Whether we compare SCG to INT, MKI, ISD, EKG or any othr popular tech or biotech venture stock that's come off its highs, when you compare them to SCG, you see one huge difference. All of them, SCG included, have losses of varying degrees but at least $1M per quarter. The big difference is top line revenue. SCG once scored $100M+ in yearly revenue and their revenue is only going down from there because they are voluntarily getting out of their legacy business. But in the context of net losses, SCG's $3M or so year to date losses don't look so taxing next to $50M in revenues. Their margin is better than -10%. When you look at the other similar companies, you see millions in losses per quarter and only $100K or a few $100K in revenues, meaning their margins are well over -100%.
SCG got out of their old business because they couldn't pull a profit. Some might find that to be a failure. But from that they have proven an ability to monetize their techologies because they acquired the clients and the know-how on how to get to a $100M a year revenue business. banx said it perfectly when he said INT's strategy is more vague. I think their ultimate strategy is to try to get their technologies purchased in bits and pieces so others can try to monetize them. That's why they spent so much last year on that platform (Saas I think it was called?) that Ortsbo ran on - to make it complete and sellable as a whole platform.
SCG will run much differently. Because they were able to successfully grow their legacy business, we can all assume they can do the same here with the new prepaid card businesses. All we need is better margins this time around. They already have the technology. The hardest part is acquiring clients and they have already demonstrated in the past an ability to do as such. THAT is what makes SCG stand out over all the other tech companies you have a choice in investing in on the Venture.