Companies that earn royalty revenues such as licenses etc... have tons of news to print or hype about but when it comes to revenues, it is only a fraction of what you should believe or expect.
REFR revenues have been very static and low over the last 3 years but routinely issues news releases about Mercedes etc... which most readers believe turns into massive revenue when in fact only a fraction of that money hits the top line of REFR. I think there should be a disclosure of license percentages on every news release that will not generate 100% revenue for companies like RFER.
I've watched this company for a couple of years do the same crap over and over paying millions to its officers while generating massive losses annually.
This is how it works-
REFR raises money by selling stock.
They use the money to fund R&D and installations to
make it look like SPD is heading towards success.
REFR hires shills to direct eyes towards the apparent progress, and blast anyone who points out the glaring faults elsewhere in the business plan.
REFR management then piles the promises sky high, extrapolating the paid and subsidized progress into an absurd picture of a "dividend producing machine".
Paid shills pile it even higher, and don't mind at all telling lies to get their story across.
REFR then sells more stock to finance the next round of the same.
A little ancient history.
Japan Steel shows SPD windows
A UK technical school produces a crude SPD display. Sanyo is signed as a licensee.
Glaverbel produces a prototype SPD mirror.
MSC produces SPD film, and Orcolite said to be planning release of SPD eyewear.
Hankuk announces mass production of SPD through a freshly formed subsidiary SPDI.
Those licensee are are all gone, gone, gone, but at every step REFR management was promising riches "soon". That history does not even get into the shameful chapters involving the sham aerospace company Inspectech, or the phony network of SPD distributors claimed by Razor's Edge.
$40M of investor money spent since "commercialization" was announced has enabled REFR to create a more sophisticated show, but it is just that, a show, a carny show.
The first Mercedes news release was only a little more than a year ago. Production began some time after that, and it wasn't until the 3Q that revenue exceeded the MAR for Pilkington. And the $q showed a continuing upward trend if revenue. Meanwhile, Mercedes announced that it is putting SPD in two more vehicles, neither of which is ready for delivery yet. A year from now, SPD will be in two more Mercedes vehicles.
If you don't see a trend there, dartingrock, perhaps you shouldn't dart out from under your rock.
Oh yeah, don't forget Hondajet. Standard equipment. And other OEMs are coming on line, not to mention that new production facilities for SPD film will also be coming.
Your post is a fair comment on the relatively recent production output of SPD in Mercedes vehicles. I looked at cars.com a bit ago and noticed that there were 1056 new SLK's listed and only 26 had MSC. And in fairness, that is only the listings at US Mercedes dealers. Revenue is at best, so far, in its very earliest stages and clearly SHOULD grow. Right now though, the penetration of MSC at MB seems to be 2.5% of the SLK production models.
The real question for you is this:
Why doesn't REFR breakout in their revenue numbers a total for license fees that are under MAR and then actual royalty revenue over MAR? As a matter of fair disclosure this seems reasonable. As the company currently reports revenue it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell where the source of revenue is and if the Mercedes deal is really making any impact--all one can do is guess. In other words, right now you cannot tell by the income numbers if the company is collecting ANY royalty revenue. One can only GUESS. Come on, its not like the revenue is so large right now that it is an imposing task to parse the sources of revenue. Moreover, why does the company not disclose the total run rate on a quarterly basis of ACTUAL production of film? If the film run rate in SQ.FT. was disclosed, investors could really understand if market absorbtion of SPD was increasing (or not)?
Now I understand, it would be easy to dismiss my request because, "Didi is just a 'downer-clown' and shouldn't be taken seriously by long time longs". But consider for a moment that I am an investor, and I really just want to make money...I don't care if you are right or if I'm right...I just want to make money.
But, frankly, until REFR gets a track record of CLEAR, FAIR, and COMPLETE disclosure (which, I hate to tell you it has not in the period since it went public in 1986!) all the positive things that seem to be occurring now will not perk-up volume or the price per share, and only someone that is either a tout, an idiot or an insider would buy into this 'blackbox'.