Yes, there are good CRs & bad CRs, but I need to point out that...

Yes, there are good CRs & bad CRs, but I need to point out that if anyone is keen to dive into the ugly details of the AUS to US expansion expenses for the last 3 years you will find they are very capital intensive, & the reason is this, not only was Nearmap setting up their office, hiring people, and capturing a vast country from scratch in the US, they were also developing a new map browser, rolling out Hypercamera2, retrofitting new planes, capturing obliques, & beginning to invest in 3D all at the same time !

The $20 million raised back in 2016 was a lot but it has also got Nearmap growing rapidly in the US, and with the point of breakeven in sight, US will soon be profitable. But please do not assume that the SAME capital intensive set of activities that occurred in the past 3 years will be repeated if Nearmap does decide to expand into the UK or Europe (& hence another $20m might be required).

I don’t believe a CR is required because I sincerely believe that by the time Nearmap is ready to expand into another country, BOTH AUS, NZ, & the USA will act as revenue powerhouses to support such expansion.

Please don’t forget the US is many many times the size of AUS, but for argument sake, even if you just have AUS & US both self sustaining & both generating around the same $50 million in revenue, in this scenario, I find it really hard to believe that Nearmap cannot self fund another geographical expansion.

Of course I guess it all depends on how FAST Nearmap wants to grow. If they want to adopt an ultra aggressive growth strategy then they will definitely need more CRs but if they just wait until the US business becomes slightly more mature then it is entirely possible they can easily self fund all future expansions without the need for CRs.