Ok i'll take the bait. I won't comment on your first 4 posts as...

Ok i'll take the bait. I won't comment on your first 4 posts as they are somewhat interpretive and we could go back and forth for a long time.

On your comment around the government not trusting them, they already do and still do. tamz has posted a plethora of contracts that north in particular keep winning over in Canberra. They are very large consulting-based contracts worth hundreds of thousands. These are very much trust-based purchases.

It won't take years to work out the logistical nightmare, but i do agree, it is hard integrating these businesses. But compliments must be given to TNT. They have integrated their finance systems already. This removes many legal headaches for customers and also prevents poor customer experiences (think proposals, purchase orders and invoices all matching nicely).

And the last comment is just so wrong, you clearly don't understand cyber security. The top-end of town (state gov, fed gov, defence, uni's, critical infrastructure and enterprise) are the heaviest buyers of cyber security. Cyber security is a trust-based business. Once a customer trusts Rivium to monitor their network, they are more inclined to enter a GRC engagement with north, or get some pen testing done with Pure Security, or have Seer perform a cloud maturity assessment. It's relationship-driven, which means repeat business, which means cross-sell and up-sell opportunities.

Cyber security has been a fragmented market for years. System integrators got involved by selling technology. Telco's got involved selling managed services. But no one has been able to sell it all. Do you really think BGH Capital (Australia's largest equity fund, backed by Australia's largest super fund) would invest millions to create Australia's largest cyber company (cyberCX) if they didn't think being an end-to-end partner would be a money maker?

As for AR9, i have no intention of rubbishing. Is it overvalued? Well who knows. The market will dictate that i guess. But it only solves a specific problem... very specific. Now that has certainly made great money for other technology vendors. But there are tons of tech vendors that have gone nowhere (TNT was one of them) because it is not so much a relationship based game. It is more competitive and you need to have a great product, that is exceptionally well-marketed. I look at SEN. Such great products and they continue to go nowhere because of what appears to be poor sales and marketing. FZO is a specific product but they skyrocketed.

This all doesn't mean much, but i hope i have provided balance to the discussion. My money will stay in TNT because:

1. they are the largest on the ASX
2. their acquisition strategy is exactly where the cyber market needs to go
3. their acquisitions have all been excellent purchases
4. their chairman and co-CEO are extremely astute financers
5. they are on track to enter the ASX tech index
6. they are gearing up for a sale in the next 1.5-3 years

I can list more reasons, but they will also apply to AR9 (cyber security spending, growth industry etc)