They're not profitable, they expanded, the expansion incurs more loss, what they're doing is digging a deeper hole. If you lose money per customer overall, and you get more customers, now you're losing even more money.
"Positive EBITDA", if you can't pay your taxes/etc and break even... guess what, you're going bankrupt eventually.
All this and they think they can compete with Intuit. This won't be the first time a New Zealand company succeeded in the "ignored by competition because its too small and has its own system of laws and isn't part of a cooperative economic zone (vs, you know, just expanding to another large city in US/EU)" and then thought it could compete overseas, only to have its ass handed to it.
It's still a bet, it's impossible to say if the lifetime value holds up in the face of competition, screw ups or changes in the business environment - but that's why it's an investment.
Now this isn't quite as simple as that but growth without profit and without the prospect of profit isn't something any investor should be keen on.
Without profit the company will have to either take out loans (which require repayment with interest) or issue more capital (which dilutes current investors).
This can be fine in the initial growth stages of a business (you have a plan to start making a profit in the future), however for a 10+ year old business who's already floated their stock, it's not great to indefinitely prioritise turnover over profit.
What an incredibly strange statement. It's so far away from the reality of the situation that it comes across as just looking for an excuse to lash out.
Their revenue climbed 38% to NZ$407 million, with a positive EBITDA, and grew their subscriber base by 1/3. That business isn't even remotely in danger of going bankrupt. If running a NZ$28 million loss results in that kind of tremendous business expansion, they should do it perpetually.