Andrew Shapiro: Well, I know you break that out separately, and that’s–
Remigijus Belzinskas: That’s correct. There are lines broken out.
Andrew Shapiro: Anyway, it’s more of a point of style and transparency is the question, not really the actual amount here. Your NOLs, even after a sizable amount of tax loss carryforward expired this last year. Unfortunately, new losses still have our tax NOL at $50 million or more to shield future income. But it’s going to need pre-tax income to monetize and use this asset. What can and are you doing to create 100% margin royalty streams from monetizing the valuable Mace brand name?
Sanjay Singh: I’m sorry, Andrew, can you please repeat that?
Andrew Shapiro: We got a big $50 million tax NOL still, okay? We have a big tax NOL. We need pre-tax income to monetize and use the asset. A lot of my questions and a lot of your time and focus here is doing Mace-branded activities, selling revenues, going through our factory, manufacture, doing the things that we do, okay? But what can and are you doing to create the 100% pre-tax margin royalty stream that could come in by licensing out our well-known Mace brand name in sectors or areas that we otherwise aren’t going to be able to build up and compete in any time in the near-term?
Sanjay Singh: Okay. Thank you. So, all of those — all the new initiatives that I’ve described, they’re all co-branding licensing deals. Legal Heat, the F3, all the new deals that I’ve talked about in the investor deck, the new product offerings, they are all co-branding deals like licensing our name.
Andrew Shapiro: You mean we’re getting 100%. We’re not getting the 100% margin on a revenue dollar collected when you sell a Vehicle Perimeter Defense system.
Sanjay Singh: No, there is–
Andrew Shapiro: Like real royalties. Well, yes, that’s fine, but I’m talking like real royalties. For example, unfortunately, the Mace brand name is licensed on a very, very long-term license to someone in the tactical area. That’s why we can’t use the Mace brand name in the law enforcement market, you use Takedown or some other brand name. You don’t use Mace. Now, it happens that the buyer or the owner of that Mace brand royalty, that Mace brand license had a catch and kill operation, where they’re just sitting on it and they’re not selling any products with the Mace brand name, and we’re not collecting 100% margin royalties. But presumably, there may be other ways that our Mace brand name could be used in the security industry.
In areas of the line of business that we have no interest in, whether it’s Mace Alarms or Mace, whatever, Home Protection Services. That was another area Mace once was in and it was licensed. It sounds like there’s nothing on the horizon other than these other type of co-branding items where there’s production of product, and we share in the revenue stream, but we bear a bunch of the business costs with it.
Sanjay Singh: That is not correct. We do not, actually.
Andrew Shapiro: We don’t have any business cost with the Vehicle Defense product?
Andrew Shapiro: Some of the co-branding deals are coming up that if the product will not even be–
Andrew Shapiro: That’s great. Well, then we just need, obviously, more of those, and we frankly need those products to be marketed and sold. Okay. I don’t have any other questions for — obviously, a disappointing quarter. And at some point, you’ll hit a trough and maybe we’ll start executing on these things and not have excuses.
Operator: All right. Thanks Andrew.
Operator: We do not have any further questions in the queue.
Sanjay Singh: All right. Thanks Maddy. We can end the call then.
Operator: This concludes today’s call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
