT , or even CBA's new proposed BNPL services across their alleged 4 million customers , the scale for CRO's revenue as against its costs are quite different , and as such so too is their ability to scale a quicker return to positive cash operating levels.

And remember that both APT and CBA's business models are largely premised on the basis of ' Late Fees ' accruing on their plans whereas CRO does not charge late fees per se as far as I know. So it's purely a low cost , and cost effective transactions model with all the potential benefits accruing to the participants of this payments exchange eco system being the Business or Private Individuals who are transacting the business activity.

And to put it all in perspective , RBC capital has done some analysis which suggests that ' Late Fees ' on BNPL has increased some 33% on total BNPL transactions which represent only 2.1 % of all e-commerce spending in 2020.

They further suggest that this 2.1 % is very much expected to double by 2024 to over 4% . So if current BNPL e-commerce can ' Double ' in 3 years from now , there should be no reason whatsoever that B2B e-commerce transactions can quadruple , quintuple , or even experience 10 fold increases from current levels.

And a Tenfold increase from here could end up being the $225 million per month that has been suggested by Management on so many other occasions I've lost count........