InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 57
Posts 11137
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 04/25/2012

Re: None

Monday, 08/28/2017 10:33:03 PM

Monday, August 28, 2017 10:33:03 PM

Post# of 11429
Marley Financials Posted

I posted multipliers. These are just rough estimates. We started talking with Coco in September 2016 and started managing Marley on/around October 24, 2016. The transactions didn't close until Q2 of 2017. Our share price was priced far different than when we started negotiating with them. But their revenues were also being constrained as we fit them into our business model. So, the TTM multiplier is misleading on 2 fronts. For the sake of ease, I'm just dividing Total Consideration Paid by the 2016 Actual Income.

I also annualized the known 2017 performance (thus far) for our acquisitions. Coco I divided by 21% because Q1 is a low volume quarter. Marley I just straight-lined it based on acquisition date (45% accrued with 55% to come in remainder of 2017). Again, this could be argued as misleading because I neither trend nor account for coming rollouts (Marley Yerba Mate, Pedia Aide (coconut-based water), etc.); plus, the calendar year of 2017 isn't a true FTM projection. I also didn't include the potential payout to Marley (if they reach $15M performance threshold) in determining the FTM multiplier.

The jury is still out on when, or how much, the acquisitions will become accretive for shareholders.





The reason small beverage companies don't make money is primarily because of distribution. We have the distribution platform already. Coupled with obliterating acquisition headcounts, with the added scale, we are projected to be EBITDA profitable for the remainder of the year.

Following are some comments from Q2 CC about the statement above. After that are statements from the 10Q and what we paid for our acquisitions. I threw PMC in for giggles.