To Siemens. I'm the President and CEO of NamSys, and NamSys makes software for the cash supply chain. Everyone can read that. I'm sure you've seen about a thousand of those safe harbor slides today. The problem that we're trying to solve with cash is something that's quite unique to cash as a payment mechanism. Being physical, there's actual, there's real cost to transport it and handle it. This includes fuel and labor. There's also a lot of compliance costs when it comes to anti-money laundering rules and insurance. These costs are all largely fixed. Even if you send $300 or $3,000, it's going to cost you the same amount to send that cash to the bank and to have it deposited into your account.
Cash, I'll talk a little bit about the trend line in cash, but it's definitely declined over the past 10 years and has faced increasing competition from electronic payments. All this means is that with all these fixed costs, the relative cost of cash is actually increasing. The picture on the right-hand side is actually a picture of a cash vault facility where they count commercial deposits from retail stores and where they prepare the cash to go into ATMs. Most of you, even if you're bankers, have probably never seen the inside of a cash vault, but this is pretty much what they look like, rows and rows of tellers. Traditionally, these facilities have been in the bottom of the banks, in the basements of the banks at King and Bay. Nowadays, they're in warehouses in Mississauga or they're in nondescript buildings in industrial areas.
It's definitely changed in the past 15 years or so. I always like to get this out of the way really early on because none of us here in the room likely use a lot of cash, but it is still a very popular payment mechanism. Today, 14% of all payments are made in cash, and this has been relatively stable since about COVID. COVID definitely was a game changer. A lot of people switched to tap payments. That was a negative impact for the use of cash. It's been stable around that 14%- 16% range in the U.S. and a lot of other countries since then. It's also still very popular for in-person payments. There are a lot of factors for this. In the U.S. in particular, you've got a large unbanked population. These people don't have bank accounts at all.
You also have people that have a bank account, but they immediately take their paycheck, take it to a check cashing store, take the cash, and that's their budget for that week or for the month. For a lot of people, that is the best way to spend their money because they're not going to be paying overdraft fees, NSF fees, and they're not paying credit card annual fees. It's very different, you know, it's very different from the upper end of the population, financial-wise. We also have unique instances around undocumented workers and things. Also, tax evasion is a good use case for cash, as we all know. A lot of us in this room, you know, we haven't paid cash for a taxicab in years. We're all paying Uber and mobile payments.
I bet you we pay our barber or our hairdresser with cash or our nail person or the contractor who did our renovation. There's a lot of cash out there in the economy. Cash in circulation continues to increase at approximately the rate of inflation. If you look at the trend line at U.S. dollars in circulation, it goes up about 2%- 3% a year for the past 20 years or so. Interesting tidbit, there's about $2.3 trillion of U.S. cash in circulation. About 80% of that is $100 bills. People are using it as a store of value internationally. Cash, you know, we kind of focus on North America for these statistics, but cash usage varies dramatically across the globe. Here are some of the solutions that we use to help service that cash supply cycle. It is a cycle and a supply chain.
You've got customers who take money out of ATMs. They spend it at retailers. The retailers deposit at banks. The banks credit their account. They take that money and they fill ATMs up, and the cycle continues. On the retail side of things, we make software that helps stores balance their cash registers, their employees, all the cash payments in their store. Cash is also unique because it's denominated. They're going to be taking in large denomination notes like 20s, 50s, 100s. They're always going to have to have change on hand. It's a bidirectional kind of supply chain. In the middle, we've got our cash transportation solution. We help cash-in-transit companies. You'll see the armored trucks driving around town. They might be running our software on Android handhelds in the back of that truck. We're doing basically, it's kind of a courier system, but built specifically for cash-in-transit.
Because there's a lot of unique things about cash-in-transit. You're not carrying Amazon packages. You're carrying millions of dollars in cash. It's just kind of a very different operation. We help improve their efficiency, reducing the miles driven, the amount of time on the road, etc. On the processing side of things, when this cash all gets aggregated and needs to be counted and verified, we make software that helps run the machines and people that are going to dissect this cash, put it into an inventory, balance it, reconcile it, and send it back out to fill up ATMs and to supply branches with cash. All of our software is software-as-a-service. We are based in Amazon data centers. Because we are dealing with financial data and banks, bank relationships, we have the security in place that gives them some assurance that we're handling that data properly.
We've got our SOC 2, and we're working on getting our ISO certification as well, which is more recognized internationally. Pricing for these products, you can kind of look at it as a pyramid in sort of the addressable market. At the very bottom, we've got a lot of retailers. In the middle, you've got many fewer cash-in-transit companies. At the top, in terms of cash vault processing, there's actually fewer cash vault processing centers than there are transportation facilities. It kind of looks a bit like a pyramid. In terms of how we sell this, it looks more like an hourglass. You have lots of retailers on the bottom. You have 100,000 retailers or a million retailers in the U.S. You have 60 cash-in-transit companies, and then you have 4,000 banks at the top. What we've done is we try to focus on the cash-in-transit people in the middle.
The reason for that is they touch all the different ends of this supply chain. This chart should give you a good idea of our revenue mix and a little bit of our historical graph. Right now, the cash and our Cash-in-Transit product, that is our newest product, although it's been in the market for a number of years. It comprises 22%, and then the other ones are about 40% each. These are growing. Right now, it's actually about roughly the same rate, which we like to see. It's important to know because we are selling this into the cash-in-transit companies. Those companies are not only our customers, they're often our distributors for this product. That becomes our distribution channel. They're going to resell our retail solutions further down into the supply chain. Additionally, the cash-in-transit companies are not only transporting the cash, they're often processing the cash.
Many of our customers use all three of these products for their own use and then often resell them to their downstream retail customers. An important part of this revenue mix is how U.S. dollar-centric we are. 96% of our revenue is collected in U.S. dollars. We do actually very little business in Canada. Everything in the U.S., which comprises 75% of our revenue, is obviously priced in U.S. dollars. Everything from Mexico is U.S. dollars, the Caribbean is U.S. dollars, and elsewhere. That makes us very sensitive to exchange rates, for better or for worse. Even though I got this question a lot in the last quarter, our revenue suddenly kind of pivoted. A large part of that was the change in the exchange rate between Q2 and Q3. The U.S. dollar has just gone down in value relative to the Canadian dollar.
Of course, we report in Canadian dollars. Here's a bit of a chart that goes back 10 years. If there's anything that we're kind of known for, it's just a consistency in the revenue growth. We've been growing revenue in that 10%- 20% range for that entire time. The strategy for the company hasn't changed. I took over the day-to-day operations just before the start of this chart. We were early adopters of the cloud, and we were early adopters of software-as-a-service. Prior to that, we sold on a licensed software basis. We'd get the maintenance revenue as recurring revenue, but generally, the revenue stream was very lumpy. Software-as-a-service, of course, is much healthier in that regard. It allows you to plan out your operations expenses, knowing that you've got revenue coming in the next month.
The other thing that this illustrates is a lot of this is just organic growth and net growth. We have very little, if no churn, amongst our customers. We have a very sticky relationship with our customers. We value them. They're quite loyal, and they get a lot of value themselves out of using our application. We're definitely focused on gaining market share and building the business organically in this industry. To give you kind of a synopsis of, I mean, you guys can find all this financial data online, of course. Annual recurring revenue is 7.6 . 99.5% of that is recurring. Our margins have been, the last few years have been pretty consistent, 60% gross, 40% net. I had this question a lot in the last little bit, whether these margins are going to expand. No one asks if they're going down.
Everyone asks if they're going to go up. In our line of business, new customers, there is an acquisition cost, there's onboarding cost, there's training cost, support, ongoing support, and product development. It is definitely not kind of a turnkey subscription. As far as evaluating the company, you should look at us more like an enterprise software-as-a-service provider rather than kind of a consumer-focused company. We think that if you compare us to similar enterprise software-as-a-service companies, you'll probably find similar metrics there. We have no debt. I'll talk about more financials in a little bit, but we've also accumulated a little bit of cash because all of that time and that revenue growth, for most of that, we've been profitable. Here's a chart just to illustrate the Sankey diagram, which I love from Simply Wall Street. I gave him a shout out here.
That gives you kind of an idea of where our revenue comes from and how it's broken down. Our financials are really clean. They're kind of like accounting level or high school level accounting in terms of understanding them. There's no complex kind of financial instruments or arrangements. The ownership's really clear. We expense everything. There's nothing really carried on the books that you need to kind of dig into and evaluate. Basically, I like to call it what you see is what you get. In terms of SaaS metrics, it is, we're an enterprise software company, so a lot of the SaaS metrics don't, not that they don't apply to us, but they're just not really super practical. They're going to vary too much from quarter to quarter. We kind of look at these ones as where we want to evaluate ourselves on.
First of all, we're focused on revenue growth. The trailing 12 months at 10% is on the lower end of our range. We did some big projects the previous year that kind of, we had kind of a good year the previous year as a comparable. We think that next year we'll be more in this range that we're targeting. The rule of 40, we like that one. It's just a good rule of thumb. Growth plus operating margin, and we're at the kind of the top end of that. Revenue per employee, this is important because we like to, this entire time we've liked to stay very lean. Currently we're at 20 employees. That has grown. Last year we were 18. The year before that we were 16.
We are not on a mad hiring spree, and we are trying to use every tool at our disposal to keep the number of employees low. Anytime you hire, for every new employee, there's just this overhead cost. This 500,000 per employee, I think, is where we've been in the past in our best years. It's something that we always kind of keep in mind. We also like to have a healthy mix of the net new customers as well as the organic growth in our customers. Organic growth is, of course, cheaper. No acquisition cost there. We've enjoyed a lot of organic growth by getting into customers in their early days. They were just kind of starting up their cash-in-transit operation. They had a handful of trucks that they're using our software on.
Now they have 150 trucks that they're using our software on and cash processing centers across many, many states. In addition to winning new customers, we're really invested in our customer success. All of our pricing, by the way, is aligned with the revenue generators. In a cash-in-transit operation, we charge per truck. In a retailer, we charge per store. In a cash processing environment, we'll charge per workstation, so people actually handling the cash. The customers can draw kind of a, it's very easy for them to make that return on investment or value proposition to their executives. One of the reasons that we have achieved these SaaS metrics and little churn in this revenue growth historically, we have been in business for about 35 years. We are purely software focused.
Like some of our competitors, which I'll talk about in the next slide, we don't have any hardware and we don't promote or partner with any particular hardware vendor. We like to be completely hardware agnostic. This just allows our customers to choose the equipment that best suits their needs, the best of breed for them, or the best price point, whatever their priorities are. As a pure software-as-a-service provider, when we price it for a customer, we have zero upfront cost. We basically take up all the risk. We have just been really good at being able to deploy these things, these systems for a low cost and get customers onboarded fairly quickly. It reduces our risk. Ultimately, what we are trying to do is lower the initial cost, lower that barrier to entry, that sales obstacle that comes with purchasing a big enterprise software system.
For our customers, this is their business. Right? We are the equivalent, if you were running a manufacturer, of like an SAP for that customer or an Oracle. We are their ERP system. We are oftentimes basically their CRM system. Sometimes in a small customer, we are their IT department. We are their IT security department. We wear a lot of hats and we have a lot of responsibility to these customers. That is why we also have invested in that SOC 2 certification and annual audits. That enables us to guarantee reliability. We are 99.95%. You guys probably heard about the Amazon outage yesterday. It took out the whole world. The joke is half the internet runs in the US East 1 and in Virginia in the Amazon data center. That is true.
What made it particularly aggravating this time is I think a lot of the systems to do failover to other regions and to do paging out of support people, those failed as well as a result of this outage. I am happy to say we were not impacted. We started moving a lot of our infrastructure out of that data center region a couple of years ago because we saw, we kind of saw the trend line of failures and thought this is not really safe. We kind of dodged a bullet there. Another big thing that comes from using NamSys software is it is completely turnkey. Day one, they get access to the same level of functionality as our largest customers. They get access to the same rails to our banking partners and financial systems, those hardware equipment providers. It kind of opens up the whole world to them.
I am going to talk about that in the next couple of slides. Competition-wise, we are not immune from competition. A couple of these companies I will go through, like G&D, Glory, for instance. These are very large multi-billion dollar companies where cash processing software is just a small portion of their product portfolio. They are also hardware vendors. They sometimes bundle the software together. On the retail side, direct sales to retail, we don't really sell direct to retail right now. It's something that we may consider in the future. Instead, we leverage our cash-in-transit relationships to be able to service that retail industry. One common element to these as well is that there's still a lot of in-house systems or custom-built systems that are proprietary that need to be displaced. The future growth of the company, which I'm sure everyone's more interested in. We talked about the past.
Let's talk about the future. I'll go into each one of these kind of three elements. We're not looking at any kind of single way of growing the business. We think that you have to be, we have to conserve what we already have. We don't want to ruin a good recipe, but we want to do things that are going to be ultimately accretive to the business and to shareholders. The first thing is [Citroën] as a platform t his is an important thing a s we've grown market share, we've now added, you know, we have customers. Oh, that map hardly shows up on there. That's a map of the U.S., by the way, right? Florida is down here. We have customers operating in 35 states. We have about 8% of the cash-in-transit vehicles that are on the road use our software. This is important.
I will also say that the U.S. is a very consolidated market. About 80% of the market is run by Brinks, Loomis, and Garda. We focus mainly on that 20% of independent companies. As we build out this network, we're able to leverage the value of the platform more than just the benefit to their own internal operations. All of a sudden, by joining us, they get access to more retailers. They get access to more banking partners right out of the gate. Hopefully, we can transform Citroën] into less of a software-as-a-service product and more of a platform investment. We are also focused on international sales. International sales grew 16% in the past year. Now, we account for about 24% of our business. We're nicely diversified there. As you saw in that Sankey diagram, a lot of it comes from Mexico and the Caribbean.
We've hired salespeople in the U.K. to help us educate the European market on what we do. We do have other facilities in place to service those customers. We're operating in data centers in Amazon, Stockholm, South Africa. We're going to be going into Australia soon. The worldwide market is huge. There's a lot more diversity. We've got, you know, if we had the same market share worldwide that we enjoy in the U.S., then we'd have a, just that one product would be a $12 million- $14 million revenue generator annually. There are also lots of challenges to doing an international language, deployment costs, time zones, support, etc. We're also looking at different product opportunities. There's a lot of different things in this space that we can provide value for. None of these are actually things that we're working on today.
These could ultimately be what drive acquisition targets as well. Because I got like a few minutes left, I'm going to try to race through the most important part of this. Acquisitions have been a focus of ours. We've gone through several evaluations, but we're really conservative about how we're, you know, what our parameters are. We don't want a company that's really much smaller or much bigger than us. We want someone that remains in this industry because we think that a lot of the value to NamSys shareholders is our value as a potential acquisition target in the future. To maximize that, we don't want to buy a business that, okay, maybe it makes sense for one of these attributes, but it's something that a future acquirer has to divest, which just is a net negative overall.
We want it to be compatible culture-wise and geography-wise, but we also want it to be immediately accretive. We don't want to buy a money-losing company. We don't want to have a company where if they buy, turn around their technology and rewrite everything just to keep their programmer or their customers. Also, valuation-wise, we want to make sure that the value that we're paying to acquire one of these companies is approximately or better than, you know, our own ratios. We're not going to, we don't want to be paying five, six, ten times sales for an acquisition. We're currently trading at about four, three book, probably the most important number is here. The enterprise value, which is just basically the market cap minus cash, is, you know, in that seven range.
We think at the current share price of $1.25, I think that's what I was trading at today. That's what we're looking at. Like I said, our financials are super clean. The only dilution we have is our options outstanding. We have an options program for all of the employees in the company enjoy the options program. It's not just management. I like to make sure everyone is compensated for their contribution. It's a small portion of the shares outstanding. It is quite thinly traded. The top two shareholders currently own about 50% of the company. If you add up the top 10, it's probably closer to 70% of the company. The top 10 shareholders own 70% of the company. There's maybe a 30% float. I have one minute left for questions.
Yes. Hi, thank you for the presentation. I believe you said 80% of the U.S. market is run by Brinks or Garda.
Brinks, Garda, or Loomis, correct.
What prevents them from taking your business or you taking their business?
The independent cash-in-transit companies that we work with are currently winning a lot of business from those national companies because they're just more flexible. They're providing more specialized service. One of the things that we're enabling them to do is even if they have 10 trucks versus Brinks's 2,200, we allow them to, out of day one, be able to deliver better services than a Loomis or a Garda, one of those big companies can provide. We really allow them to punch above their weight. That's one of the things that they find really attractive about our software.
Why can't Garda use your software in their?
They can. They can. We hope that we're able to win their business for some of our products. Brinks, by the way, is our largest customer by revenue. We do a lot of their SmartSafe devices and monitor those for them. For a lot of these companies, the cash-in-transit software and their cash processing software is also, they see it as like their competitive advantage. They don't necessarily want to use software that's built outside. A lot of it's in-house technology that they've built over the years, which just makes it that much more difficult from a sales proposition.
One more.
One more?
I think down here.
Yeah, a couple actually. When you said that some of your competitors have an integrated offering with hardware, would that be like ATMs or?
Yeah, in particular, Giesecke and Devrient, G&D, they're out of Germany. They'll make, not only do they, the driver's license in your wallet's probably printed by them. They print a lot of the money around the world. They also make the sorting and counting equipment. They have some software that they often can bundle with that equipment. Our pitch is always, we want to be the universal provider that's hardware agnostic so that you can avoid, the customers can avoid that vendor lock-in because it makes it very hard to have best-of-breed choices if you've only got one vendor to choose from.
You have about $8 million or $9 million in cash. It has been slowly building. You're not issuing, you're not raising money, you're building cash. It sounds like rather than shareholder returns, you're looking at acquisitions being more likely to get those accretive metrics. Do you think there are prospects in smaller private SaaS companies that might trade at lower multiples, or is that what you're looking at?
In fact, the difficulty or obstacle to acquisitions in this market is very niche. It's a very narrow vertical that we're talking about, especially if we want to stay within this space. The number of companies that fit our criteria are quite low. Sometimes the deal doesn't work out because they value the business too highly. Our valuations are wildly different. Sometimes they decide at the last moment, "Hey, we'd rather pass this down to their son or family rather than sell it." As soon as you get in that, the smaller companies, you also have additional challenges as closing those types of acquisitions. Definitely, that's where we're looking. There's not many public companies our size servicing this space. It's going to be private companies.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your time.