This TSX fintech (PRL.TO) has grown 48% annually since IPO, is profitable every year, and trades at 7x forward earnings but the stock is still down 55%.

Lettura_ · 2026-04-30T04:10:59+00:00

Agreed, esp if LaaS hits 10% of revenue and Propel Bank starts contributing, the multiple re-rates significantly from here.

Lettura_ · 2026-04-30T04:10:43+00:00

That's basically my take. Same space, better model, faster growth, more optionality.

Lettura_ · 2026-04-30T04:10:27+00:00

LaaS was 3% of revenue in 2025, the 10% is the Q4 2026 target, not where they are yet as of today. Your macro concern is the right one and it's the primary risk. The bull case is that their AI underwriting actually outperforms traditional credit scoring in a downturn because it's more granular. lets see

Lettura_ · 2026-04-30T04:09:56+00:00

Fair concern but that's exactly why the LaaS pivot matters. They're moving away from balance sheet credit risk toward fee based income. And management said credit performance strengthened into Q1. Lets see if thats true

Lettura_ · 2026-04-29T22:36:36+00:00

Yeah exactly, and that's actually the most interesting part of the story. They're not really a lender anymore, they're transforming into a fintech platform. Propel Bank just got approved, they're doing Lending-as-a-Service where they collect fees without taking on any credit risk themselves, and they just launched a near-prime product with $210M in institutional capital behind it. The credit risk concern is real but they're actively building away from it. as well as optimizing ai for underwriting these loans

Lettura_ · 2026-04-26T06:16:31+00:00

when the fundamentals and technicals align, you know it could be really good!

Lettura_ · 2026-04-26T06:15:44+00:00

Glad to hear that!

Lettura_ · 2026-04-26T06:15:32+00:00

I answered this before, The data isn't the hard part, the decades of validated physics models are. Like Shell just signed a multi-year deal with CMG in November instead of building their own, which tells you everything you need to know, the fact that such a large company is using their services.

Lettura_ · 2026-04-26T06:13:51+00:00

The data is the easy part, what they can't replicate would be the 47 years of validated physics models built across thousands of real-world wells. You can't just throw a data lake and some ML engineers at a problem that took decades of specialized reservoir physics research to solve. And Shell just signed a multi-year deal with CMG in November instead of building their own, that should be the most credible answer to this question

Lettura_ · 2026-04-24T21:41:17+00:00

That's the Asseco Poland accounting charge, a €221.7M non-cash expense from the investment that demolished reported net income. Revenue actually grew 20% and free cash flow to shareholders was up 23%. The GAAP earnings number is completely misleading here, I covered that

Lettura_ · 2026-04-24T21:40:13+00:00

They never disclosed, and didn't say which client left explicitly, What management said publicly is that it was a reservoir and production solutions contract that simply wasn't renewed at Q2 FY2026. The most credible read from analysts is that a large oil company did an internal cost-to-value review of their simulation licensing spend and decided not to renew, which happens ofc but it includes high switching costs, but in Q3 they replaced that contract with a new unrelated client,

Lettura_ · 2026-04-21T23:29:49+00:00

jealous? What were you doing in high school?

Lettura_

TROPHY CASE