There's a major flaw in your exit plan theory - Steve hasn't sold a single share since IPO. We've seen the SP go from 20c at listing, up to the mid 70s, then and back down to 7c, and he's held his 87 million shares throughout it all. I think it's safe to rule out that suggestion.
The implication that break-even was not addressed at the AGM is also incorrect - it was covered extensively. There was a gentleman in the front row who held the Board's feet to the flame on a number of issues. If management had prepared answers for his questions, he took it to another level to try catch them out. There was no hostility in any of it, and it was actually one of the most enjoyable AGM's I've attended. Both sides handled themselves very well, but admittedly, not all the answers to the break-even "elephant in the room" were completely satisfying.
The main reason I can recall given (this was 2.5 weeks ago, and I've attended other AGMs and had a holiday since), was the delay between signing up major corporate clients (>1500 employees) and them actually beginning to use the system. In the meantime, CVCheck has allocated resources integrating their platform into the clients' systems and training their staff how to use it. For one of the biggest clients, this delay was 6 months - but once they start using it, they never look back. CVCheck has an extremely strong record of retaining clients. Another major new client (I believe Rod said their 3rd biggest) was supposed to begin using the system early September, but it got delayed out to October - so another month of significant revenue lost.
I came away with the impression that individual police checks were of little importance to the company, and that the corporates - who purchase bundled checks, and in volume - were receiving the majority of the focus. Even still, with the recent improvements in automation, customer satisfaction has improved dramatically (less calls, and almost zero requests for refunds), while also freeing up staff to be reassigned to value-adding roles.
The part where I felt the Board stumbled was after they stated that no future guidance would be given. I understand the principle of it serving the company zero benefit - if they meet the targets, they get no appreciation, but if they miss them, they get slaughtered - but when it came to answering who was responsible for the decision to issue past guidance, there was a generic "the whole Board accepts responsibility for it". Chris also tripped up when suggesting that they may issue guidance in the future if they believed it would benefit the company - and the man in the front called for a clear, consistent message to shareholders. It seemed to me though that Rod was the main opponent to issuing guidance to the market.
Another hot topic was the 67% increase in the NED remuneration pool - which was explained as being a future provision should the opportunity arrive to secure a valuable, experienced NED. When CV1 listed, there were 4 executive and 2 non-executive directors. The balance now is 2 executive and 3 non-executive - with the next addition likely also to be a NED - and the remuneration pool hasn't changed. It was also stated that none of the current non-execs would be receiving a pay increase as a result. Regardless, the gentleman used his proxy card to vote against this resolution.
I don't want to be pigeon-holed as the defender of CV1. I'm far from thrilled about having lost over 50% of my pre-IPO and IPO investments. I'm happy to play devils advocate, as I try to on most of the other forums I comment on, but if all I'm hearing is negatives, I am more likely to focus on the positives to balance out the discussion. As a whole though, I am happy with Rod's performance since stepping into the CEO role and do believe firmly in the company's future. That was my main takeaway from the AGM - the sense of calmness and confidence in the room of where CVCheck is currently at.
(20min delay)