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.
"I really don't like this kind of hyperbole." What kind do you like? If you like 73 cent valulation hyperbole, billion dollar buyout hyperbole, and ubiquitous like Coke hyperbole, you're in the right place.
If it is true that (1) millennials play a significant role in the "prosecco revolution," (2) does Christie Brinkley appear in enough venues to which they are attuned?
The evidence for (1) is largely anecdotal but widespread enough that it probably has some element of truth.
Regarding (2), I have no idea. Do large numbers of millennials watch Hoda and Kathie Lee? Or CBS Sunday Morning or Access Hollywood? I don't know.
She has incredible presence and appears to be all in on this. But it may be a fair question to ask whether her promotional appearances reach the full breadth of the target audience.
(And this is just idle musing, so don't give me a lot of crap. Ha.)
"organic/vegan Prosecco with a celebrity name - just gives it a little boost" We want more! Bellissima whitens teeth and cures shingles! That'll move some bottles.
And yet it was promoted on this board as if it were one of the more pivotal and important events in the history of western civilization.
Thank you very much.
Of course, we have no hard information whatsoever that there is or ever will be a potential buyout person/company, but for the sake of argument, I'll say this.
If I were buying a company for tens of millions of dollars (or hundreds of millions of dollars), I wouldn't give a rat's ass how far back your auditors went because my auditors are going to audit everything that doesn't move for as broad a period as I felt comfortable.
That works for me.
I think the rules regarding my question must be both well established and well known. They're just not well known by me. I'm hoping someone else has concrete knowledge that he or she can share. (I've asked on the DD Support board also, so maybe someone there can provide and answer).
I'm just trying to figure out what is actually required to become current.
If so, all well and good, but it isn't the SEC's role about which I am inquiring. I'm asking how an auditor can certify that his 1/1/2016 starting numbers are accurate without having any certainty that the 12/31/15 numbers are accurate?
If anyone with auditing experience could answer this for me, I would be genuinely grateful: #msg-133238839.
Here is my question for any accountant/auditor types:
ICNB's last audited financials were for the period ending 12/31/2012 at which time it had zero assets, total liabilities of $7.5 million and an O/S of 54 million. In its unaudited annual reports over the next three years, it claimed assets of varying amounts, liabilities that shrank and increased again, and an O/S that went from 54 million to 49 million to 87 million to 125 million (as well as small revenues in 2015).
So my question is this: Doesn't an auditor have to go back to 12/31/2012 and follow the buck forward to unravel all of that? It can't commence an audit beginning 1/1/2016 without knowing where things stood on 12/31/2015 (and 12/31/2014 and 12/31/2013).
Or can it? If so, how?
I'm not so sure about that. I think that if you review the link in this post, you'll see that it can be accepted on either a "store level" basis or a "corporate/warehouse" level. #msg-131727503
It certainly adds an interesting wrinkle.
Nice work uncovering that filing. Very interesting.
Other than that teensy miscalculation, it's an interesting filing. It states the company acquired 8 percent of BiVi and Bellissima "through its investment in a private New York based company."
Top of page six: "As of March 31, 2017, Iconic Brands had a market capitalization of $814.79 million." That works for me!
The Bellissima Z.S. bottle states that a five oz. serving contains 92 calories.
Well, whaddayaknow. Finally, a Bellissima story with a stock symbol in it. Unfortunately, it's not OUR stock symbol.
Agreed. I was merely intrigued to come across another prosecco that seems to be seeking an audience very similar to the one Bellissima does. It had escaped my attention until now. And I've been looking.
If low sugar, low calories and low carbs are indeed the big selling points that most of us think them to be, then, yeah, SYLTBAR is definitely under-promoted.
They appear to be the same price range.
It doesn't claim to be.
I hadn't, but I see it's available in southern MA, so when I'm in the area, I will swing by one of the locations and grab a bottle.
With only 49 calories/six oz., I can't imagine that the SYLTBAR tastes like much of anything. I'll look forward to your post about the manager's taste test.
Actually, it compares quite well. Regardless of the fanboys' claims here, the Bellissima site promotes Bellissima "Zero Sugar" as having "0-2 gr/litre" SYLTBAR claims to have 1.6 gr/litre.
Whoa. Now that is interesting. SYLT = SYLTBAR Premium Prosecco. I had not heard of it before. About half the calories of Bellissima Zero Sugar.
http://www.syltbar.com/syltbar-premium-prosecco-750ml-bottle/
Has anyone tried it?
To put this incredible, life-changing event in perspective, the first mention of last year's St Barth Hamptons Gala that I can find on this board (the mecca of ICNB aficionados and CB fanboys) was December 26.
As with so many things in ICNBland, the answer is not as straightforward as one might think The two PRs dealing with the subject refer to "up list" (sic) and "trading on a more senior exchange." The problem is that strictly speaking, ICNB isn't "listed" at all so it can't really uplist, and it isn't traded on an exchange so the phrase "a more senior exchange" is problematic.
That said, I think the majority of us believe the initial move, should it ever take place, would be from OTCPink to OTCQB. That would be a tier change within the OTC Markets Group rather than an "uplist" to NASDAQ.
According to this link that has been posted here repeatedly, last's year's event received 60 million press impressions. http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2017/7/8/oml[zICNB_St_Barth_NEWS_Coverage.jpg
(Keep in mind that a press or media impression is a very low standard.) But still, 60 million is a large number, so I ask how many times outside this board and associated links have you come across references to the St Barth Hamptons Gala? For me, the answer is zero.
I will admit that of all the questions I have about ICNB (What is selling? How much is selling? Who owns the other 49% of Bellissima? What is in the modified agreement between Christie Brinkley, Inc. and Bellissima Brands?), how it ended up in a Target store in Kokomo, Indiana is way down on the list. Just another curiosity in this saga.
My guess is that Kokomo is one of Target's regular test markets, so they can collect the Bellissima sales data and easily extrapolate. In other words, how well Bellissima sells in Kokomo is probably less important than how well it sells in comparison to the other proseccos and sparkling wines offered there.
Massachusetts is one of those states that likes to make things complicated. Here, according to Wikipedia, is the skinny:
"As of January 2016, no individual, partnership, or corporation may have more than seven off-premises licences in the state, nor more than two in any city, nor more than one in any town. No individual, partnership, or corporation not resident or headquartered in Massachusetts may apply for a license"
(Target is headquartered in Minneapolis.)
I do not think that any of the Target stores in the state of New York sell wine.
Agreed, so there is no need to gild the lilly.
No matter how well Bellissima tests in Kokomo, we won't ever be in all 1800 stores just like we won't ever be in all 180 Hannafords. Some states have restrictions.
I'd love to get a look at that modified agreement. I bet it has all sorts of interesting stuff in it.
That would certainly be a good reason.
Why can't ICNB Rich finalize the deal with Bellissima Rich? Good question.
They worked so well together on the initial 51% sale. Ha.
I'm still trying to figure out with CB hasn't exercised her option to purchase 1% of the O/S. Why delay? I'm stumped.
Of course, Mr. Forty-Nine Percent will want his share of the buyout price. How this all will play out promises to be entertaining and hopefully lucrative.
I haven't seen much, if any, "SS bs talk" about the appeal of the share structure to the acquirer. You're right. That entity will assign a dollar value to the company and not care whether that money is split 891 million ways or 891 ways. The discussion has been about how big a piece of a buyout pie would common shareholders be entitled. That is a very relevant topic.