Smartpay Holdings Limited (SPY) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Smartpay Holdings Limited release of FY '25 Interim Results. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Martyn Pomeroy, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for attending, and welcome to our financial year 2025 interim results presentation. I'm Martyn Pomeroy, Managing Director and CEO of Smartpay, and joining me on the call today is Cherise Barrie, our Chief Financial Officer; and Aidan Murphy, our Chief Business Officer. We have a relatively brief agenda for today's presentation, which will include: a reflection on the key performance outcomes from the first half of the 2025 financial year; our financial results for the first half; an update on our progress towards Stage 2 of our strategic plan, the New Zealand opportunity; an update on progress towards Stage 3 of our strategic plan, leveraging our network effect; and finally, some commentary on the Reserve Bank of Australia review and to the Australian Payments market. At the end of our presentation, we would welcome any questions. Overall, our business is executing to a 3-stage strategic plan, with the ultimate ambition to [ embed ] our solutions and brand within our customers' business and become true partners, realizing value accretion for ourselves, our customers and, of course, our shareholders. We continue to execute into our Australian opportunity and grow our market share. The focus of our Australian sales and marketing teams has continued into the market verticals where we see strong unit economics, and this has resulted in further penetration to these verticals and improving margin from our Australian revenues. We have invested in our brands throughout the half with a major campaign launched into Australia, coinciding with the launch of our next-generation Android payment terminal. Both have been extremely well received by our customers. As foreshadowed at our financial year 2024 year-end, throughout the first half of 2025, we embarked on the execution effort of Stage 2 of our strategic plan, the New Zealand opportunity. We actively recruited sales resources during the half and have deployed these into the pre-selling of the Android and [ acquiring ] solution into our existing New Zealand customer base, with over 2,000 terminals pre-signed to date. Throughout the first half, we have also been actively engaged in developing our solutions for Stage 3 of our strategic plan, where we expect to deliver additional solutions and value to our Trans-Tasman customers. The first half 2025 is seeing ongoing growth of our consolidated revenue, which is up 8% from the prior comparable period, reflective of the increased early investment into our New Zealand opportunity in the first half, brand investment and an increase in attributable marketing [ spend ], [ our ] normalized EBITDA of $7.9 million for the first half of financial year 2025, and reflects operating leverage of 15.4% as a ratio to revenue. Our overall Trans-Tasman fleet has expanded to over 55,000 terminals across more than 40,000 merchants, a significant presence in the regional payments landscape, and comes as a result of our ongoing growth into the Australian market, where we have added over 1,700 transacting terminals in the half and the acquisition late in the first half of a New Zealand competitor terminal fleet. Whilst the additional New Zealand terminals have had a minimal effect on our half year revenue contribution due to the timing of the acquisition, we expect to see the revenue benefit of this transaction in the second half, and we'll obviously also seek to realize the benefit of increasing our New Zealand acquiring opportunity by close to 20% more contracted New Zealand terminal customers. Australian cancellations are running at about the same level as seen through financial year 2024, although we did see an uptick in Australian business closures and cancellations through June and July, historically a heightened period due to financial year-end [ constraints ]. We are also continuing to see the hospitality industry customers in our fleet as the most impacted from economic conditions, with [ PTV ] remaining at reduced levels in these customers and a relatively higher contribution to business closures and customer cancellations. We also saw a further reduction in average terminals required per merchant for newly onboarded customers, down to [ 1.15 ] for the first half 2025 compared to [ 1.25 ] second half 2024. This outcome is positive from a capital allocation perspective and simply a continuation of the trends throughout financial year '24 and reflective of the merchant profile of verticals we are targeting. We have generated positive operating cash flows of $10 million, up on the prior period, and free cash was used to fund the acquisition of the competitive New Zealand terminal fleet late in the half. Our business unit economics continue to show resilience through the ongoing challenging economic conditions many of our customers are experiencing. Whilst TTVs have remained soft through the first half of financial year '25, as seen throughout financial year '24, our focus on customer verticals with strong payments economics has delivered improving margin from newly onboarded Australian customers throughout the period. We maintain our focus of measured investment into our opportunities with investments in brand and incremental spend in our Australian marketing activities in the first half compared to the prior period and early investment into our New Zealand opportunity, largely focused on sales, onboarding and technical resource at this time. As New Zealand acquiring revenues come online in the future, we would expect our operating leverage ratio, a key performance indicator for our business, to return to pre-New Zealand investment levels and improve further over time. I will now hand over to our Chief Financial Officer, Cherise Barrie, who will take you through further analysis of our financial results.

Thank you, Martyn. The financial performance, cash flow and financial position for the first half '25 reflect a number of key business drivers. So let me speak to each of these. The continued growth of the Australian business contributed an uplift in revenue to $50.8 million. The acquisition of the assets of Technology Holdings Limited from receivership contributed 1 month of revenue of $470,000 and operating costs of $209,000, primarily in respect of the [ 24 ] headcount that we took over. The investment in the New Zealand opportunity ahead of revenue generation contributed $1.9 million of cost, again, primarily headcount, whereby 28 additional headcount were added to facilitate presales, customer onboarding and establish a merchant settlements team. The launch of this new Smartpay brand into Australia at a cost of $1.5 million is uplifting marketing expenditure. Offsetting these incremental revenues and costs is the recovery of the cyber incident costs through insurance, $930,000. These items all resulted in the reduction in EBITDA on a comparative basis. Thereafter, amortization and depreciation costs are up on the prior period due to the launch of the Android terminal into the Australian market, resulting in a $500,000 uplift in amortization cost associated with the Android application and the management system for the terminals. Depreciation on terminals purchased in New Zealand to replace PCI 3 end-of-life terminals, whereby we had the one-off benefit for a period in the prior year where these were actually fully depreciated while still in use. And finally, the [ vesting ] of the FY '22 to '24 share performance rights and the issuance of the FY '25 to '27 tranche of share performance rights, which is of a higher value. Profit after tax is showing the benefit of the partial utilization of the Australian tax losses and the generation of New Zealand tax losses in the current year. The increase in operating cash flows includes the cyber insurance recovery of $810,000 and the benefit of not having to pay taxation in the current year. Free cash flows of $4.1 million were utilized to purchase the customer contract assets of Technology Holdings, thereby moving us to a net debt position at the half. Thank you, [ Martyn ].

Thank you, Cherise. We have continued to deliver against our clearly defined strategic objectives throughout the first half of financial year 2025. Our New Zealand opportunity targeted to roll out during the second half of this financial year remains on target. Piloting of the solution which involves real-world user testing of the solution in live customer environments is the next stage. We will closely monitor this part of the project to ensure ourselves, our partners and our customers are getting the payments experience expected. Given our customers are now entering the busy Christmas trading period, we are determined to begin the pilot in the new year, which we consider to be in the best interest of our pilot customers. In the interim, we have been readily engaging with our existing fleet of New Zealand customers, providing an acquiring offer for customers to accept ahead of the release and launch of our solution. Throughout the latter part of the first half of the financial year and ongoing, we have pre-signed over 2,000 terminals to our initial acquiring solution, highlighting the strong interest in the solution and confirming our expectations of the opportunity ahead for our business. These customers will receive their Android terminal upon the successful conclusion of our piloting period. We will continue to actively pre-sign customers through the pilot period with our current run rate in line with previously communicated expectations, excluding offering to new customers at this stage. The revenue profile we are seeing from pre-signed customers to date is in line with our expectations, taking into account the fact that we cannot realize revenue from the proprietary [ debit-only ] transactions our customers process. We can also see that the expected gross profit ratio is within the range of our projections. It is worth noting we have targeted higher volume merchants with lower ratio of proprietary debit card [ mix ] as our early focus for conversion. Our incremental investment in the first half of FY '25 to support our specific New Zealand ambition foreshadowed earlier in the year at approximately $2.5 million to $3 million per half is at the lower end of our expectations and is largely associated to sales resource to [ pre-sell ], onboarding resource and one-off investment in brand content and development. We have during the first half also confirmed funding arrangements with our banking partner to ensure we can provide 7-day settlement of funds to New Zealand merchants, and this has included consideration for the rapid scaling of this facility as we execute into the opportunity. Our focus on Phase 3 of our strategic plan has borne fruit through the first half of financial year 2025. Our intent to deliver additional value to our Trans-Tasman and small and medium enterprise customers has resulted in the execution of 2 [ early] agreements during the period. Our product road map will deliver a comprehensive in-store business and payment solution to our customers, including POS, transaction and business performance reporting, cash flow management analysis and forecasting, integration to accounting platforms and bank accounts and marketing tools. We have executed a white label agreement with a POS provider, which will allow Smartpay to provide a complete POS and payment solution to the hospitality, retail and services vertical under our own brand, and we expect to launch this solution during calendar year 2026 -- My apologies, that should be calendar year 2025. My apologies, that's a correction. We have also executed a partnership with an exclusive period to deliver a next-generation merchant ecosystem, a comprehensive small business tool set to our Trans-Tasman customer base, also under the Smartpay brand. With the development work required to deliver this solution already underway in conjunction with our partner, we expect this solution to be delivered during the 2026 financial year. As most of the market is well [ aware ], the Reserve Bank of Australia is currently reviewing the Australian payments environment. We have [ fielded ] many questions on this process and how it relates to Smartpay, and I will now address the common questions we have received. Firstly, how does the Smartpay SmartCharge solution work? Smartpay SmartCharge solution provides merchants with the option to surcharge or not surcharge. If the merchant decides to surcharge the cost of acceptance, Smartpay sets the merchant acceptance cost in the terminal to ensure the merchant cannot excessively surcharge. With our SmartCharge solution, the merchant can still select whether or not to surcharge on any particular transaction, and consumers also have the option to present their payment in an alternative way to pay a lower cost on any transaction. These difference rates should be presented by the merchant at the point of sale and [ collateral ] is provided by Smartpay to the merchant to support this. Additionally, our terminal presents the value of the surcharge on the screen prior to the customer paying for the transaction, providing transparency and choice to the consumer. This, we believe, is in line with the RBA's intent and guidelines for surcharge. Unfortunately, this is not the way surcharging has been implemented by most other providers, where merchants can set their own surcharge rates and most often consumers are not aware of the surcharge until after they have paid it. Why did Smartpay offer surcharge this way? And what do consumers actually pay? This solution provides the merchant and their customer with complete transparency, flexibility and choice of how to make payment at the time of payment. Surcharge when provided to merchants appropriately, we believe, drives a very transparent and efficient acceptance cost payments environment. The average acceptance cost provided under the SmartCharge solution provided by Smartpay to small to medium businesses in Australia is circa 1.34%. That's approximately $0.073 on a $5.50 cup of coffee. Obviously, this is not the resorting [indiscernible] example that received a fair amount of media attention earlier in the year and highlights the clear [ disimpaction ] in the way Smartpay provides our SmartCharge product in the Australian market compared to others. How does Smartpay think about regulation and the current payments review being undertaken by the Reserve Bank of Australia? Smartpay welcomes regulation across Australia and New Zealand payment environments to ensure appropriate parameters and controls are in place for the protection of merchants and cardholders. Regulation is only part of the solution as far as we are concerned, with enforcement of payment guidelines critical to ensure all participants operate on a level playing field. This will ensure both merchants and consumers have choice of solutions, can rely on the integrity of offerings made to them, and most importantly, have protection from inadvertently breaching any guidelines. The Smartpay solution has been developed to ensure merchants cannot set their own level of surcharge beyond the cost of acceptance from Smartpay. What is the time line for the payments review by the RBA? Through our most recent discussions with the RBA payments team and comments from the RBA Governor, we would expect the current [ discussions ] [ paper ] to be followed by proposal consultation paper, which would be made publicly available likely early in the second half of 2025. This would be consulted [ on ] with industry participants and would be followed by an RBA decision paper expected towards the end of 2025. Historically, and depending on the decision the RBA ultimately makes, if changes are made to acquirer or merchant compliance, a consultation process will be undertaken into the time it would take both acquirers and merchants to meet these changes to compliance. Historically, the RBA has then allowed between 6 to 18 months to meet our compliance based on a range of factors, including effort associated to any technology changes required, logistics associated to any fleet changes that may be required, and the size of the merchant, with enterprise merchants historically being provided shorter compliance time frames than small business. This would potentially set a compliance date for any changes the RBA may determine are appropriate, towards the end of 2026, middle of [ 2027 ]. Can Smartpay provide a non [indiscernible] surcharge product if there is a complete surcharge [ ban ]? Of course, we can. We already do. Smartpay has 2 products already in distribution in the Australian market, one of which is a surcharge-based product called SmartCharge. The other provides a simple [ fixed ] rate offering where the merchant pays the cost directly along with terminal rental. Approximately 10% of our Australian customers are already operating on this product, and it has strong unit economics. We onboard new customers each month onto our simple flat rate solution. In the instance of a complete ban on surcharging, we would move SmartCharge customers to this product, which would simply require a remote download change of terminal software. We have the technical flexibility to operate [ on ] a full surcharge, hybrid surcharge or no surcharge environment and have plans to develop competitive solutions to [ adapt ] to whatever, if any, regulatory changes are determined appropriate by the RBA. What would be the impact on Smartpay from an outright ban on surcharging? Whilst we do not believe an outright ban on surcharging is a likely outcome of the RBA review, given historically the RBA has favored market mechanisms with guardrails over outright bans, we have run a number of scenarios and completed modeling to review any impact from the range of options the RBA may ultimately determine are appropriate. With specific regards to surcharging, in the scenario where the RBA determines to provide more clarity on surcharging guidelines and there is more enforcement of excessive merchant surcharging, we would expect no impact to our business. At the other end of the spectrum, should the RBA determine to ban all surcharging outright, our SmartCharge customers would need to pay the acceptance fees themselves and SmartCharge would no longer be available as a product. In this instance, there would be no immediate impact on Smartpay as customers would simply transition to our simple flat rate product and pay the fees for transactions directly. We have modeled the potential need to adjust our product suite to ensure we retain our existing customers and can continue to attract new customers to Smartpay at the same volume we do today. Maintaining a highly competitive offering highlights this could have up to a 10% impact on our Australian revenues over time. As I have stated to date, the RBA is considering a range of options as part of their payments review. We're simply determined to address today what we believe is the primary concern related to Smartpay, which is the outright banning of surcharge. In this unlikely instance, our customers will simply move to our existing simple flat rate product. Isn't there regulation also in New Zealand and a review underway there, too? Yes, there is. The regulator in New Zealand is looking at a number of areas associated with payments with what appears to be a keen focus on the interchange and scheme fee environment and current rules. The New Zealand [ regulatories ] [ have ] identified that these are the significant costs behind card acceptance costs. Given these fees make up the bulk of costs associated to acceptance for acquirers, we welcome the focus on these products. Our presales to date have been made on the equivalent to our Australian simple flat rate product. Moving on to key dates. Key dates for financial results and reporting to the market and our Annual General Meeting of Shareholders are as follows. We will announce our full year results on the 26th of May, 2025. Our AGM will be hosted both in person at our Australian offices in Sydney and online on the 17th of July, 2025. Our interim results for the 2026 financial year will be presented on the 24th of November, 2025. We look forward to seeing many of you over the coming week and further engaging with you all late May next year. That brings to a close today's interim results presentation. Thank you again for attending. I would now welcome any questions you may have on the items covered in today's presentation.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from James Bisinella with Unified Capital Partners.

Congrats on the results and for -- and well done on providing the additional disclosure there, very useful. A couple from me. Firstly, just on the impact of -- I think the impact you've spoken to is on a full surcharge ban being 10% of Australian revenue. So I think the headline is just a ban on debit surcharging at this point. So I guess, what would be the impact to the group, assuming it's lower if it's just a ban on debit surcharging?

Yes, it's a good question. Thanks, James. Look, we were mindful when we gave that we didn't want to go through every single iteration that the RBA may land on. But obviously, we've modeled that one as well. That one for us looks like it's closer to a 6% to 7% impact on Australian revenues versus the full ban on surcharging, James.

Okay. Excellent. And just that point, I guess, 10% of revenue is obviously a larger impact down at the earnings line. So I guess, what can you do to offset the earnings impact if that ban does [ eventuate ]?

Look, the primary focus would be that we would be focused on ensuring that we retain and continue to grow volume at the rate that we do, and that's what the modeling has been done on. So there is some sensitivity on that, right. We picked what we think we would need to do to have the most competitive solution in the market at that time fundamentally. But if you're talking about going down to earnings, look, I think that there would be other elements that would come in from the RBA review as well. We would expect [ interchange ] scheme to be reviewed as part of the [ processes ], James, and that may have a -- an offsetting impact towards gross margin.

Okay. Fantastic. And just a couple more. Just on the presales in New Zealand, I guess, how widely have you gone at this point? And what kind of conversion rates are you seeing from those approaches?

Probably won't go into details of conversion rate. What I will say is that we've sort of taken into a fairly sort of controlled cohort of our existing customers in New Zealand at the moment. The run rate that we're delivering off the back of that is in line with our expectations and what I've previously communicated to the market on a monthly basis, excluding new sales, of course. We're not offering it to newly onboarded customers at this stage. And I would say to you that the offer has been very well received.

Okay. Fantastic. And just last one on the buyback, I think that's for up to 5 million shares just across the performance rights dilution to minimize that there. Is there an intention to resume that now that you [ cleanse ]? And I guess, can you confirm that you're not in any blackout periods and that would now be open again?

We're not in any blackout period and the Board is considering the option of continuing that.

Your next question comes from Cameron Halkett with Wilsons Advisory.

Can I just touch on the 2,000-odd terminals that are pre-signed? In the release here, you've got a figure of $385. It's unclear if this is an annual or a monthly amount. Can you just please clarify that? And then just following up on that, is that amount of fixed cost per merchant regardless of their turnover size? Or that's just your expectations of what the average revenue per terminal might be?

Yes, it's a good question. I'm sorry, I didn't put out monthly, and I should have put that in the [ can ]. It's monthly. So that answers the first question. I guess the second piece was, I called out that, look, we went to higher volume merchants with what we saw is probably a lower than average or -- well, they were lower than average, but sort of below average use of proprietary debit cards in there because those are the transactions we can't turn revenue on.

Yes. Okay. And then just turning to the New Zealand review. You've touched on that pretty well and the [ ComCom ] statements have been out there for a little while now. But I think you made a comment there before on the presales as well with New Zealand acquiring that they're on a flat rate product like in Australia that you obviously can't charge for domestic debit.

Yes.

So I suppose in any instance that [ ComCom ] in New Zealand also looks at surcharging in a potentially negative light, would you expect any impact to the New Zealand acquiring opportunity for Smartpay?

That wouldn't affect in principle those customers that we've onboarded to date or that we -- sorry, onboard is the wrong word, presold to date, because they're on a sort of a merchant pay solution [ camp ]. We do have plans to roll out our SmartCharge solution in New Zealand as one of the products going forward. So we'll watch the outcome of the RBA plans with that. But everyone we have, I guess, pre-signed to date [ is ] on our [ simple ] -- or the equivalent of our Australian simple flat rate product.

Yes. Makes sense. If I can just squeeze in one more. There's quite a step in headcount this half that was pretty much expected with the ramp in New Zealand acquiring and what lay ahead of you. Where are you at, I suppose, in terms of that progression in terms of investment as we look forward into the second half? Are you where you need to be? Or do you need to do more in terms of staff?

We are where we need to be from the New Zealand piece. I wouldn't expect any more than that. We also noted that we called out that we've taken on [ 24 ] headcount with that THL acquisition as well, Cam. So that was sort of unexpected. But also -- when I say it was unexpected, it was unexpected pre the deal, but then again start with the revenue benefit from that transaction. So I think we're about right with our run rate headcount in New Zealand. I wouldn't expect us to be taking on anything incremental in the second half on that piece.

And so, if New Zealand acquiring continues to ramp, you've had a good start with presales, but let's just say you continue plugging along at a good pace, do you need to continue adding that headcount capability in New Zealand? Or can that scale quite accretively?

I think when I called out at the end of the financial year, I sort of called out that I expected our run rate, excluding sort of the branding effects, to be sort of, I suppose, somewhere between $2 million and $2.5 million per [ half ], [ Cam ], and that's what I would expect it to be moving forward. I noted we came in below that in the first half. Part of that is the fact that we've done that recruitment, et cetera. So I expect to still come in within those parameters in the second half. And as I called out at the time, I don't expect that to necessarily ramp as we execute further into the New Zealand opportunity.

Your next question comes from Wei Sim with Jefferies.

Just a couple for me. Just in terms of the technology and processes that we need to put through for any potential regulatory change, how flexible, I guess, is our software and hardware to be able to cope with these?

Look, very flexible, and that's what I tried to call out in that presentation. We have the technical capability to provide a full surcharge, hybrid surcharge or no surcharge solution and the -- on the basis that there was a full ban. We already have a product in market at the moment that we can remotely reconfigure on the terminal to support that change. So there would be no technical change required for us to move to an environment where there was a complete surcharge [ ban ], [ right ], any sort of hybrid solution where there's maybe a ban on certain cards and not on others. We have a full engineering capability in our business and engineering those payment applications is our bread and butter. So we could pivot to that really rapidly and of course, remotely reconfigure terminals as required.

Okay. Perfect. And then just in terms of if we did have to do this hybrid solution or under all the scenarios, what kind of cost would be associated with that engineering work? And do you have a sense as to how long it might take?

I would expect if we needed to pivot that, then what we would likely do is probably reprioritize some engineering work we're already doing. [ Well ], I don't know that there would necessarily be a change to the incremental work we plan, our engineering work with a combination of compliance, new products, features and enhancements, and I expect that we will [ slot ] into that. So I think it would be included in any existing run rate R&D spend that we would have, right. So that would be the first piece that I don't think would be incremental, and I don't think it's a particularly exhaustive effort. And with regards to the download, we do remote downloads and updates to our terminals regularly. We have teams in the business that support and manage that for any changes that we might be making and any updates we might provide to our terminals. So that would become a, kind of a business as usual operational function as well, right. Bearing in mind, I've called out the time lines. There would appear to be a significant road in front of us in terms of awareness around what we have to do and when and being organized and structured around that, depending on what the outcome of the RBA is, I'm not getting out over my [ skis ] here. That is [indiscernible] to be determined. I think we would have ample time to plan and deliver for any change required.

Your next question comes from Jack Daley with Shaw and Partners.

Congrats on a great result. Just first one from me. Just -- obviously, you kind of talked to that 10% impact on Australian revenue from a full surcharge ban. Just regarding the simple flat rate, are you seeing any -- when you're speaking to the RBA, are they mentioning any -- how they're thinking about, I guess, simple flat rate pricing moving forward?

You mean -- when you say simple flat rate pricing, you mean the sort of the blended solutions that...

Blended.

That would -- Look, [ Jack ], there is complete recognition, I think, from the RBA that is more of a merchant-driven solution as opposed to any particular sort of proposition, if you look at the bulk of solutions like that in market, and that -- provided by the incumbent providers, so the large incumbent providers, but also a number of the new entrants, including ourselves. [ They are ] as a result of sort of the merchant requirements and what the merchant is looking for from [ simplicity ] in terms of their acquiring products. And so sort of feedback we've had from the RBA, I guess, to date and discussions with them is that they acknowledge that, that's probably driven by that merchant looking for it. I know that there are a couple of industry bodies that have also come out and talk to that point as well, which is kind of reinforced and reiterated that, that's what merchants are looking for, right, simplicity in their acceptance solution.

Okay. No, that's great. And just on that $385 monthly expectation in New Zealand. I guess you have called out that, I guess, you're going for higher-value merchants at the start. Would you expect that $385 to be kind of the run rate moving forward? Or would it probably come down a little bit when you go for not so higher value merchants, I guess, over time?

No one is going to get that question, Jack. So look, that's what it is at the moment. There's some sort of flex in that high-value merchants have tended to necessarily potentially get a better merchant service fee or retail merchant service fee at the moment than lower value merchants. So we're putting it out there [ and ] cognizant that it will probably be considered run rate, but noting that it is also probably the higher volume merchants that we've gone to at this stage. So we'll wait and see how it plays out over time, Jack, because there are those moving parts in that pricing.

Okay. And I mean, so you said higher volume and then also, I guess, merchants that are more predisposed to doing credit payments as opposed to debit as well?

Yes.

I guess that's -- Okay. And just on the -- I guess you called out 1.15 terminals per merchant versus...

Yes.

1.25 in the second half. Would you expect your revenue or TTV per merchant to be in line with second half '24? Or is that also [ maybe ] down a little bit?

It's basically maintained -- [ there will be a ] -- It's basically maintained at the level that it was, Jack, through that period. That's what we're seeing. We're just seeing a better -- we're just probably seeing a better unit economic profile come from some of the verticals that we've been targeting, but they are also requiring on average [ these ] terminals that historically our fleet has. So that's the sort of a combination of moving parts there.

Okay. And then maybe just on Lightspeed. So I know, I think you called out last result, they had taken some merchants off you and you're winning them back. I think recently they've called out that they're pulling back resources a little bit in ANZ. Is there any comment there that you're seeing around Lightspeed?

We haven't seen any sort of further material effect from Lightspeed into our [ business ] at all, and we continue to engage with customers that they hunted after late last year and [ went ] up late last year with the purpose of bringing them back to our business.

Your next question comes from Owen Humphries with Canaccord.

A couple of quick ones from me. Maybe just a clarification. Just going through the update at the AGM, when you're talking about double-digit growth across the board, whether it be transaction value, acquiring revenue, and then we've seen the revenue from Australia being around 9% for the transactional revenue despite strong terminal growth. Can you just talk through what you're seeing there on pricing and also [ TTV ] per terminal [ you could say ]? Are you seeing a bit of a slowdown? Or just talk us through the disparity between the AGM[ in this ] today?

Yes, no problems at all. The pricing is, and the take rate is probably a bit lower in the first half overall compared to prior periods, and that's probably a reflection of 2 things, [ so the ] price competition sneaking in there over the half. We started to see a little bit of that late last year, but probably a bit more price competition sticking in over the half, which is to be expected, and we knew would come with others sort of competing in the space for us, although for new sales we've been able to maintain our current pricing. It's probably more sort of repricing a little bit into our existing book, but that's not in any large volume, Owen, just to be clear. I guess the second thing is just the ongoing softening in TTVs, or the ongoing sort of softened TTVs across the book as well. Aidan, have you got any comment to put into that as well?

Yes. I think it's [ well ] [indiscernible] around some of the difficulties [ they're ] having and we've seen those TTVs remain at a lower level than we've seen in previous periods, Martyn noted, obviously has impact on the revenue number.

The final piece I'll probably add color there too, Owen, is, some of the verticals that we've gone into [ as ] [ SmartCharge ] solution are priced slightly differently as well, but reflect out in actually a better revenue per terminal, a better gross margin per terminal because of the mix of certain factors like average ticket size and some of those sorts of things. So that's probably -- those are probably the things that are driving that.

So if you look at the last couple of months, then are we trading flat in TTV? Just talk us through what the -- obviously, the first part was quite strong and the second part a bit softer. What's the exit run rate in percentage terms?

Yes. We saw it sort of fairly flat, I suppose, in the first half, but anything towards the end of the half, we started to see them turn back up again. So yes, that is probably what I'd say about that.

Okay. So back to kind of terminal growth rates, you'd say...

Yes.

Steady state. And the last question just around New Zealand. Can you just talk through the dollar costs absorbed in that half to get it already? This is obviously the cash investment period with the revenue. Can you just talk us through, one, the cash absorbed in the first half and also the time line to get those 2,000 [ live ] in market?

Yes. So time line for the -- I'll start with the second part of that question first, Owen. So time line to get those was, let's call it sort of circa 4 months, so like 4 months. So that's [ close to the ] called out our run rate being largely where we said it would be. So our run rate -- we expect our run rate to be sort of [ 500 ] to [ 800 ], but that was including new sales and I exclude the new sales from that run rate at the moment. So I think we're largely aligned to where we expect it to be. And there's been a bit of a ramp effect in that as well, right? We've bought resources [ already ] in the half, and then, obviously, there's a recruitment cost associated to that, [ there's ] training, et cetera, and then they've started to get into the exercise. So costs in the first half. And then we had about $0.5 million worth of contribution to our sort of brand content development for the New Zealand opportunity. We haven't launched that yet. We've obviously only launched Australia, but we invested in the brand and content to support that launch when we get to it. So that occurred in the first half as well. So those were the sort of where we spent the money, if you like, and that's kind of the sort of the run rate in the period that was done over.

What was the first part of that $0.5 million, what was it before that? How much was the headcount cost?

I think the total headcount costs, I'm sure, [ she ] can probably...

Yes. So it's just under $1 million. That's including recruitment associated costs, too, Owen.

Your next question comes from Cameron Halkett with Wilsons Advisory.

Guys, can we just touch back on the strategic partnerships that have been announced? Can you just talk through, I suppose, the monetization opportunity for Smartpay here, particularly around the bundled payments and POS and also the business tool set? Should we be thinking about things like subscription revenue, additional sort of hardware sales? How should we be thinking about these 2 opportunities over the medium-term?

Yes. Look, I think it will be sort of a combination of those things. I'm not going to be drawn specifically on the commercial construct of those at this stage, or pricing models that we will take to market, Cameron, but those are the sorts of constructs that we would expect to be around those solutions as we go forward. We would expect as we deliver a more comprehensive business tool set that there will be probably different Android-based hardware and technology that we put in to merchant environments. I've sort of foreshadowed that, I suppose, over probably 1 year now that we will evolve that and that's the benefit of sort of an Android foundation for our solution set. And I think as we deliver more value to merchants, we would look to recover or to receive sort of more value ourselves as a business. So it will be those sorts of models, I would expect that we'll ultimately deliver those solutions [ around ] [ that ].

Yes. And if I can just turn back to sort of the potential financial implications of any surcharge ban. Let's take the debit scenario again. Your largest competitors in the market, they always charge monthly rental fees on terminals, Smartpay doesn't, on the flat rate, and this turnover is about $10,000 a month. In a scenario where debit surcharge only is banned, do you think SmartPay and/or your sort of challenging competitors who have leaned on surcharging would begin to look at the terminal rental fee revenue opportunity of, I suppose, rerolling that out more broadly as somewhat offset, if you will?

Look, I think in a complete surcharge ban, that would be absolutely one of the considerations, Cam. I think in terms of our review of a ban on debit surcharging only, we were able to still provide a reduced cost solution to our merchants. So I think that -- what I know that our modeling on that one hasn't included any introduction of an arbitrary terminal rental fee. So that's how we're thinking about that. That obviously we've sort of modeled on, still providing a highly competitive solution in any iteration or in any -- under any sort of RBA ultimate determination.

Yes. I suppose a key point there, though, Marty, right, is you've got a [ legacy ] in hand in the worst-case scenario just beyond, I suppose, having to bear the brunt of that with no offset.

Well, absolutely. And as I say, in a worst-case scenario, if we want to call it that, of a complete surcharge ban, it's certainly one of the things that we would introduce and expect to introduce.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Hayden Nicholson with Bell Potter.

You touched on before, can I just confirm that incremental spend? Was that $0.5 million in brand investment and just under $1 million in headcount and recruiting?

That's right.

Okay. Just another few quick ones. You spoke as well the return to operating leverage. Can we just confirm the timing of that sort of back to pre-[ NZ ] expansion? And on what basis was that, EBITDA to sales or something else?

Yes. So I won't call out specific timing on that. What I'm highlighting is that we've had consistent operating leverage ratio, I suppose, that we called that out as EBITDA to revenue, and that's been relatively consistent over a number of years now, Hayden. And we expect that the New Zealand opportunity will require investment [ early ], which we are flagging we've done over the first half, and that's why we've had a bit of a reduction in our, I guess, EBITDA to revenue outcome. But given that it's only incremental cost that we need to put into the business to support the New Zealand revenue and ultimately gross margin growth, we expect that as those New Zealand revenues come online, that will return to where it's been over the last few years and grow out from there. That's what I'm calling out. The specific time line I haven't called out.

Yes. No worries. In terms of the net adds, just thinking about maybe whatever scenario the RBA does come out with, what's driving unit growth at this point in time? Is it SmartCharge or simple flat rate? Like what are merchants opting for, I guess, broadly speaking?

Look, a combination of both is the straight answer. But obviously, the majority is coming in on a 0 cost [ EFTPOS ] solution. And so our modeling [ has said ] that in order to maintain a highly competitive solution, that's what we're calling out would be the revenue impact, I guess, ultimately, over time if we had to operate in a highly competitive way in a full surcharging ban environment. But we onboard customers every single month on a simple flat rate solution at the moment, Hayden. So it's not a new product for us in essence. In fact, it was the first product we entered the market with.

Yes. I guess as well, just back on that partnership as well. rationale there, is that based on previous competition that you highlighted in the last half? Or is that just something that's come online? I guess, just trying to think about the landscape at the moment, who can replicate this sort of stuff, et cetera?

The POS partnership, is it?

Yes.

Yes. Look, that's -- I think I've been sort of drawn on our ambitions and our strategy around POS for probably over 1 year now and I said that we've had a plan in place and that we were working to, what we thought was the best, I suppose, ultimate way to provide a solution in the market. And that's what I'm talking to, I guess, in terms of that Stage 3 agreement that we've put in place. It's about providing a solution under our own brand and -- but doing that through leveraging a partnership with the technology provider who we think has a best-in-class solution. So that's what that's talking to, Hayden. It's about, I guess, providing our merchants with more value from us and I suppose, supporting more solutions that they require in their business. I think the verticals I've called out are the ones where we have strength and where we operate in at the moment and where we're targeting. So that's why I've called out those verticals.

Yes. Just last one from me, back on the adds. Are you seeing any change currently further down? Because I mean, it's been sort of compressing. I think it was down 20% in the second half '24, 8% this half. Seeing that come down further? And I guess is that 2 things a reflection of who you're targeting and then also businesses themselves? I guess I'm just trying to think, does that recover when the economic conditions get a little bit better? Or is that not how you're thinking about it?

We'd like to think so, Hayden. I think that we've got that look through to seeing the impact on merchants. Like I say, we've seen ongoing soften TTVs. And I would call out that we still think that our sort of business closures are heightened compared to our historical numbers. And our engagement with merchants highlights that they're still doing it tough out there. Again, I [ fuse ] the eyes and ears when I'm on the ground here and in New Zealand, and there's a new story every day about how tough SMEs are doing it. And so we would like to think that as the relief starts to kick in for them with sort of reductions in interest rates and those sorts of things and that SMEs will get to a better -- sort of get to a recovery stage. So we would expect it too, Hayden. As to when that will occur, it's not clear to me, but we're just seeing the ongoing economic -- ongoing effects of those economic conditions.

Thank you. That concludes the question-and-answer session and our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.