You will never get what you ask for.
Over the last three years I have have closely followed the stock, went to each roadshow, spoke to management semi-regularly, e-mail correspondence regularly, convened with shareholders both large and small daily, gathered information from those at CBA, from clients of the company etc.
I'll break it down for us all in three convenient timelines.
Prior to CBA, this was a glorified BPO that over-promised and under-delivered, changed tunes and had no direction as the software was early to market, the spin-off of automaticity was just that, a spin off as the first thing that was presented to everyone in 2016 at the roadshow was Lilly and how it could print a SoA in a few easy steps. That was the best chance they had and my investment decision was based on them developing that.
That was unable to be developed at scale (evidently) and the BPO was the backup that Mark was furiously trying to set up as a buffer in the mean
time as cash was being burned on development costs. BOOM1 was a failure, the tune changed, and then we had BOOM2. I sent an e-mail begging them to be careful with how they eventually used and marketed "AI" and that change of pace with BOOM2 when really, it never was. In my ramblings I have forgotten to mention the NAB deal fall through. What was the real reason behind that one, Patrick?
CBA came along and that was the best / only chance we had. The company (more specifically, Charles in his role as Chief Marketing & Technology Officer, then General Manager Sales & Marketing) was unable to on-board one remarkable client from then (to date) through the pilot program and the excuse was "capacity" among other things. There were what I believe to be true marked improvements in the products and George undoubtedly had an innate understanding of the product and CBA. I do not, for one second think that he was not the man for the job. He was our best chance and I think he got taken around the bend by the board too. In saying this, not one public address to the company. Not one peep out of the AGM (to market) and not one ounce of communication directly to shareholders as CEO.
Might I add, during this whole pilot, not one FW and not one CP practice generated revenue in meaningful amounts to the company, ever. Was there really any on-boarded? Did the pilot actually have commercially viable terms processing any real metric of SoA's or back office tasks? I doubt it, given the revenue, but CBA was our real genuine chance at a company-making deal and they lost to what I believe was simply 'business', bad timing with the fall out with the RC and mismanagement. This is what you pay for at the spec end and either the stock was going to 10c on that deal or 0.001.
After CBA, they tried looking for an acquisition, though with a failed business model, they had no leverage. Any company looking to be acquired in their right mind would have noticed this and valued themselves at whatever they wanted to. For whatever reason, none suit the fit, and my personal opinion was that it came down to evaluations.
You can go on and on about all the shite that went on in between (podcasts, twitter storms, IAMTLH website, NAB and Sentry deals falling through, no client's on board etc) and there is endless amount of content you could question and mull over but the reality is we all got greedy and made possibly the worst investment decision you could possibly make relative to other companies out there. The red flags were there (i.e., the whole previous website, flashing $40 SoA packs etc).
Investing in this type of spec, in hindsight, is singly the worst thing to do. Companies can hide behind the guise of corporate governance, release just enough out there to stay credible and suck in the hopefuls and keep it stringing along as they take their fees as per this end of the market. Whether or not they meant to do that and whether they had our interests at heart is a different question which again raises flags. Whatever the case it does not change the reality that this is where we are with little else to be said on the contrary.
How the board approved a 20k increase in pay to PC as this company goes on it's hands and knees is beyond me. How is this in the best interest of shareholders?
The reality is this was an expensive lesson and paying the money to learn what I did has been priceless. I genuinely am glad to have had this experience albeit it was terrible all in all. In saying this, this is all my opinion - good luck to you all, many of you I know are hard-working loving people with families and have had significant portions of your wealth destroyed. Whilst it is our faults it is extremely stressful and I hope you all do well in life. At the end of the day we leave with nothing.
All in my own opinion,
Cheers
Expand
