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.
Here's one possible reason why they don't have money:
http://www.truckseries.com/cgi-script/NCWTS10/articles/000006/000669.htm
Notice the year listed next to the #01 Koma truck? Weren't all their trucks listed as 2007 models just recently? This one has mysteriously become a 2010 model.
I still think it would be funny to sue them for using the trademark on whatever product they still hold, the website and the side of the Race truck. Not profitable, but certainly funny.
It would be very difficult to discern how much he spent to sponsor the NASCAR Truck(s) since the team is owned by some combination of himself and Daisy Ramirez. You could guess that he doesn't pay anything for the sponsorship on the Truck because he owns the team, but that also means the expense of running the team is completely his responsibility and there are no sponsors to help pay for it!
This weird overlapping ownership thing is all over and around BBDA. You have BeBevCo itself where BW is the CEO and Daisy Ramirez (DLR) is the COO (I think that's what she is, like it matters anyway). BeBevCo doesn't own the trademarks to the products it sells, those are owned by DLR Associates, which is also owned by Brian and Daisy but is a private company. The same two people also own Potencia USA, another private company whose products are supposedly now distributed by BeBevCo and will be counted in their financials. I believe the Potencia brand is also owned by DLR Associates, not Potencia, who has a deal with BeBevCo to distribute its products. Then there's Racefumes, another private BW company that apparently shares warehouse space with BeBevco, who also shares warehouse space with Daisy Ramirez Motorsports, the race team owned by Daisy Ramirez but operated by BW. I wonder which business gets to claim the expense of renting the warehouse and paying the utilities? Racefumes? BeBevCo? Daisy Ramirez Motorsports? DLR Associates?
This whole deal about Private companies layered with a public company is a huge red flag, IMO. There is no clear disclosure of who pays who for what and a private company has no requirement to show you its books. With so many companies handing the money back and forth, all run by the same two people, they could probably put whatever they wanted in the financials (if we ever see them) and there would be no way to prove or disprove any of it.
Brian Weber sold us on his company partly by promising transparency. Maybe I need to pay closer attention, but at this point I am just not seeing a whole lot of transparency.
January 19th
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/BeBevCo-Evaluates-Corporate-Needs-and-Sets-Share-Cap-1185574.htm
So, he's still got about a month and half to reach his "goal of category dominance".
The same PR also states this:
Where's the quote from?
Sure, it's an impressive number if you believe that every one of the people viewing is staring at the TV every second that the KOMA truck is on the screen, cares specifically about that truck, can read the name of the product and then runs to a computer to buy it.
But we both know that's not the case. For starters, there's 36 trucks in the race. Not every one of the viewers is staring in rapture at every moment. Very few of them care who sponsors the trucks, especially if its something they've never heard of. The vast majority of them are tuned in to see the top drivers and don't care about the also-rans.
Then you get into the whole range of issues like lack of availability of the product on a wide scale, should the viewer even show an interest in it. Then you have the strange pairing of an excitement-based sport with followers who like to drink alcohol and herbal-based relaxation beverages are probably a pretty hard sell.
If nothing else, the ad dollars would be better spent somewhere everyone can see the ads, not just race fans.
Yeah, it's real. A real waste of money. The BeBevCo related stuff was on the screen for about 15 seconds total and was never mentioned by the announcers. The viewership for NCWTS races is not that great and not every one of the viewers is straining to see the 'other' sponsor's name so they could run out and buy the product, either.
If you took all the money this company has wasted on racing (yes wasted, where's the results?) and spent it on advertising that has potential to be seen by more than just NASCAR Truck racing fans, maybe the company would be better off.
But we'd also get another PR about shareholders "stepping up to the plate" or some such nonsense.
I guess we could talk about the size of Daisy's backside, but that seems inappropriate, at best.
There's zero volume almost an hour after the market opened and nobody is talking about anything else. You got any ideas?
There's no company shills in here talking about the bright future so there's no reason to recount BW's ineptitude or deceitfulness, yet again.
There's a truck race in Texas this weekend and that usually spurs some sort of conversation even if it is pretty much off-topic, but I haven't heard anything. Maybe they sold their trucks or blew up all their engines or can't find a driver, who knows? Maybe they just packed up shop and all disappeared.
The camera most likely outputs JPGs of varying quality and usually defaults to 'normal' rather than 'fine' or some other lower compression level. The point is that it's already been compressed in a lossy format once before it exits the camera.
If you click where it says "full size" you get an image the same size as the one displayed. That tells me it was resized from the original before it was uploaded to the gallery, a process which again applies lossy compression to the already compressed image. Unless high quality settings are used throughout the process to this point, you will already start getting artifacts and loss of definition.
The gallery software also possibly routinely resizes and thus recompresses images, even if it's not necessary. This would add a third level of degradation to the image.
Like it matters one way or the other. It was the company that told you. IR speaks for the CEO.
How about addressing the entirety of what I said instead of nitpicking details, as usual?
Being on Pink Sheets does't turn a lie into truth. It's still a lie. It's no excuse and if you're using it as one, you're just endorsing the lies.
I'm pretty sure I saw false pretenses on Youtube straight from the CEO's mouth from the get-go. I've seen them in PRs and heard and seen them in interviews. Ihub mods defending his words don't change the source, but it does reinforce the statements. The guy in the getaway vehicle wasn't in the bank and didn't point a gun at anyone, but he's judged as guilty as rest of the gang.
By the way, I think Pink Sheets only reports what's sent to them by the company. Maybe we should ask the company why they haven't submitted current/accurate info to Pink Sheets. Oh yeah, we have. They don't answer because they're actively hiding the truth. Also known as false pretenses.
If they invested under false pretenses they most certainly had their money stolen.
They might have known to sell their shares sooner if there weren't a parade of mods here defending the false pretenses on a daily basis, too. Which is also why there's a need to daily remind people of everything that's wrong.
Nope.
http://twitter.com/mikeguerity
Hasn't been updated since May 6th.
I didn't see the quote on his FaceBook either. Could be that he filtered that comment to only his friends or friends or friends instead of everyone.
Your thinking is very distorted and oversimplified, diddi.
There are loads of costs you haven't taken into account. You used the low estimate of what it takes just to "get the truck to the track." You haven't accounted for the race fuel, for any breakage, wear or damage to the vehicle, for the cost of driving the vehicle hauler all that distance, etc. You haven't accounted for the fact that all the money you spent is gone if you don't qualify. Furthermore, you aren't guaranteed a check for $16K or $17K. That's why Carl Long used the word "if". Look here:
http://www.nascar.com/drivers/dps/clong00/truck/data/2010/index.html
Last week's 11th place finish, the best he's ever had, earned a whopping $13,825. If it takes 10-15,000 just to get the truck to the race and entered, what does that tell you? The previous race he scored $11,025 but lost an engine. A race engine is expen$ive to replace. So in addition to the $10-15,000 just to get the truck to the track and entered, now they have to buy a new motor. All with the $11K they earned.
As I have been telling people all along, racing is a very expensive business and very few people actually make any money doing it. It's done for passion, not profit. You can pay a lot of the bills with sponsorship money but if you are the sponsor on a vehicle you virtually own yourself, you aren't getting cash from other people to pay the bills, you're paying all of them yourself. In the case of Minter's footsoldiers, BeBevCo is giving them money, so anything they are paying to be on the truck can be considered to come out of BeBevCo's pockets anyway.
Speaking of the race, it's just about to begin after a rain delay. The #01 is starting 35th of 36 and the only reason its in the race at all is because of their position in the owner points, not because the truck is fast enough to be competitive. Maybe they can survive the accidents and place highly through attrition again like they did last week and at Daytona in February.
I agree totally. They could have saved even more money by not buying the race team in the first place. I guess when you virtually own the team you don't need to pay for the sponsorship, but then again you have to pay to run the team anyway and there isn't usually anyone else paying to be on the truck.
I'm a little conflicted when it comes to this, though. I am unhappy with BBDA's NASCAR pursuits and am among its critics here, but I love NASCAR and auto racing in general. As wasteful and ridiculous as the truck racing obsession is for this company, it's cool for me to have a focused interest through involvement with the series.
In case you aren't sufficiently thrilled by the still pictures of the KOMA #01 truck, here is a FaceBook video of the truck running inside the BeBevCo global beverage headquarters.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1300510149030
If you root around in Mike Guerity's (the new driver of the #01 truck) videos, you'll see he has been playing footsie with Mike Minter for a while. I'd hazard a guess that the BeBevCo and FootSoldiers connection is a by-product of Guerity getting in the driver's seat. A driver who can bring sponsorship often gets a ride over a driver who cannot provide a sponsor (Carl Long). The fact that DRM is fielding another truck for Carl Long might be related to Long owning a race car hauler that DRM borrows (also a guess). Possibly the hauler is provided free if Carl gets the drivers seat or some other quid pro quo type arrangement.
Hooking up with Guerity might be a good move overall for BeBevCo since it appears he's a bit of a relentless self-promoter. Maybe BBDA will get a little of the halo effect from his desire to be in the public eye.
Still doesn't answer how the foot soldier truck has anything to do with BeBevCo or helps sell drinks or create product awareness for BBDA. I'm not sure why we should be excited about a joint venture that essentially has BeBevCo apparently giving away its entire profit margin to charity. It's not like the company is swimming in revenue and can afford to be giving it away.
According to Jsayski, you are partially correct. The #00 truck, which is listed as owned by Brian Weber, has "Konadrinks.com" as a sponsor (yes, KONAdrinks). Carl Long is listed as the driver. There is no crew chief yet.
The #01 truck, listed as owned by Daisy Ramirez, is sponsored by "Koma Unwind/Chillaxation/FootSoldier.com." Mike Guerity (the hot dog stand video interviewer on the left) is the listed driver. Morris Van Vleet is the crew chief.
Hey...at least KOMA is available around the Charlotte area, which is more than you can say for most of the places they've raced so far.
OK, can anybody tell me how having someone else's charity on the hood of the DRM truck helps BeBevCo? It just represents even less exposure for BeBevCo, doesn't it? KOMA's not even on the hood any longer.
Maybe it's that that FootSoldiers is paying to advertise on the truck, so it's costing DRM less to run the truck (or BBDA less to advertise on it), but unless the truck has KOMA on it, how does it benefit BeBevCo's products at all?
And since BeBevCo is handing over 50% of the proceeds from sales of something or other to FootSoliders (according to the banner), aren't they pretty much now paying for someone else to advertise on the truck?
Actually, I fail to see how this picture has anything to do with BeBevCo at all. They don't own the truck and the KOMA name isn't in the picture, which was the excuse for why the truck repair pictures were on topic. I'd say this picture is officially off-topic.
Carl Long is out of the #01 truck.
http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-135982.html
I know nobody cares, but it's interesting that there was a PR today from Ramirez Motorsports and nobody posted it here. I guess maybe they got the message that racing PRs just annoy beverage company shareholders. Of course it also means that they may now be wasting your money without even telling you about it.
There's some discussion on the topic at the Carl Long message board:
http://www.carl-long.com/smf/index.php?topic=7022.0
Apparently Carl will be behind the wheel of the #00 truck, the bright red one. According to Jayski, it's the "KonaDrinks.com" Chevy.
So who is this new driver for the #01, Mike Guerity? His name sound vaguely familiar, maybe? He was the guy on the left in the Poppa's hot dog stand video.
http://www.mikeguerity.com/
Geolocation is a feature available on a lot of new smartphones such as the iPhone 3G, which is what was used to take those pictures.
When a digital camera creates an image file it stores a bunch of info in a file header called the "EXIF" (EXchangable Image File format) data. Along with dimensions, date and time the picture was taken, sometimes the camera model, F-stop and that stuff, EXIF data can contain the GPS co-ordinates if the camera provides them.
You can see the EXIF data by right-clicking an image and choosing 'properties.' You might have to click 'details' or 'advanced' or something after that, but eventually you'll come to a property sheet that gives you whatever EXIF data was written with the file.
That's cool how you made the list really big to try and make it look more impressive. Keep pumping, Ryan. Only problem is that you can't pump up something with a gaping hole in it.
Yes, it's trivial and it doesn't change anything I said. 56 stores is nothing compared to what it needs to be in to even make a small dent in the category or even start making substantial revenue trickle into the 12 billion gallon bucket. If that list impresses you, you are very easily impressed. How many c-stores are there in the USA? Any idea what percentage of that number 56 represents? If I can't go down to the corner and buy it in a convenience store anywhere I am in the USA, then it's virtually nowhere. Maybe Uppy's seems like a big deal to you because they're all over the place where you live, but it isn't a big deal for anyone anywhere else. I guess you could call it a start, but if that's all you got after more than a year and all the money raised through selling shares, you aren't going anywhere.
I've been here longer than you have and, like a whole lot of other people, was very positive on this company and stock until Brian Weber proved how clueless and evasive he is and drove the company's stock into the ground with his actions. That's not worth of a 'good job', it's worthy of scorn and ridicule. If anything, I'm a lot more qualified to assess YOUR motivations posting here than you are of mine. If I had anything to be satisfied with I'd be satisfied. If your company with 12+ billion shares and products selling in 56 stores satisfies you, I feel sorry for you. You have very low standards of satisfaction.
You smile just because it's on shelves to be bought? I guess just entering a truck in a race is as good as winning it too, right? You've lost all sense of reality with this company and stock and that's what I'm pointing out. If, according to what you say, just getting it on any shelves anywhere, no matter how small or dingy or few, is all it takes, then maybe you're incapable of understanding the big picture. That would account for why you cheerlead this worthless stock and company. It's going nowhere. The amount of 'progress' in the year+ since BW took over, combined with the decaying fundamentals of the company does not represent moving forward. The share price reflects that.
Go ahead and explain why the stock is at no-bid/.0001. See if you can do it without deflecting or dodging the question, answering it with another question, changing the subject, trying to turn it around or resorting to one of those tired 'then sell your shares and move on' lines. Just give an honest, straightforward, direct answer. If the products are popular and valuable and the management is competent, hardworking and honest, why is the company where it is and the stock price where it is?
By the way, mockery is not flattery, it's ridicule. Ridicule is not flattery.
It's trivial at best when you're talking about being a category leader. It's a very small, private chain concentrated in a small area of the country but people talk about it as though it was 7-11 or WalMart. It isn't. It's not that big of a deal. And being in the stores doesn't automatically mean that people are going to buy the stuff or like it, either. When you take all those variables into account and then look at the reality that the sales of a niche product in a handful of independent c-stores have to inject value into 10s of BILLIONS of shares in ever-increasing amounts, it's clear that this whole company is just a sad joke.
You can pump this POS all you want Ryan, Diddi, gator et al, but it doesn't change any of the obvious realities that anyone with open eyes can see. The stock price is as low as it can go and there's no real chance of it going up. The CEO still can't do anything right or keep his word on most of what he says and is comically bad at running a business. People are laughing at him and are laughing at anyone who defends him and his actions. It's so pathetic now, it's gotten like a freak show.
Eh, from what I'm hearing, wow. IMO
Amen, kiefur.
You can probably relate to this effect I've noticed. Isn't it incredible how much differently you read what a CEO or company says and what's said on a message board, after you sell your shares and no longer have any money in a company? Without a vested interest, things become much more clear.
That's happened to me with a few different stocks. The pull of optimism is amazingly strong when you own shares and want them to go up in value. You'll clutch at anything that even hints at the positive and will over-inflate and magnify the importance of anything positive that happens, no matter how trivial. After you sell off your shares, the agenda of people who push the stock and company are remarkably obvious and the 'bashers' turn from malicious destroyers of value to being the only realistic people on the board.
Did you ever wonder why there are crowds of people outside a prison when someone is executed? To some people, seeing a wrong-doer pay for their actions is a cause worth pursuing.
There is nothing even a little unbelievable in Sammy's statement. A lot of people who get labeled bashers are just people who are bothered enough by deceivers who take people's money to do something about it. The way you do it is by trying to help other people avoid being taken advantage of through consistently pointing out the truth, the inconsistencies and the deceptions.
Brian Weber has failed to honestly represent himself and his company from practically the first day he took over as CEO. A lot of people lost a lot of money based on misplaced trust in his word and his failure to be transparent, which was one of his main promises when he took over. The fact that there's plenty of people who are willing to help bring him down isn't surprising.
Folks who are intellectually dishonest enough to ignore the facts, to spin miniscule potential into high probability and continue to claim everything is OK are no better than Brian Weber, either. They are just aiding and abetting his anything-but-transparent actions.