Member Info for Rachel2

"The Independent Board is minded to recommend this offer " not quite the same as recommended!

Mr Equity Dev, perhaps you should deep dive on the direct investments :). Oh sorry forgot, you're not a real analyst but are paid by this company for the report. LOL

A buy!!! With all those direct investments they need to fund (to keep afloat) and avoid large write downs :)

OMG - an "Equity Developments Report". Just as I thought the new SMT were getting their heads around this mess, they commissioned and paid for a report to show a favourable view. Really naive.

Pleased to see more transparency in the reporting. Still maintain those involved in bringing this outfit to market should face some sanctions, utterly disgraceful.

I like the company, but the shares PE ratio are higher or on a par with US tech giants. However, Relx growth is marginally lower and the tech giants have massive scale. I assume the price has been bid up by UK funds having little choice to play AI.

It looks a reasonable appointment to me too. I also am not convinced on the fundamentals and 'high growth'. This company should not have floated on a potential one off market opportunity in Nigeria. Rubbish FDD, but seen this often. However, their 'could' be a reasonably stable business underneath worth the current valuation.

Investors are concerned that the carry value of direct investments is very over valued. If you look at the highest value companies via CHouse, you get a sense that they may be right. This raises the issue of Directors Integrity / Motivation and not what you want to think about in any company. The Dividend certainly does not underpin a floor IMO.

I also have concerns regarding the situation with StoneX. It is hard to fathom that they did not conduct some analysis of Cabp before initiating contact. I wonder if they reached the conclusion that the growth potential in UAC is minimal. One might speculate that the top ‘say’ ten clients could represent a very uncomfortable % of their annual gross income. This would be particularly notable given Cabp's limited client base within the mobile payments sector.

Furthermore, I remain sceptical about the potential impact of the soon to be granted U.S. license on accelerating growth, as the market is highly competitive. Consequently, I would not be surprised to see the share price remain stagnant within the range of 65p to 79p for an extended period.

I am sorry but Ann needs to go, the IPO and now StoneX.

Well that episode was not great. Disappointed that Cabp did not give a YE F/c given the circumstances. So I will give it a try: Gross Income circa £130m, Adj EBITDA circa £45m, UAC 540 & CTA1 £110m+. This would give a fair value of circa £1 per share IMO. However, this company loves surprises which I don't.

Undervalued!! If StoneX walk away from £1.45, which is approx. 2x GI on an enterprise value then it really will not be good news. A knowledgable payments provider who is also not at scale but well ahead of Cab, deciding not to proceed? Not a good look.

It looks like my concern with falling margins has materialised. At £1.45 the acquirer could be paying significantly more on a PE basis, than its own current share price. Do they believe in the growth story?

NoB5. - I agree and understand your points. For me, it's all about sustainable fast growth potential in a sizeable market for investing at this MCap level. I can get high single figure growth at much lower risk in the mega caps like Msoft, Amazon, Visa etc. Yes, the equity value suggests the current share price is good value but I have got caught in too many value traps over the years.

Just not convinced that the company has good enough IP to defend against larger competitors. Tiny number of clients for a FinTech and margins falling. Visa contract makes me concerned that Cab's market positioning is moving more towards larger transaction volumes at much lower values and tiny margins.

"Regardless I'm happy to invest in a company with a growth rate of 45% trading on 2x earnings."

What earnings?? Even EBITDA is significantly negative relative to revenues :). Agree with Scharn. reporting is very poor and often misleading. Liquidity is non existent.

The biggest risk - likelihood of a significant decrease in margin on trades as they diversify towards more liquid currencies and meet more incumbent and much larger competitors. The Fed is cutting rates that will impact net interest income. This all points to low revenue growth going forward. It would have been nice to see 'Active Clients' at H1 and TTM Income per Client.

GH - Yes it is about the exceptional revenue and margin in H1 23 & prob. H2 22 that may not be repeated. However, it's a much lower base revenue & EBITDA position to grow from than any of us expected. Plus, I now expect margin erosion as they expand into Europe & US. Just can't see very high growth from here, hope I am wrong. I also agree that this should remain a profitable and cash generative niche business, but with lower valuation metrics.

I thought H1 23 was an exceptionaly good period, easily eclipsing H2 23. Registered shorts were very small with only 1 meaningful position. Have I got this wrong?

AoS raised a very significant point regarding falling margins and expecting this to continue when and if new licences are required. IMO this means that growth will not be stellar impacting the valuation of CABP.

UK markets do not value companies that disclose as poorly as this one on its IPO.

Worse than I was expecting. Suggests that the IPO was 'well timed' for all, apart from the incoming investors. Gives London IPO's a bad name. This board has a long way to go to gain trust IMO.