Normally, I would agree that getting to profit is the priority. However, in NEA's case, I don't.
NEA has a very interesting business model. It started in ANZ, where it now has a very profitable, mature business. Revenue is growing at around 9-12% pa but profit is growing much faster due to the leverage effect of a high proportion of fixed costs.
NA is heading in the same direction as ANZ, and IMO will reach similar gross margins as ANZ. NA is already turning cash flow positive but may take a couple more years of growth to turn profitable.
The question in my mind is what should NEA do with the excess cash being generated by ANZ and increasingly by NA? For the next year or two it could be used to accelerate growth in NA, but then, they have the cash for this from the last capital raise.
A more likely approach by NEA is to time its entry into EU and/or Asia to coincide with excess cash flow, likely to be very soon. This would mean that, on an enterprise level, it may be many more years to reach profitability. As an investor, I believe I will be better off postponing profit so that NEA's growth potential can be realised, providing it is done with excess cash flows from ANZ and NA, and not by more capital raisings.
Expand