Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Don't believe every PR prediction you hear.
They've expressed highly wishful thinking in the past.
The PRs are like saying you'll hit a home run every time to the plate, then not getting any home runs, but still hitting lots of singles and doubles. Good performance, but not as crazy great as they talk.
A 2 or 3-fold increase in online footprint would be outstanding, and I think more likely. If they can achieve 10-fold, then hallelujah... I'll retire this year.
Excellent find, Fill!
I especially like this portion, because it says BRAV is in a better position than some bigger names. They don't have to go through the time and expense of downsizing. They're already e-commerce savvy, and we know that Danny is diligent about keeping real estate expenses low.
Agree with Fill. If all you care about is "facts" about "revenues", then you'll be too late to invest. By the time info about revenues becomes fact, the price will already have risen (or fallen).
If we just discuss facts about revenues, then we'll just be regurgitating quarterly release info which anyone can look up (and besides, things would get really boring!)
All the tracking of adwords, order numbers, likes and traffic ranks, and speculating about the potential of the websites and growth strategy is in an effort to anticipate what upcoming revenues will be like, and being able to predict that accurately is where you'll make the best returns. You might think some of these things don't affect revenues, and you might be right, but they're certainly worthy of discussion.
I agree that WomensTopsHabitat is too long and difficult to say. The "s" at the end of the first 2 words slows it down, and it's 6 syllables in all, 8 if you add the "dot com".
Their first 3 sites were 4 syllables each. That works, and is the upper limit for a good name, if you ask me.
How about just "WomensTops" or "TopsHabitat". Danny seems to really like the word "Habitat". He's had the name "Handbag Habitat" for a long time.
Or maybe "OnlyTops" or "MostlyTops", or whatever's available along those lines.
I appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm here, but I think you got your starting numbers mixed up. When you talk about 8-12x forward growth, I assume you're talking about multiples of revenues, but you used current PPS.
The multiple should be of expected future revenues, not current market cap (which comes from PPS). You just took the current market price and multiplied by 8 to 12.
So where does that leave us? Current TTM revenue/share is at .00496, when counting revenue after returns. After Q4 is announced, that will probably be down to .0044. After that, I expect it to hold steady in Q1 then rise again in Q2. In 6 months, I expect TTM rev to be at .005/share, then at 9 months, to .006, and up steadily from there. Of course, I'm just making projections, assuming success of VivaVuva, and could be wrong.
Applying your 8 to 12 multiple to that forward growth would put things between .04 and .07.
Some positive signs:
In tracking the traffic on BRAV's sites I note that while traffic peaked in December for OnlyLeggings and WorldOfLeggings (as usual for its annual cycle), it hasn't dropped off much from there.
World Of Leggings reached its best-ever 3-month worldwide rank of 142,355 on January 3rd. Its best 3-month rank from last winter was around 196,000 th in February.
OnlyLeggings, in the last few days, has pushed past last winter's best rank of a little under 88,900, achieved in February, to a new all-time record 3-month worldwide rank of 86,806 this weekend.
OnlyLeggings' pageviews have been dramatically up in the last week, to double the rate of the past 3 months, and close to all-time highs for a week of pageviews. The pageview-per-visit ratio is also very high, which is a good sign for orders. In Q3, # of visitors was good but pageviews were very low, and revenue results came in much lower than expected. This was a sign that visitors were taking a quick look but not hanging around long enough to buy.
Agreed. I just hope folks realize that Q4 results, when they come out, are not likely to reflect the excitement we're seeing about the future. They reflect mostly the revenues of just 2 websites: OnlyLeggings and WorldOfLeggings.
VivaVuva was launched in December, and the TV commercials haven't even run yet, so it wasn't a significant contributer to Q4. DressesExpress.com and the new one someone just found today (WomensTopsHabitat.com) aren't even really launched yet, but should be soon. So, even Q1 might not show an improvement in revenues. It's more likely to "hold steady".
Q2 is where things could really get going, in terms of beating previous year's quarter.
These new sites should help smooth out the seasonality of BRAV, as leggings are predominantly a fall/wintertime seller, while the new sites are more "all season". I'm hoping that the new sites really start picking up in March as people start thinking about spring clothing.
Wow, having trouble keeping up with all this new interest! Good to see it.
Yes, the FB likes really started to shoot up this past July, for the OnlyLeggings page. They were almost non-existent before that. I think BRAV has yet to be able to capitalize on all those likes that much, given the soft market in retail clothing in recent months. They are setting up for rapid growth when the clothing market recovers. The question is, when will that be?
Some of us have tracked FB likes and YouTube commercial views and can give a history if there's interest. You could also search past postings for discussion of the same, with numbers.
VivaVuva's FB page has also been gaining likes at a nice rate since it was launched a couple months ago.
Thank you, YU!
Just noticed their grammar mistake in that statement, where it says:
"As world's largest online leggings..."
instead of saying:
"As the world's largest online leggings..."
Any way to report errors like this to Danny or his crew?
So after the PR, I checked OnlyLeggings.com to see the new look and features.
One side thing I noticed (which might have been there a while but I haven't looked in a while) is this interesting message in the middle part of the page, which is probably a response to Target and other chain stores getting hacked for customer info recently:
Good point. He should word it differently. Of course, he's trying to get across that it can be expensive to pay an outside specialist to do that, especially if they're a good one, so in a sense it's a cashflow savings. Of course, the cost is the time that Danny spends on that, or more accurately, the time he's not spending taking care of the rest of the business while messing with HTML.
He needs to worry about operational efficiency, marketing strategy, growth strategy, negotiations, suppliers, etc. I haven't seen any evidence that he's hired someone to do those roles for him.
So by neglecting those thing to reduce outward cashflow, he might be hurting revenues, which will reduce incoming cashflow. This might be a case of improving short-term net cashflow at the expense of longer term, which would only make sense if he's short on cash.
What I'm wondering is whether some of the technical office hires he did make are actually helping with the SEO, HTML, CSS stuff, under his direction, with him in control and delegating work to them. I hope so. From the wording in the PR, it doesn't SOUND like it, but I hope he is delegating some.
I'll agree with you there. The price/sales ratio is now just below 1.0, which is about where it was based before it began its big runup (to a P/S of over 5.0) last year.
Good question. I have no idea. I would be happy with anything over 100k for the quarter just ended.
Sometimes it can make sense to spend that adword money even if your ROI is negative, because it keeps you in customer's minds, so that when they're ready to spend, they'll remember you.
In other words, some Q3 (negative ROI) adwords spending might have helped with Q4 revenues.
There's no way for us to know for sure whether it made sense or not to cut Q3 adwords spending.
One thing I know: reach was up, but pageviews were down in Q3, meaning, more people were coming to the websites than the previous Q3, but they weren't staying long and buying. To me this says that extra adwords spending in Q3 probably would not have helped much.
Again, just a theory. No way to know.
Their plans are to do both. Supplement in the short term, FDA approved prescription medicine longer term.
Well, that much we knew all along, that it would take a long time to get this product to market.
Still, all the changes in share structure and weird explanations concern me. It's possible it's all about preparing for buyout, but perhaps not. If I were buying them, I'd want some of those changes made so that I could be gauranteed full control of the company.
Celprogen also gets a percentage of the sales.
Perhaps they got a better percentage from MDIN than the giants were willing to give them.
Are you joking sarcastically here, or serious?
I can't imagine it being a negative about the owner of a company when they try to avoid being in position to be taken over.
Yeah, that's how I read it. I agree it could have been worded better.
Perhaps this explains why OL's traffic stayed high during the last week of December, while WOL and VV tapered off from the high holiday levels.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. The acquirer would not like it at all if Ray could convert and take the company back. They want to be sure they have control. Ray wants to be sure he's rewarded. So they need a creative solution.
OK, so now that the quarter is over, what do people think the revenues will be for the quarter?
Please read more carefully. Most of that is intangible assets. Intangible cannot be cash. Cash is a pretty tangible thing!
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please try to explain it more clearly.
Yes, I noticed that, too.
Because of that PR I expected sales to be about 500k to 600k for the quarter, and 700k for the year.
We need an explanation.
No, that is not revenue. That is money that people have put into the company. At least, normally that's what it means.
Here, you see the breakdown. Cumulative paid-in capital was 29,659,265 one year before. So, it went up by $1,420,834 during the year. Much of this was the par value of returned shares. The biggest chunk, however, was some kind of valuation of the shares given to Celprogen for the patent license. It seems that par value was .001, but the "paid-in-capital" amount was almost 3 times that. Perhaps the share price was .0028 at the time the granting of 400,000,000 shares was done.
Revenue itself seems to have been only $82k in Q4.
I never said 200 - 300 million Outstanding. I was guessing that's what might get TACKED ON to the current totals, not what the actual total would be.
OnlyLeggings.com's 3 month Alexa rank reached exactly 90,000 today. Kind of cool to see such a nice round number! This was actually through the end of Saturday.
It's best ever 3 month rank (rounded to nearest 100) was 88,900 back in late February. The rank on this day last year was 97,700.
I agree that the share structure is probably not what's reported, but perhaps they're still finding hidden shares and don't want to announce the adjustment until they've got it all figured out and fully audited, to at least give some finality to it all.
There was a previous time when we figured out that more shares were owned than were in the reported float, back in May or something, and they soon announced that some previously restricted shares became unrestricted, adding them to the float. The O/S didn't change at that time, however.
I have a hunch that the O/S will change this time.
However, I don't think it will be upped by more than 200 to 300 million, and that amount doesn't worry me. Even if it goes up by double that, it's fine as long as that's the final total, and no more hidden shares get revealed, and it's all audited and the chill is removed. The company is undervalued given their revenue growth. They just need to give people some confidence that the share structure and revenue totals can be trusted, and then we'll be on our way to multipennies.
Good question. I don't think there's anyway to tell just yet if this Q4 will be the company's highest ever revenue quarter.
I can say that for OL and WOL, their rank and reach for the quarter will be the best ever for any quarter, but pageviews will be a little lower than 2012's Q4 (down 10% for WOL and over 30% for OL although both are significantly up from Q3). This means a lot more eyes are on the sites, but possibly not as much buying as last Q4, given that this is the same higher-reach-lower-pageviews pattern we saw in Q3.
Right now I don't know how to interpret this into revenues, given how different Q3 was from any previous pattern. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 30% more than last year's Q4, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's 30% less than last year's Q4. It's hard to read.
price/sales ratio is now at 1.0.
I'm thinking this means people are assuming that Q4 revenues will be slightly below last year's Q4.
I've been too busy to post traffic stats lately, but will try to get something out soon. Comparing to last year, we're seeing higher reach and lower pageview % than last Q4, which is similar to the pattern from Q3 (compared to prev Q3), although of course overall traffic in Q4 is much higher than Q3.
It's a difficult quarter to read, especially since I no longer know if we can read much into the traffic, as far as an indicator of revenue.
It's actually a 4 day promotion with Groupon, but your point is still valid and good.
Yeah, 214.50 in buys and 12.04 in sells.
The calm before the storm?
I've not been following the boards much lately, so I got left out of this tally, and I don't care to give exact amounts, but my siblings (who don't post) and I combined have over 30M.
As I said a couple weeks ago, I think if you really got everyone's share counts, and add them all up, it would come close to 400M for the supposed float, which means either stated float is unintentionally wrong (there are shares not known about by Nick) or stated float intentionally wrong (pretty bold of Nick to say what he has if that's the case) or the float is right and just lots of shorted shares, or some combination.
I have no idea. I just think that even if there are an extra 200M or 300M shares out there, the stock's price is still a lot lower than it should be. It's the revenue that's the 'more variable" variable here, not the number of shares.