Yep - material items are they had a 4 fold increase in marketing...

Yep - material items are they had a 4 fold increase in marketing costs from 600k to 2.4m to build market awareness etc yet not a corresponding 4 fold uplift in revenue. This is concerning as their revenue on trading is not an annuity but trade numbers related (no benefit for large trades either due to flat price). There is no breakup in can see for what revenue is attributed to cash margin but have assumed this as yet is not material to the bigger picture and theme here. These trading businesses take time to grow and require deep pockets to fund themselves to break-even, just ask the guys at Open Markets or Bell Direct (they have bee at it for years and are only just now seeing green ink). IMO this business has a long lead time to profit, esp on such skinny margins.

The other items of note are the material drop in R&D claim back which is normal for a business at their stage of lifecycle. One item that also had an impact and is beyond their control is the new AASB16 reporting and accounting treatment of lease liabilities.

IMO - this is a business that will require a lot more funding and many questions as to whether it will get the volumes it needs to become self sufficient and the profitable as the incumbent players continue to invest and sharpen their offerings.