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.
It took me a while to go from novice to, well, a little better than novice. Some people go through it faster than others. Everyone is greedy; that's a stimulus for stupid risk taking and buying risky stock.
Someone who was involved in financing a couple of hundred thousand probably went through it faster than me and graduated. After all they had the money to spare.
You're probably right about them seeing what the printing press can do for them. It was their price to take control.
How does anyone make a deal with these people?
I am unsure how previous accidents effected operations, but it was good they PR'ed it immediately.
If I have time on Monday I intend to call the company. Maybe they will be forthcoming and tell me if operations have been curtailed or not.
I wish they proactively PR'ed that info.
Thanks
That's freaking amazing.
Have you seen anything regarding whether or not the company is shut down as a result of the fire or is production still happening?
I am thinking that investor disinterest may take hold during the last 2 weeks of August. It wouldn't surprise me to see LOGI trade near $6.70 levels or below.
I am a believer in LOGI but I think most people are not; it's still under the radar. Until the institutions start to step back in, the share price will probably falter again despite the earnings beat.
I hope so, because once the numbers start telling the truth about the turn around, the institutions will start coming back and there won't be any more opportunities to buy in the 6's.
LOGI is forecasting $50MM net profits in the coming fiscal year.
Based on the reviews I keep reading, I believe them.
They keep getting great product reviews. I keep picking up on them and reading them from all over the world.
The more positive reviews I see the more convinced that that next reporting period is going to be terrific.
Their surprise earnings beat was reported in India.
Here is an example of a great review at the Apple Store:
http://store.apple.com/us/ipad/ipad-accessories/speakers?m.tsOtherFeatures=bluetooth&m.manufacturer=logitech
Here is another one.
http://tech.pnosker.com/
Logitech UE Boombox Wireless Bluetooth Speaker Review
Patrick Nosker July 30, 2013 0
http://i1.wp.com/tech.pnosker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UEBoombox2.jpg?resize=1500,1061
The last time I stopped by the Ultimate Ears headquarters in Irvine, California I had a nice discussion with Chuck Reynolds (former Worldwide Director of Sales at Ultimate Ears and now Director of Sales at JH Audio) and Philippe Depallens (VP and General Manager at Ultimate Ears by Logitech) about the acquisition of the Ultimate Ears brand by Logitech. I thought at the time it was pretty interesting business decision that a multi-billion dollar a year company would purchase a small custom audio manufacturer with a small and expensive line of universal in-ear monitors. Philippe and Chuck mentioned that one day I might see some UE DNA be included in other Logitech products. Well the Logitech UE Boombox is a perfect example of the audio DNA from Ultimate Ears integrating into the manufacturing superpower genome of Logitech.
When Logitech started diluting the UE product line with the Ultimate Ears 100 earphones I thought Logitech was only bringing the UE line downhill. Then came the UE Personal Reference monitors which went in the complete opposite direction. Now Logitech was flexing its monetary muscle to make the UE brand cover the entire spectrum of sound. Then when I heard that there was going to be a new Logitech speaker system called the UE Boombox, I didn’t know what to think.
I’ve now had my UE Boombox for many months. Carefully testing every listening experience I could, monitoring battery life, and enjoying it in almost all environments, I now have enough to write a comprehensive review of its abilities. Let me start with this: The UE Boombox is one of the best sounding portable speaker systems I have ever heard. If that’s all you wanted to know, go ahead and buy one now. If you want to know why it’s so great, read on.
The Boombox is classy. With a gorgeous industrial design featuring a brushed aluminum finish along with a rubberized bottom, it looks better than most portable battery-powered speakers. The controls are ultra-simple to use with a gigantic volume up/down rocker button on one side and a bluetooth pair button, volume on/off switch, 3.5mm input jack, and AC adapter input on the other.
The speaker can pair with three devices simultaneously and pairing is as easy as holding the pair button down until you hear a tone. The bluetooth range is listed at 50 ft. but in reality it’s closer to 35. The battery life is listed at 6 hours but I never got below 7 with the volume at a reasonably loud level. After several months of usage the battery life was roughly 10 minutes shorter so the longevity of the built-in battery is quite good.
Now let’s get to the sound. Featuring a quad driver system with two 0.5? tweeters, two 3? woofers, and four 2.6? passive radiators, the sound signature is definitely what I would place along with “UE.” I was reminded a lot of my Ultimate Ears 700 while listening to the Boombox. The listed frequency response is 65 Hz to 18,000 Hz. I would say this is reasonable as very deep bass lacked a bit, but what can you really expect from a portable boombox? The sound was balanced throughout the spectrum but what really shined was the ability for the Boombox to accurately and clearly produce treble.
I compared the UE Boombox to a Bose SoundLink II Bluetooth speaker ($299) and the UE was better in almost every way compared to the Bose system. The Bose only won the battery life contest with 8 hours and 10 minutes vs the UE Boombox 7 hours and 3 minutes, and the size/weight contest (Bose is smaller and lighter).
Still, the UE Boombox makes up for all that with its significantly more powerful sound. The Bose produced more directional sound whereas the UE Boombox sounded roughly the same from a much wider angle. All-in-all, the UE Boombox is a serious win. The child of a new relationship between Logitech and Ultimate Ears has truly created something special.
Logitech UE Boombox Wireless Bluetooth Speaker – $249.95
http://i1.wp.com/tech.pnosker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UEBoombox1.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/tech.pnosker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UEBoombox3.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/tech.pnosker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/UEBoombox2.jpg
If FBN goes sub dollar, I will look at it as a sign of investor disinterest and buy up gobs of stock.
They are still generating over a billion $'s in revenue. Someone should be able to come up with a few good ideas to revitalize some of the products.
Furniture Brands International (NYSE:FBN) is one of the largest manufacturers, designers, sellers and retailers of residential furniture in the U.S. It is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S. Some of its well-known brands include Henredon, Thomasville, Drexel-Heritage, Lane Venture, Maitland-Smith, LaBarge, Lane, Hickory, Pearson and Broyhill among others. The company is present in the market through different channels of marketing including its own retail stores under the name of "Thomasville" and also through interior designers, third-party retailers and mass merchants.
The 1:7 split announced on May 29, 2013, reaffirms the "underperform" recommendation on the stock. It is unambiguously obvious that the reverse split was carried out for fear of delisting from the NYSE. However, the latest development puts that risk to rest for the near to medium term.
In reality, it could be said that the reverse split only provides for the stock to fall from higher heights and in higher chunks. The prospects of the company will only improve when its net sales and earnings show some positive momentum. However, contrary to improved performance, the latest products on the block do not resonate same.
In general, it has been observed that companies usually resort to reverse splits in desperate times and not when their fundamentals are strong enough to sail through difficult times. It is evident that the company is buying time to remove the risks of delisting in near-term. However, till the time the company writes a turnaround story, its stunted market capitalization is likely to fall further. The reverse split has reduced the outstanding shares of the company to 8 million from 55 million, thus jeopardizing liquidity further. In addition, we see a widened gap between the bid and the ask price.
Concerns
Challenged Net sales:
The company has registered net sales declines in last 22 quarters out of a total of 25 quarters, including the latest, 1Q2013. The primary reason for decline in sales could be attributed to choppy shipments. The top-priority brand of the company declined 2.0% compared to 4Q2012.
However, the company plans to revamp all the 49 company-owned Thomasville retail stores in the coming twelve months, in an effort to promote the brand as the flagship brand. Thus far in 2013, the company has remodeled 4 of the Thomasville stores.
We would rather suggest improving pricing efforts, greater penetration levels, and channel expansion to perk up the operational performance of the company.
Pressured Margins:
The gross margin declined 427bps to 20.6% in 1Q2013 owing to sales deleveraging of fixed manufacturing costs, higher freight expenses, and increased employee benefits spends. SG&A expenses, though declined compared to last year, were negatively impacted by increased advertising costs. The operating margin plummeted 684bps to -6.3%. Though the company is undertaking several turnaround measures, the most important factor to impact margin remains increase in net sales.
Furniture Brands recently introduced a program to ship full containers carrying different brands directly to its customers from the facilities in Asia where they manufacture, and have started reaping in benefits. This initiative lowers the shipping costs of final products which can be chipped into pricing where the company can sharpen its price points.
Shrinking Balance Sheet:
Cash & equivalents totaled $10.3 million at the end of 1Q2013, a decline of 33.3% YoY. Total liquidity amounted to $60.4 million in 1Q2013, a decline of 30.8% compared to $87.3 million in 4Q2012. Capex increased 28.6% to $1.8 million in 1Q2013 compared to $1.4 million in 1Q2012. Management has lowered the capex guidance to $15 million for FY2013 from its earlier estimation of $18 million, the lowest capex estimated in the last 20 years' history of the company. Free cash flows were a negative $13 million and are expected to remain in red with an additional burden between $20 million and $30 million until the company increases its net sales substantially. Cash for the year 2013 is expected to be sourced through working capital which would be generated by lower inventories.
Early May 2013 remained challenging for the furniture as well as the retail industry at large. However, growth rate is expected to improve a tad year over year given the expected traction in the housing market. In addition, the employment data is also expected to be optimistic. The Memorial Day weekend enthusiastic sales further bolster that view.
Disappointing revenues and pressured operating margins are expected to continue, heightened by the sluggish consumer backdrop. New merchandises and improved housing data are expected to provide tailwinds; however, cash outflows in the near to intermediate term cannot be ruled out. Management has undertaken several restructuring initiatives in the past to push positive results. However, net sales, the key to success, remains challenging. Investors are however advised to sit on the fence, take notice till the company gains traction and shows consistency in its financial results. In addition, the cash flows of the company need to improve substantially.
Crazy.
It actually may be a buying opportunity.
This may go sub-dollar soon.
It's a lack of faith and interest.
Though there is still substantial revenue, the losses and no signs of reinvigorating the product lines make this a tough turn-around opportunity to buy into.
I still own MNDO. It's a great dividend payer. The price equates to about 7 times the dividend.
Their last year end wasn't that good. If they can book some new business, the price might actually appreciate.
I found LOGI a few months ago and bought it. This won't be a blockbuster buy, but I did think a company with $2 billion in sales could correct mistakes of it's own making.
Here's an interesting article about the company.
Logitech: A Classic Turnaround Play With Several Growth Catalysts
Jul 16 2013, 14:00
Logitech (LOGI) is best known as a popular PC accessories supplier. However, both the secular decline in the traditional PC segment, coupled with execution missteps in a number of core growth areas, has left the shares trading near multi-year lows as investors appear to have all but given up on the name. I believe that this fear is overdone and that the firm's very credible turnaround strategy, coupled with its healthy balance sheet and leadership brand, should drive significant long-term upside.
The "New" Logitech
What lends credibility to the turnaround strategy at Logitech is that management has been incredibly straightforward in highlighting and clearly communicating the missteps that led the company and its share price to where it is today. While the company's top line certainly wasn't helped by the unexpectedly dramatic decline in the PC market during FY2013, and the bottom line was damaged by both aforementioned PC decline as well as a bevy of restructuring charges, the problem is that Logitech was not prepared for this turn of events.
(click to enlarge)http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/7/16/1095245-13739584717365808-Ashraf-Eassa_origin.png
While these missteps have been deleterious to the fortunes of current, long-term shareholders, I believe that as the company addresses the key issues here, sentiment should improve (yielding a richer forward multiple) and EBITDA should head in the correct direction.
Explaining The Strategy
Management, unsurprisingly, expects that PC unit sales will continue their decline at a 5-10% per annum clip. While I - and management - believe that this may be overly conservative, it certainly doesn't hurt to play it safe, particularly in this continued weak demand environment for PCs. So, it is important to understand how Logitech views each of its businesses and what sort of strategy it plans to pursue with each, as shown in the following slide from its investor day presentation:
(click to enlarge)http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/7/16/1095245-13739778609491174-Ashraf-Eassa_origin.png
As you can clearly see, the "non-growth" areas that are highly levered to the PC such as pointing devices, desktop keyboards, and video conferencing will be optimized for profit maximization as these are either negative or very slow growth businesses, characterized by the following projected CAGRs,
LifeSize (video conferencing): +6%
Audio PC (PC speakers): -7%
PC Keyboards/Desktops: +3%
OEM: -10%
Pointing devices: -5%
Video (think webcams): -10%
In the "growth" category, we see the more "sexy" product lines, characterized by the following (much more attractive) projected CAGRs,
PC gaming (note that while the traditional PC has been faltering, high-end PC gaming has actually been growing): +20%
Audio - Wearables & Wireless: +31%
Tablet Accessories: +45%
The PC Gaming Story: Stagnation And Share Loss Can Be Reversed
It is interesting that despite the apparent secular decline in the PC space, the PC gaming space has continued to do quite well on all fronts. Nvidia (NVDA), for example, continues to buck the trend of slowing PC sales as it continues to print money with its high end, gaming oriented GPU. Intel (INTC), too, is beginning to realize that significantly improving the graphics performance on its integrated processors is of paramount importance from a user experience standpoint. As such, the broad market for PC gaming peripherals remains strong.
While Logitech actually has significant market segment share in the PC gaming peripherals space, said share has exhibited an unhealthy trend,
(click to enlarge)http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/7/16/1095245-13739794726286979-Ashraf-Eassa_origin.png
Now, in another bit of brutal honesty, the company made it clear that this share loss was a result of a weak product lineup with gaps in the lineup. Logitech also believes that its relatively weak customer engagement efforts carry some of the blame. Despite this, the company still retains #1 or #2 market share position in a number of key markets (Germany, USA, China, Sweden, Japan, and Australia).
This is where the opportunity comes in: when you have a well-known and well-liked brand that has made such an "obvious" set of oversights and is actively working to remedy these problems, there is real room for upside. Consider that the PC gaming peripherals market has been growing at a 28% CAGR over the last several years:
(click to enlarge)http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/7/16/1095245-13739802759826572-Ashraf-Eassa_origin.png
This means that this growth segment is supported by two tailwinds: a stronger competitive positioning from a market leader that has been in a slump paired with a growing demand environment.
The Tablet Growth Story: I Believe Management Is Being Conservative
A major bright spot for Logitech has been the growth story in tablet accessories. According to the company, the iPad accessories market is worth $1.4B alone, and the Android accessories market is worth an incremental $513M. In this space, Logitech currently focuses on tablet keyboards ($350M/yr TAM) and cases ($1.4B/yr TAM). This plays right into Logitech's strength as a leading PC keyboard vendor, and it comes as no surprise that the company has the best-selling iPad keyboard.
However, this isn't enough, as the company recognizes the need for more rapid product development cycles. In the traditional PC accessories space, the typical product development cycle is 12 months and the typical product life cycle is 24-36 months. In the faster-paced tablet market, the product development cycle needs to be on the order of 3-6 months and the products can be expected to last for 6-12 months. One of the major keys to success is simply having a product on the shelves in tandem with the major device introduction.
Speaking of the shelves, the final major point in the company's strategy is to expand its retail presence. The company aims to focus on the leading retailers in 13 countries and achieve placement (and shelf-space share) at roughly 5,000 retail storefronts and online sites.
Now, there are a few additional tailwinds that I see for Logitech in this space going forward. The first is that the company has economies of scale against its numerous smaller competitors, which suggests that while gross margins in this space will not be particularly fat, Logitech could have a non-trivial advantage over its competition, which could allow it to successfully compete on price if the premium brand/aesthetics story is not as strong as hoped. Next, I expect that as Windows 8 tablets and convertibles gain momentum, there will be significant room for Logitech to leverage its traditional Windows PC heritage and name to play in this space, opening up another revenue stream on top of the iOS and Android opportunities.
The Ultimate Ears Opportunity
The final major growth opportunity, in audio wearables and wireless, is an interesting one. Logitech doesn't market products in this space under its own name, and instead chooses to sell products under the Ultimate Ears brand, as this space appears to require an "authentic" music brand. Essentially, this division sells two lines of products: wireless speakers, and premium earphones. According to the company, the wireless speaker segment is projected to grow at a 63% CAGR through FY2016.
I believe that the company is well positioned to take advantage of the wireless speaker opportunity. Mere participation in this market almost guarantees that the company will ride the secular growth wave, but if Logitech can actually bring to bear a legitimate competitive advantage (which the firm claims it has), then - similarly to the PC gaming opportunity - this lends itself to a market share gain in a secular growth environment story.
The earphone market doesn't exhibit the robust growth opportunity that the wireless speaker opportunity presents, but Logitech will be primarily targeting the higher end premium earphone segment, where the company can differentiate and command higher ASPs/margins than in the more commodity mainstream portions of the market.
Tying It All Together
Logitech certainly had a rough FY2013 and FY2014 will represent a "reset" as the declines in the firm's core PC business do not yet begin to be fully offset by the new growth opportunities. As a result, particularly as this is a name in "turnaround mode," the name is likely to look somewhat expensive in the near term. The company has set FY2014 full year operating income guidance at $50M, which suggests an EV/operating income multiple of 14x - not particularly cheap. However, the company has set a particularly firm FY2016E target of $150M of operating income.
While there is certainly risk inherent to basing a valuation on estimates that go rather far out, I believe that given that this estimate bakes in a pessimistic 5-10% unit decline in the PC space through FY2016E and seems to be based on conservative estimates for the end market growth in its growth businesses, the company is likely to hit these estimates. Should it do so, I believe that the shares would look quite cheap at a 4.91x FY2016E EV/operating income multiple. Further, this projection is not baking in any outrageous top-line growth estimates; indeed, the FY2016 projection assumes revenues of $2.25B, which would represent a modest 12% growth over FY2014. There is an operational efficiency story that, following the recent restructuring, is likely to play out here.
Assuming that by FY2016E sentiment has improved (but has not gotten wildly unrealistic), leading to an EV/operating income multiple of between 10-12x (shares have historically traded at 7-17x EV/EBITDA), it does not seem too aggressive to expect shares to trade between $9.40 - $11.30/share, suggesting 40% - 67% upside from here by the end of FY2016. I further believe that in these types of cases, expectations could lead results, so achieving an expansion in the multiple on FY2016E expectations could be achieved as soon as it has become clear that the turnaround is tracking to plan. Interestingly, at Logitech's recent investor day, the following interesting slide was shown regarding the FY2016 (click to enlarge)http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/7/16/1095245-13739947499384568-Ashraf-Eassa_origin.png
So, while investors wait for the "endgame" where operating margin nearly triples and revenues see a modest bounce, FY2015 (we are in the first quarter of FY2014) should still see operating margin nearly double on a very modest expected improvement in sales. Even at our modest 10x - 12x EV/operating income target, and even if the Street would rather not look farther out to FY2016E, we could still see conservative upside to $7.70/share - $8.80/share (15% - 30% upside) depending on how well the firm is executing towards specific market share/growth targets, and how much confidence management exudes at the quarterly calls throughout the year. Of course, given management's conservative estimates about PC unit declines throughout the next several years, there is room for upside in the actual results should the decline show signs of slowing down, or if the upcoming new product refresh mentioned on the most recent call for this space can drive a peripheral refresh independently of new PC sales.
It is useful to use Logitech's historical multiples in this case, as very few of Logitech's competitors are publicly traded, and those that are usually compete against only one segment of Logitech's business (for instance, ZAGG (ZAGG), which trades at ~4x EV/EBITDA, but competes primarily in iPad/Android keyboards)
Who is left to sell the shares?
How does this continue?
You're right. I looked back at the May 6th call transcript:
Okay. So most recently, where we ended the quarter, we had 138 signed user agreements, 126 installations. With that said, those data are weeks old now. And we had in the 140 dermatologists either with concept that they're reviewing, indicating a one a MelaFind or, what we consider high probability, high interest. And the more we get out there, the more we get incoming interest, and the more dermatologists continue to talk to us and, in time, move forward, the way we want to move forward with them.
I do know the MELA tests cost derms $12.50 each mole.
I am rooting for the board of directors to hire a new CEO with marketing experience who has done this before and ties to the insurance industry. We'll see.
Just got out of the woods from a camping trip and found this very exciting to read.
SYN is making terrific connections and progress on many fronts all at one time.
I cannot wait for them to score a win.
Site update ... glad to see it.
It's amazing how someone hasn't gone to prison yet? This is the ultimate failed business that hasn't ceased operations.
A NY Times article I thought all might like to read it.
The article reminds me of the argument over whether the world was flat or not; or if Amazon was a good idea or not in the beginning?
The negative tone of the article (which almost the entire article is) points out that the technology is not perfect. It missed 2 of 127 melanomas. At the same time the article says Melafind identifies too many false positives.
I think the example in the article to make the point is totally ridiculous ... "compared the accuracy of MelaFind in distinguishing non-melanomas to a hypothetical pregnancy test which, used on 100 nonpregnant women, would mistakenly conclude that 90 of them were pregnant."
That suggests a 90% inaccuracy rate, and only 10% accuracy specifically to say they are not pregnant.
The article did not address that dermatologists miss 20% of melanomas using their current visual methods. Missing only 2 of 127 seems better to me.
The article points out that MelaFind does not identify basal and squamous cell carcinomas. That infers that MelaFind isn't good enough because it only points out the melanomas that can kill you. Shouldn't the dermatologist be looking for the other two since they know Melafind does not identify them?
The one disturbing thing is the representation that only 150 devices have been sold. In March we had data from the company saying 400 devices were in operation. Were 250 devices distributed for free and non-paying for tests, or were the numbers inaccurate? Another report will be coming out from the company for the latest quarter soon.
Mela still has two major hurdles. They have to hire a new CEO and provide enough data to insurance companies to get them to cover the tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/dissent-over-a-device-to-help-find-melanoma.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 20, 2013
Dissent Over a Device to Help Find Melanoma
By NATASHA SINGER
TO the casual observer’s eye, the small brownish mole on Tanna Oppel’s upper left arm looks like an insignificant, ovoid blotch. But on the screen of MelaFind, a new computer vision system for imaging skin lesions, a jagged blue line shows the actual border of the mole, revealing an irregular lesion roughly the shape of Texas.
Ms. Oppel is a medical assistant in Manhattan in the office of Dr. Doris Day, one of the first dermatologists to buy the machine. Developed by Mela Sciences of Irvington, N.Y., the system uses pattern-recognition algorithms to help a dermatologist who has picked out a suspicious pigmented spot to decide whether to perform a biopsy. The device may find an audience among sun-seekers worried about developing an aggressive skin cancer: the National Cancer Institute estimates that about 9,500 Americans this year will die of melanoma of the skin.
Yet the device is polarizing the field of skin-cancer detection.
For decades, dermatologists have used their eyes, along with a magnifier called a dermatoscope, to try to distinguish abnormal but benign lesions from potential melanoma in order to avoid unneeded biopsies. Some dermatologists argue that these low-tech tools are still the most useful and worry that their colleagues are falling for expensive, cool-looking gadgets that may simply offer extraneous, and perhaps incorrect, data.
“This technology should still be considered to be in the developmental stage,” said Dr. Roberta Lucas, an instructor of clinical dermatology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “We are better off when the system supports doctors who are thorough and unhurried; who examine and listen carefully and who empower patients to practice good surveillance and sun protection.”
In fact, some members of an expert medical panel asked to review MelaFind a few years ago for the Food and Drug Administration warned that the device had the potential to give doctors and patients a false sense of security. While MelaFind can analyze small pigmented spots identified by dermatologists as having signs of melanoma, it is not designed to evaluate other problems: large melanomas, colorless melanomas or two other types of skin cancer — basal and squamous cell carcinoma.
Dr. Amy E. Newburger, a dermatologist in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was a member of that F.D.A. panel, told me that she was concerned that a doctor could inadvertently use MelaFind on a non-melanoma skin cancer, receive a score indicating that the spot was not irregular, and erroneously decide not to biopsy it. She voted against recommending the device for F.D.A. approval.
Some biostatisticians are also critical of MelaFind, saying the device can recognize a high percentage of melanomas correctly because it also falsely scores as positive so many non-melanomas — potentially prompting doctors to perform unnecessary biopsies.
To help me visualize that issue, Jason Connor, a biostatistician at Berry Consultants, a biostatistics consulting firm, compared the accuracy of MelaFind in distinguishing non-melanomas to a hypothetical pregnancy test which, used on 100 nonpregnant women, would mistakenly conclude that 90 of them were pregnant.
“My concern with MelaFind is that it just says everything is positive,” Mr. Connor said. A member of the F.D.A. panel, he abstained on a vote about whether the device’s intended uses outweighed the risks.
“I don’t think this helps an aggressive doctor,” Mr. Connor told me, “and unaggressive doctors could do just as well if they were more diligent without the device.”
To develop MelaFind’s current algorithm, researchers trained the system on digital images of more than 10,000 pigmented lesions, programming it to recognize irregularities like asymmetry, color variability and cellular disorganization characteristic of melanomas. Company executives said Mela Sciences deliberately calibrated the machine to catch as many melanomas as possible, understanding that such a high setting could lead doctors to biopsy normal tissue.
“It will err on the side of caution,” said Claudia Beqaj, director of commercialization at Mela Sciences. “We wanted to set the system to have such a high sensitivity that we didn’t miss any melanomas.”
(In a company-financed study submitted to the F.D.A., the device missed two out of 127 evaluable melanomas. One F.D.A. reviewer concluded: “There is inadequate data to determine any true value added for MelaFind for use by a dermatologist or other provider.”)
Ms. Beqaj emphasized that MelaFind was intended as a supplementary test that provided extra information about a mole, not as a substitute for a dermatologist’s own expertise.
“If they blindly followed MelaFind, they would be biopsying more," Ms. Beqaj said. “The doctor has to make their own clinical judgment.”
Dr. Day finds the system quite informative. Last week, she gave me a demonstration in her office on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
Dr. Day picked out what she called an “ugly duckling” mole on the left arm of Ms. Oppel, who had kindly agreed to play the role of patient. Another medical assistant removed a hand-held scanner from the MelaFind console and pressed it against the mole.
The device uses 10 different wavelengths of light to see up to 2.5 millimeters deep into the skin and capture images of its different layers. Within a minute, the machine displayed a numerical score, indicating that Ms. Oppel’s mole was irregular, but not highly likely to be a melanoma. Since the images on the screen indicated that the darkest part of the mole was concentrated around a hair follicle, an expected pigmentation pattern, Dr. Day concluded there was no immediate need for a biopsy.
“It helps me see what I cannot see with my eye,” Dr. Day said. “I have great comfort that I am not missing a melanoma.”
(Dr. Day has been a paid device investigator and speaker for Mela Sciences; she appears in promotional videos on the MelaFind Web site).
In late 2011, the F.D.A. approved MelaFind for sale in the United States. But, given the concerns that general physicians not trained as skin experts might miss a skin cancer, the agency restricted the use of the device to dermatologists — and then only after the doctors had successfully completed a MelaFind training program. So far, Ms. Beqaj says, the company had sold about 150 of the devices, which cost about $10,000, in the United States and Germany.
Since health insurance does not currently cover the service, patients are paying $25 to $175 for the first mole evaluation and around $25 for subsequent moles, doctors say.
WHETHER or not MelaFind eventually gains traction among dermatologists, the device is nevertheless significant, said Dr. Hensin Tsao, the director of the melanoma and pigmented lesion center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, because it introduces the idea of artificial intelligence in dermatology.
Unlike an X-ray or mammography device that requires a medical professional to read the images and identify abnormalities, Dr. Tsao said, MelaFind both captures images and analyzes the likelihood of melanoma. That extra intelligence, its accuracy notwithstanding, is bound to change doctors’ interactions with patients.
Dr. Tsao’s clinic is participating in a post-marketing study of MelaFind, financed by Mela Sciences. And he said he and his colleagues were thinking hard about how to develop a role for such new devices in informing physicians and patients.
“Until now, you trusted the doctor to make the decision,” Dr. Tsao said. “Now you’ve got a three-way interaction. It’s a brand new paradigm.”
MELA Sciences, a Leader in the Fight Against Melanoma, to Host a Business Update Conference Call on Thursday, July 11, 2013
Maybe they will announce their progress on a new CEO or they will introduce the new top dog.
GlobeNewswirePress Release: MELA Sciences, Inc. – Wed, Jul 3, 2013 7:30 AM EDT.
IRVINGTON, N.Y., July 3, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- MELA Sciences, Inc. (MELA), the medical device company that has developed and is commercializing MelaFind(R), the FDA approved device for dermatologists in their fight against melanoma, today announced that it will be hosting a conference call to provide a business update to investors at 4:30 PM ET on July 11, 2013.
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013
Time: 4:30 PM ET
To participate in the teleconference, please dial:
Domestic toll-free: (877) 303-9205
International: (760) 536-5226
Participant Code: 15028047
To listen via live webcast, please go to the investor relations section of the MELA Sciences website at http://www.melasciences.com approximately 10 minutes prior to the teleconference start time. If you are unable to participate during the live conference call and webcast, the conference call webcast will be archived and available for replay for approximately 90 days.
About MELA Sciences, Inc.
MELA Sciences is a medical device company focused on the commercialization of its flagship product, MelaFind(R), and its further design and development. MelaFind is a non-invasive tool to provide additional information to dermatologists during melanoma skin examinations. The device uses light from visible to near-infrared wavelengths to evaluate skin lesions up to 2.5 mm beneath the skin. The device provides information on a lesion's level of morphologic disorganization to provide additional objective information that may be used by dermatologists in the biopsy decision-making process. MelaFind has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the US. In addition, MelaFind has received CE Mark approval and is approved for use in the European Union.
For more information on MELA Sciences, visit www.melasciences.com.
I am surprised no one is excited today.
Didn't someone make a killing?
He's buying - FROST PHILLIP MD ET AL
Common Stock 07/02/2013 P 9,900 A $0.35
Too funny.
I wish I had been smart years ago. Now it's just fun watching the train wreck.
Go ROX
Yahoo gets some crazy and highly emotional posters on other stocks as well.
My ROX purchase price was 25¢.
Patience is a virtue.
I never noticed it today going under 32¢ either. I was busy.
I don't think Frost wants it under 30¢ again, so that may have been the last chance to get them that cheap.
In a manner of speaking ROX is better than OPK. Phase 3 trials still have to pan out and the rest still have to reach that point.
OPK may turn out to be a rocket if they get a hit. A few failures though can be real trouble. Frost can't control that.
ROX isn't likely to see a dip in sales. They've steadily kept it growing from the mid $20MM annual range when I bought it in 2009 to the $41.4 million just reported for fiscal 2013. I've been that patient.
So it's a good move putting it into your IRA.
It's not unreasonable to predict that the previous growth will continue and may even accelerate as they benefit from economies of scale and even more from the growing exposure of their current products, and brand loyalty.
It's also reasonable to think they won't remain stagnant regarding their product lines. They probably are looking for opportunities to bring in more products, whether they be imported or domestic.
I am in no rush. ROX is going to do just fine.
Me too.
The Street reacted appropriately. It was down over 5 cents this morning. If it drops back under 30 cents I'll buy plenty more.
ROX is heading in the right direction. With Frost behind it, it's virtually guaranteed of remaining fully funded until it exceeds breakeven and is sustainable all on it's own.
That's ROX's Unique Selling Point.
It's only a matter of time.
Watch OPK.
When Frost knows ROX will be a winner, we will all win.
I think ROX is a smart small company backed by a heavy weight who intends to win, but he's not in a rush.
I'm happy to hitch my wagon to his and wait it out. Why not?
I still think their breakeven is $45MM. Based on the stock movement I thought someone heard a whisper that they got there already.
The wine biz is all but officially gone.
This loss included a $2.0 million non-cash loss in connection with the Company’s determination to reduce its sales and marketing efforts on its wine brands.
That was the one-day-hit back in 2009. It's also probably why the Web site board of director page omits Scholl now. It's only going to be a matter of time before we see the official paperwork. Frost doesn't need him anymore.
It's going to be another year at least. Their growth is real and organic. It's just so slow.
If they can continue scaling their business up without additional fixed expenses, it might only take 1 more year to reach breakeven.
We'll see.
Castle Brands Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2013 Results
Net Sales Increase 16.8% Driven by Strong Growth of Whiskeys and Rums
Business WirePress Release: Castle Brands Inc. – 10 minutes ago...
.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Castle Brands Inc. (NYSE MKT: ROX), a developer and international marketer of premium and super-premium branded spirits, today reported financial results for the quarter and year ended March 31, 2013.
Operating highlights for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013:
• Net sales increased 16.8% to $41.4 million for fiscal 2013, as compared to $35.5 million for the comparable prior-year period.
• EBITDA, as adjusted, improved by 69.5% to a loss of ($0.7) million, compared to a loss of ($2.4) million for fiscal 2012.
• Total case sales of beverage alcohol products increased 11.6% to 372,059 cases compared to 333,529 cases in the prior-year period.
• Strong growth of the Jefferson’s bourbons and rye lead to a 44.7% increase in whiskey revenues from the prior-year period.
• We purchased $2.5 million of aged bourbon in March 2013 to support the growth of the Jefferson’s brand.
• Gosling’s Black Seal Rum exceeded 100,000 cases sold in the U.S.
• General and Administrative decreased in fiscal 2013 and represented 11.7% of Sales, down from 14.0% in fiscal 2012.
“We are proud of the strong growth of our core brands, driven by our experienced sales force and effective marketing programs. These sales increases were achieved without corresponding increases to general and administrative expenses. This ability to scale our business led to stronger bottom line performance, with a 69.5% improvement in our EBITDA, as adjusted. We expect this trend to continue in the current fiscal year,” stated Richard J. Lampen, President and Chief Executive Officer of Castle Brands.
“Gosling’s volume exceeded 100,000 cases in the US, an important milestone that reflects the strength of the brand and the growing popularity of the trademarked Dark ‘n Stormy cocktail. Sales of our Stormy Ginger Beer in the US increased 59% to 248,309 cases. Jefferson’s bourbons and rye whiskies also delivered very strong growth performance. We are particularly pleased to have secured $2.5 million of aged bourbon to support continued growth of the Jefferson’s brand,” stated John Glover, Chief Operating Officer of Castle Brands.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company had net sales of $10.8 million, an 8.1% increase from net sales of $10.0 million in the comparable prior-year period. Loss from operations was $2.7 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 as compared to $1.0 million for the prior-year period. This loss included a $2.0 million non-cash loss in connection with the Company’s determination to reduce its sales and marketing efforts on its wine brands. Including the $0.2 million non-cash dividend accrued under the terms of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock, the Company had a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $3.3 million, or $(0.03) per basic and diluted share, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, as compared to $1.5 million, or $(0.01) per basic and diluted share, in the prior-year period.
EBITDA, as adjusted, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 improved 83.3% to a loss of $0.06 million, compared to a loss of $0.3 million for the prior-year period.
The Company had net sales of $41.4 million for fiscal 2013, an increase of 16.8% from $35.5 million in the comparable prior-year period. This sales growth was driven by increased rum and whiskey sales in the U.S. and international markets. Loss from operations was ($4.4) million for fiscal 2013, as compared to a loss from operations of ($3.9) million for the fiscal 2012. Including the ($0.7) million dividend accrued under the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock, the Company had a net loss attributable to common shareholders of ($6.2) million, or $(0.06) per basic and diluted share, in fiscal 2013, compared to a net loss attributable to common shareholders of ($5.9) million or $(0.06) per basic and diluted share, in fiscal 2012. 2013 results include a $2.0 million non-cash loss in connection with the Company’s determination to reduce its sales and marketing efforts on its wine brands.
EBITDA, as adjusted, for fiscal 2013 improved to a loss of ($0.7) million, compared to a loss of ($2.4) million for the prior-year period.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
Within the information above, Castle Brands provides information regarding EBITDA, as adjusted, which is not a recognized term under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and does not purport to be an alternative to operating income (loss) or net income (loss) as a measure of operating performance. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, adjusted for allowance for doubtful accounts and obsolete inventory, loss on wine assets, non-cash compensation expense, loss from equity investment in non-consolidated affiliate, foreign exchange, net change in fair value of warrant liability, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests and dividend to preferred shareholders is a key metric the Company uses in evaluating its financial performance on a consistent basis across various periods. EBITDA is considered a non-GAAP financial measure as defined by Regulation G promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Due to the significance of non-cash and non-recurring items, EBITDA, as adjusted, enables the Company's Board of Directors and management to monitor and evaluate the business on a consistent basis. The Company uses EBITDA, as adjusted, as a primary measure, among others, to analyze and evaluate financial and strategic planning decisions regarding future allocation of capital resources. The Company believes that EBITDA, as adjusted, eliminates items that are not indicative of its core operating performance or are based on management's estimates, such as allowances for doubtful accounts and obsolete inventory, are due to changes in valuation, such as the effects of changes in foreign exchange or fair value of warrant liability, or do not involve a cash outlay, such as stock-based compensation expense. EBITDA, as adjusted, should be considered in addition to, rather than as a substitute for, income from operations, net income and cash flows from operating activities. Reconciliation of net loss to EBITDA, as adjusted, is presented below.
About Castle Brands Inc.
Castle Brands is a developer and international marketer of premium beverage alcohol brands including: Gosling's Rum®, Jefferson's®, Jefferson's Presidential SelectTM and Jefferson's Reserve® Bourbon, Jefferson's® Rye Whiskey, Boru® Vodka, Pallini® Limoncello, Raspicello and Peachcello, Knappogue Castle Whiskey®, Clontarf® Irish Whiskey, Celtic Honey® Liqueur, Brady's® Irish Cream, Castello MioTM Sambuca, Travis Hasse's Original® Pie Liqueurs, TierrasTM Tequila and Gozio® Amaretto. Additional information concerning the Company is available on the Company's website, www.castlebrandsinc.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release includes statements of our expectations, intentions, plans and beliefs that constitute "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection provided by those sections. These statements, which involve risks and uncertainties, related to the discussion of our business strategies and our expectations concerning future operations, margins, sales, new products and brands, potential joint ventures, potential acquisitions, expenses, profitability, liquidity and capital resources and to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results and estimates of amounts not yet determinable. You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of such words as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "intends," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "thinks," "estimates," "seeks," "expects," "predicts," "could," "projects," "potential" and other similar terms and phrases, including references to assumptions. These forward looking statements are made based on expectations and beliefs concerning future events affecting us and are subject to uncertainties, risks and factors relating to our operations and business environments, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control, that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those matters expressed or implied by these forward looking statements. These risks include our history of losses and expectation of further losses, our ability to expand our operations in both new and existing markets, our ability to develop or acquire new brands, our relationships with distributors, the success of our marketing activities and our cost reduction efforts, the effect of competition in our industry and economic and political conditions generally, including the current recessionary economic environment and concurrent market instability. More information about these and other factors are described under the caption "Risk Factors" in Castle Brands' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2013 and other reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. When considering these forward looking statements, you should keep in mind the cautionary statements in this press release and the reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and we cannot predict those events or how they may affect us. We assume no obligation to update any forward looking statements after the date of this press release as a result of new information, future events or developments, except as required by the federal securities laws.
CASTLE BRANDS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
Three Months Ended March 31,
(unaudited)
Twelve Months Ended March 31,
2013 2012 2013 2012
Sales, net* $ 10,799,161 $ 9,993,073 $ 41,442,994 $ 35,494,615
Cost of sales* 6,808,525 6,441,974 26,438,238 22,694,297
Provision for obsolete inventory 564,005 275,000 684,830 275,000
Gross profit 3,426,631 3,276,099 14,319,926 12,525,318
Selling expense 2,984,994 2,744,126 11,265,108 10,502,478
General and administrative expense 1,199,899 1,252,066 4,850,648 4,985,566
Depreciation and amortization 228,787 231,641 920,305 914,361
Loss on wine assets 1,715,728 — 1,715,728 —
Loss from operations (2,702,777 ) (951,734 ) (4,431,863 ) (3,877,087 )
Other expense 15 — — —
Loss from equity investment in non-consolidated
affiliate
(3,841 ) (12,361 ) (22,549 ) (28,923 )
Foreign exchange loss (156,609 ) (208,762 ) (247,431 ) (722,253 )
Interest expense, net (181,962 ) (103,801 ) (587,308 ) (589,781 )
Net change in fair value of warrant liability 69,770 16,154 302,734 109,767
Income tax benefit 37,038 37,038 148,152 148,152
Net loss (2,938,366 ) (1,223,466 ) (4,838,265 ) (4,960,125 )
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests (177,372 ) (86,915 ) (610,492 ) (272,200 )
Net loss attributable to controlling interests (3,115,738 ) (1,310,381 ) (5,448,757 ) (5,232,325 )
Dividend to preferred shareholders (191,889 ) (186,595 ) (744,468 ) (714,830 )
Net loss attributable to common shareholders $ (3,307,627 ) $ (1,496,976 ) $ (6,193,225 ) $ (5,947,155 )
Net loss attributable to common stockholders
per common share, basic and diluted
(0.03 ) (0.01 ) (0.06 ) (0.06 )
Weighted average shares used in computation, basic
and diluted, attributable to common shareholders
108,611,377 108,508,652 108,508,652 107,635,565
*
Sales, net and Cost of sales include excise taxes of $1,520,204 and $1,520,204 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and $5,964,374 and $5,460,754 for the years ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
CASTLE BRANDS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Reconciliation of Net Loss to EBITDA, as adjusted
(Unaudited)
Three months ended Twelve months ended
March 31, March 31,
2013 2012 2013 2012
Net loss attributable to common shareholders $ (3,307,627 ) $ (1,496,976 ) $ (6,193,225 ) $ (5,947,155 )
Adjustments:
Interest expense, net 181,962 103,801 587,308 589,781
Income tax benefit (37,038 ) (37,038 ) (148,152 ) (148,152 )
Depreciation and amortization 228,787 231,641 920,305 914,361
EBITDA (loss) (2,933,916 ) (1,198,572 ) (4,833,764 ) (4,591,165 )
Allowance for doubtful accounts 70,000 42,541 86,869 68,599
Allowance for obsolete inventory 564,005 275,000 684,830 275,000
Stock-based compensation expense 66,052 53,212 282,314 190,462
Loss on wine asset 1,715,728 — 1,715,728 —
Other expense (15 ) —
Net income from non-consolidated equity investment 3,841 12,361 22,549 28,923
Foreign exchange loss 156,609 208,762 247,431 722,253
Net change in fair value of warrant liability (69,770 ) (16,154 ) (302,734 ) (109,767 )
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests 177,372 86,915 610,492 272,200
Dividend to preferred shareholders 191,889 186,595 744,468 714,830
EBITDA (loss), as adjusted $ (58,205 ) $ (349,340 ) $ (741,817 ) $ (2,428,665 )
.
.
Contact:.
.
Castle Brands Inc.
Investor Relations, 646-356-0200
info@castlebrandsinc.com
www.castlebrandsinc.com
I never noticed ROX trading after hours.
Cheers to your buy-in.
Someone must have heard a whisper. Earnings were supposed to be released today. Still waiting.
It was the 2nd highest volume day during the past 2 years. This is more than Frost buying like he has been at OPK.
I hope someone heard a good whisper.
489,626 (Heavy Volume)
Indeed someone knows something.
Interesting how heavy the volume is with so little price movement.
AGREED: "But, I think we agree that ROX's future is in the high proof hootch! They might as well just drink the rest of the wine inventory."
I am looking forward to seeing the last quarter's results tonight.
Stepping back, I double checked the elected directors in 2012. Dennis Scholl is listed (see below).
Then I double checked the web site. All of the elected directors are listed except Dennis Scholl. That just can't be an oversight, can it?
Also missing is the newly appointed director Sergio Zyman.
So I guess at some point we'll see clarification and the web site will be updated accordingly.
Interesting, Dennis Scholl transfered 100,000 shares, for no consideration, as a charitable donation in March.
http://investor.castlebrandsinc.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1209191-13-16914
Item 5.07 Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
Castle Brands Inc. held its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders on October 15, 2012. Listed below are the matters voted upon and the final results of such voting:
1. Our shareholders elected each of the individuals nominated for election for a one-year term and until their successors are elected and qualified as follows:
Name For Authority Withheld Broker Non-Votes
Mark Andrews
81,717,137 1,342,886 16,712,326
John F. Beaudette
82,252,494 807,529 16,712,326
Henry C. Beinstein
82,262,294 797,729 16,712,326
Harvey P. Eisen
82,251,772 808,251 16,712,326
Phillip Frost, M.D.
81,802,394 1,257,629 16,712,326
Glenn L. Halpryn
82,250,472 809,551 16,712,326
Richard J. Lampen
79,987,820 3,072,203 16,712,326
Micaela Pallini
81,789,831 1,270,192 16,712,326
Steven D. Rubin
81,791,809 1,268,214 16,712,326
Dennis Scholl
81,786,939 1,273,084 16,712,326
Okay, but he isn't listed on the web site page for board of directors. Why is he the only one missing from the 10K?
http://investor.castlebrandsinc.com/committees.cfm
Anyone can own stock, and they received a lot of stock in 2009 as part of the deal. Maybe they never sold it?
If he/they are still working at Castle Brands it really doesn't matter; other than they would be very bad at their jobs.
The wine revenue dropped from over a couple of million dollars to under 1/2 million. It's less than 1% of revenue.
It doesn't matter if they are still employed there.
Something went wrong. Castle Brands either gave up or failed at the wine business.
It's not a big deal either. ROX is almost at break-even selling other liquor.
Go ROX. Spike the ball this quarter.
Have done the blind wine tasting many times. It's fun, and you're right; finding nice wines everyone likes is easy and saves money.
I did it with scotches too because one of my friends felt none of "us" single malt guys could tell the difference between his less expensive stuff and our more expensive preferred brands. To a man we all got those right. The "taste" is more distinctive.
Dennis Scholl is not listed on the board/web site page anymore.
http://investor.castlebrandsinc.com/committees.cfm
If he is still there in some capacity, then I am wrong.
Betts was only supposed to be an employee.
I can't find any current reference to them. If you find it let me know.
It's really no big deal at this point. It doesn't matter. I agree with you; ROX went in another direction and seems to have abandoned building the wine business.
In the last 10K wine revenue dropped by more than half.
Wine is now less than 1% of total revenue and appears to be dropping by more than half once again this year.
I agree with you and ROX apparently does too.
Over the weekend I just spent over $500 in wine at an average of about $10 per. I buy bottles from all over the world and have fun trying them. This was partly done for my own house stock, and partly for a camping trip.
Wine is more affordable today than ever before. Prices haven't noticeably risen in years.
I also noticed on the company web site, the wine guys are no longer listed. They got their money and were eventually pushed out.
Interesting that after the web conference call and upgrade, volume was light.
Next Earnings Announcement 06/28/2013 ... I hope Bloomberg is right. I would like to see just how close they are getting to breakeven.
The following press release is from 2009. The wine guys were supposed to find other wineries to make marketing partnership agreements with. I would say it's an understatement that ROX erred on that deal. Oh well, you can't win them all.
There must be hundreds if not thousands of potential wineries around the world they could have partnered with. It seems like a natural add-on product they could easily get onto store shelves already carrying their other products.
I could have sold that day for $0.75 and bought it back a week later for $0.25 ... stupid me.
Castle Brands Acquires Premium Wine Maker Betts & Scholl
Richard Betts to Lead Newly Formed Castle Brands Fine Wine Division; Dennis Scholl Joins Castle Brands Board of Directors
NEW YORK, Sep 22, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Castle Brands Inc. (NYSE Amex: ROX) announced today that it has acquired the assets of Betts & Scholl LLC, a premium wine maker formed in 2003 by Master Sommelier Richard Betts and Dennis Scholl. Pursuant to the transaction, Castle Brands issued to the sellers a total of 7.14 million shares of Castle Brands Common Stock and approximately $1.1 million of cash and notes. Dennis Scholl has joined the Castle Brands Board of Directors, where he will serve as an independent director, and Richard Betts has joined Castle Brands as a Vice President and head of its newly-formed Fine Wine Division.
The Fine Wine Division has been created to market and sell a select portfolio of premium wines from around the world. As part of its fine wine strategy, Castle Brands will seek to recruit and represent the wines of a small number of premium, like-minded brand owners and wineries. The goal is to establish enough high quality wine expressions to provide a reasonable offering to customers but limited in number so each brand receives the attention it deserves. The division will take advantage of Castle Brands' existing infrastructure, including its distribution system.
John Glover, Chief Operating Officer of Castle Brands, said, "We are very excited that Richard and Dennis will be joining Castle Brands and that we will be distributing Betts & Scholl's premier products going forward. Together, Richard and Dennis have forged relationships with growers and winemakers around the world to produce complex, balanced wines true to their terroir. Their collaboration has shown a flair for memorable winemaking, innovation, and creative marketing approaches such as art-as-packaging. Richard is a well-known Master Sommelier and celebrity in wine and food circles and the addition of Richard and Dennis gives instant credibility to Castle Brands' efforts in the wine industry."
Dennis Scholl added, "Betts & Scholl has been a great partnership. We like to call it 'Richard and Dennis' wild ride.' Now we've reached a critical tipping point: either we have to grow internally or seek a strategic partner to help us take our wines to the next level. Castle Brands is the missing link."
Each bottle of Betts & Scholl features the artwork of internationally renowned contemporary artists, a specialty of art collector and entrepreneur Dennis Scholl. Betts & Scholl wines include Grenache, Syrah and Riesling from Australia, Syrah from California, and Hermitage Blanc and Rouge from France. For additional information, see www.bettsandscholl.com.
About Castle Brands Inc.
Castle Brands is an emerging developer and international marketer of premium branded spirits within five categories of the spirits industry: vodka, rum, whiskey, liqueurs and tequila. Castle Brands' portfolio includes, Boru(R) Vodka, Gosling's Rum(R), Pallini(R) LimoncelloTM, RaspicelloTM and PeachcelloTM, Knappogue Castle Whiskey(R), Clontarf(R) Irish Whiskey, Jefferson'sTM, Jefferson's Presidential SelectTM and Jefferson's Reserve(R) Bourbon, Sam Houston(R) Bourbon, Celtic Crossing(R) Liqueur, Brady's(R) Irish Cream and TierrasTM tequila. Additional information concerning the company is available on the company's website, www.castlebrandsinc.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release includes statements of our expectations, intentions, plans and beliefs that constitute "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are intended to come within the safe harbor protection provided by those sections. These statements, which involve risks and uncertainties, related to the discussion of our business strategies and our expectations concerning future operations, margins, profitability, liquidity and capital resources and to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results and estimates of amounts not yet determinable. You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of such words as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "intends," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "thinks," "estimates," "seeks," "expects," "predicts," "could," "projects," "potential" and other similar terms and phrases, including references to assumptions. These forward looking statements are made based on expectations and beliefs concerning future events affecting us and are subject to uncertainties, risks and factors relating to our operations and business environments, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control, that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those matters expressed or implied by these forward looking statements. More information about these and other factors are described under the caption "Risk Factors" in Castle Brands' Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended March 31, 2009, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
When considering these forward looking statements, you should keep in mind the cautionary statements in this press release and the documents incorporated by reference. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and we cannot predict those events or how they may affect us. We assume no obligation to update any forward looking statements after the date of this press release as a result of new information, future events or developments, except as required by the federal securities laws.
SOURCE: Castle Brands Inc.
Sard Verbinnen & Co
Paul Caminiti/Jonathan Doorley
212-687-8080
or
Bieler Communications
Mira M. Bieler, 415-990-9121
Copyright Business Wire 2009
DKAM seems to be asleep. But you can still buy product. I wonder how they are doing it?
ISI upgrades Hercules Offshore to 'strong buy' after moves
ISI raises Hercules Offshore to 'strong buy' after moves to focus offshore drilling business
NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of Hercules Offshore Inc. have been upgraded by one analyst after a series of deals in which the company has increased its focus on drilling in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
International Strategy & Investment Group LLC raised the stock to "Strong Buy" from "Buy" late Monday, saying that Hercules is the driller in best position to benefit from additional increases in rates for so-called jack-up rigs in the Gulf.
ISI said that Hercules effectively acquired two jack-ups — portable rigs that are towed into place before the legs are lowered to the sea floor — with Monday's announced acquisition of a majority stake in Discovery Offshore SA. The company also said it was selling its domestic liftboat assets for about $54 million, and said last month it would sell most of its inland barge rigs for $45 million.
The company said the moves were designed to focus on the more profitable parts of its business with a better long-term outlook, including the Gulf of Mexico and international drilling operations.
With the deals, "we believe (Hercules) is taking the next step in the company's transformation into a purer offshore drilling story with an improving asset base," ISI analyst Judson Bailey wrote in a note to clients.
The analyst said Monday's deals would reduce 2013 earnings by removing profit from the liftboats, and he cut his forecast to 35 cents per share from 41 cents per share. But, the analyst wrote, the moves would boost 2014 earnings to $1.02 per share from his prior forecast of 95 cents per share.
Besides the upgrade, Bailey raised his 12-month price forecast on the shares to $10 from $9.
Hercules shares closed at $6.83 on Monday, up 38 cents.
I'm thrilled I bought into BGS last year. They execute on their plan and keep finding accretive companies to buy.
I hope rising interest rates don't hurt them too much.