The return on investment is just not there and according to the...

The return on investment is just not there and according to the CCV legal team over the years we have always been compliant with the laws, how else would they have issued the loans?
How much money has this segment made in the last decade?
Hundreds of $millions (maybe $billions) have been missed out on by focusing any capital and energy at all on this segment.
Auto Loans and MACC segment is flying along, focusing on these and Pawn Loans is the future, essentially Pawn Loans is just SACC's by a different name and not beholden to the same crap, if CCV drop the SACC segment watch the Pawn Loans segment EXPLODE like nothing Australia has seen since Afterpay.
All decent SACC providers are gone, the ones that are left are absolute dodgy sharks that are the lowest of the low, Pawn Loans would be a cheaper alternative, not to mention the ONLY alternative for anyone needing a SACC product.
This will be the result of Government actions and do-gooders, hopefully the loan books for the SACC's are of a half decent quality when the books are run down.
If they won the case they would keep it going IMO but tighten the lending standards to the point many more would have to switch to Pawn Loans anyway, this would improve the quality of the SACC loan book and the Pawn Loans are backed by goods anyway.
A win for CCV in this case would have had this company re-rated to 3x where we are now within 6 months IMO, a loss should still have us over 30c in 6 months IMO.

Ps: one possibility I have never considered is the possibility of a buy-out of our SACC loan book/ division in the vain of the recent MNY news, not hopeful though.