"You seem confused. It is not claimed as an asset at all. It is only a metric. What does it measure? Exactly the things you have pointed out; basically expected revenues."
@growler1969 Not confused about this. Just answering
@martincooper's question. That is, it's not about Mark to Market- which is a way of valueing assets. (That was his question). This is about claiming forward revenue (ASR) as if it is virtually money in the bag, when it seems to be far from it.
These are the financial highlights from page 1:
Half Year Financial Highlights
• $2.8M revenue from ordinary activities for the half year ended 31 December 2018, up 24%on the previous comparable period, comprising:
$1.4M BidEnergy Platform subscription fees, up 55% on the previous comparableperiod; ando $1.4M US rebate revenue, up 7% on the previous comparable period (BidEnergyUSA had a positive EBITDA contribution of USD$150k)
• 43% improvement in operating cash outflows compared to the previous comparable period
• 60% growth in customers over calendar year 2018 to 75 customers (from 47) and 106%growth in ASR1o Exit ASR1for CY2018 at $3.7M and AR2at $2.2M ($5.9M combined)
• BidEnergy remains well capitalised for future growth with $4.2M cash (including deposits) asat 31 December 2018
Now this makes the future revenue look rosy- but you have to read the fine print on page 5 to find out that is only an estimate, and an expectation. It's not actual, locked in, re-occuring revenue, as with some SaaS co's.
My key question is, if the C&W deal was 18% of the ASR, as stated in the C& W announcement, and it was due to be bedded down by now, with revenues actually hitting the bank in March, then why is there no mention of it at all in the Half Yearly- eg "C & W deal on track, with on boarding complete, and initial revenue expected in March" or some such? But there was nothing at all- for a deal that caused a trading halt in December.
Is ASR just a surface water metric, that evaporates as the sun rises? Is it, in effect, mostly hype?