I'm here for the entertainment and to entertain. I'm certainly not here to give financial advice and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
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.
Interesting that there was no mention of the increase in total liabilities (increased from $21M to $61M over the quarter).
But that doesn't address what can be attributed to the controlling interest. The 10Q says CVSL gets 51%.
I forgive you, because I am not a disgruntled investor or former investor. I don't hold PURE mgmt in very high regard.
IMO, your analysis of IV7Direct is missing some key pieces from the timeline. I understand that you've put in many hours. A few more might be helpful. Review the filings to see how the objectives of the venture morphed over its short lifetime. What started out as a conventional MLM turned into a commercial venture. They switched to selling to commercial accounts. One could argue that they couldn't make the conventional MLM profitable. Where did that leave the original MLM distributors? (and no, I was one of them either).
The commercial venture wasn't successful either. PURE's fault, based on Richmont's side of the story; Richmont's fault, based on PURE's side. I presume that companies that make deals due DD on each other. In this case, who didn't do DD on whom?
So, you might want to dig to see why the conventional MLM didn't work. Then see what happened to the Middle East deal that didn't work. You might want to contact Cash Riley, who I understand is now representing the bottled water business of Mr. Rochon (based on a PDF that was posted here).
Re: the money, you've got it partly correct. It's not on CVSL's balance sheet. Richmont has the cash. That's the way MLM works, IMO, from a mgmt position. Make money on the MLM business. Richmont owns the company that will be blending the spices, for example.
How will that cash get to CVSL? Unsecured notes (meaning debt)? Stock for services (dilution)? CVSL's balance sheet will show what business it does over the O/S (currently 486M). I'm interested to hear from you how Richmont's largesse will benefit the CVSL shareholder.
You might have misunderstand. I meant that "nothing" as in nothing fundamental, was behind the run=up to 75 cents.
Re: failures, are you familiar with IV7Direct and Rochon's relationship with PURE?
It ran from a nickel to $0.75 on nothing. That's volatile. Folks are looking for lightning to strike twice and post whatever they think will swing the momentum, fundamentals be dam_ed.
Snowgeek, what do you see as the fundamentals? Currently, revs will be $100M at most. Any guess on margins? MLMs are pretty thin, so 10% would be good, IMO.
Thank you responding to my post.
I see you used the "billionaire" reference. I've been trying to substantiate it but haven't been able to. Do you have a link to substantiate it?
Thanks for the response. That's a big range...7M to 49M. I wish I were more knowledgeable about restricted shares and Rule 144. I see that millions of shares were issued at least a year ago for services rendered and to the previous directors. Would they be able to sell these shares? They are considered outstanding, no?
Except that Lang and Wong have been spamming that board for weeks now. You might not read it, but a lot of folks do and Lang's on record as saying tthe float is 63M. It's not the first time that wrong info has been posted there. Makes me think there's something going on with those two.
You posted that the float was 63.12M on that other board. It still stands uncorrected, as the other posters on here refer to Rochon's statement of 7M.
What is the float?
Well, Langluik has been in CVSL a while and posts a lot. I'd find it hard to believe he would post old, out-dated info on purpose, or be that careless.
Still waiting for him to post a correction.
Now Familyguy6 shows Morningstar with an even higher float.
Well, that post is out there and I've alerted him to it so he can correct it.
That's my understanding, but I'm trying to figure out why langluik posted on another message board that the float was 63.12M. Perhaps it was just a typo?
Lang has not responded yet.
You posted on another MB that the float was 63.12M.
How come I haven't seen that here? That's a very precise number, so I can't imagine you misplaced a decimal and intended to type 6.312M.
What happened to the 7M float that was Rochon was alleged to have confirmed?
Yes, but there were no trades after 1. Like the buyers were several time zones away and didn't want to miss happy hour in their time zone.
Are you all on the other side of the pond? Your trading days end at 1pm US EDT. What time is that where you are? 5pm? What's that in UMT?
Good catch. Another thing to look for in the future filings. The related entities will be spelled out.
From what I see, it's a good strategy for a major shareholder to control other entities that sell goods or services to the company. MLMs in particular, if it's a key ingredient or product. I don't see where it helps or hurts the average shareholder, unless the price for goods/services paid by the company aren't @ FMV. That's a tough call, trying to value proprietary G/S.
If there is such a relationship, I think it would work against the argument that it's an acquisition target.
All preceded by the standard safe-harbor CYA....
Don't you get it? You can't intrude with a critical take on CVSL. The rose-colored glasses must be worn at all times.
Meanwhile, posters who tout this as a LT investment hang on very trade and every new bid. And incessantly spam this board and YHO with delusions of grandeur. You'd think they've made their investment and can walk away from this MB and find another stock to pursue. It doesn't smell right. That's the MO of short-timers and pumpers.
While CVSL has potential for LT gains, if they can execute their non-dilutative acquisition strategy, the presence of these cheerleaders has me worried that they're working for the next run-up and trying to sell a story to make it happen.
Still waiting for substance to see if this is a good investment.
I'm perfectingly willing to invest. I'm doing my DD. So far, I'm not seeing something that you are, or at least I think I'm not, because the primary posters on this board haven't shared the basis for their optimism, other than they're psyched to hear a good sale pitch on a CC (which I also listened to).
PS. so were those participating in IV7Direct and PURE. You see, there's history there, too (not that it cost me any money I'm happy to say). But it's history that I'm willing to overlook if there's a better, more compelling story here now.
So you think it's a good investment...a good story. Please indulge me and tell me why. Be specific. Are you talking ST or LT? Time frame? Price target?
My motive? Find a good investment. Cut through the BS make a call. There's a lot of enthusiasm on this board. But little so far to back it up.
Still no analysis, huh?
How about what next Qs revs will be? Round numbers? Ballpark?
Calling 'em as I see 'em.
When will you provide some analysis to support the current pps and a reason for an increase? Auric's taken a stab at it. I have, too.
It would be helpful to see the criteria you, lang and adam are using to justify your enthusiasm. Or is based on the Jan-Mar run-up and the chance that lightning could strike twice?
Right...it's the insiders keeping the price down.
It is until it isn't. Then, it won't be savvy insiders helping out their buddies, it'll be the evil MMs trying to steal your shares. Or the nasty shorts trying to make a play. How long are you going to give it before the script changes?
Which Rochon? There was always a Rochon "on board".
Just what is "the light"? You've posted here and on Yahoo incessantly, without providing a basis for your wish that the pps jumps.
I see a stock with in the direct selling or MLM field with less than $100M revs (yes, it's less, only a portion will be attributable to the O/S) and 486M shares O/S. What P/E or P/S premium are you placing on this? This is MLM. There are lots of reference points. Better question, what $ are you guessing for revs next 10Q for the controlling interest?
You also keep talking about billions in potential acquisitions, ignoring that JR acquiring all of it isn't realistic (and then doesn't say what portion is). How will this magic non-dilutative acquistion strategy work?
MO, FWIW, this could float between 22 and 54, based on how confident folks are in their revenue projections. Once the 10Q comes up, reality sets in. And what drives it from there is real activity. Let's see one of these non-dilutative acquisitions works.
Ah, but you may say, wasn't Longaberger just that? Well, in a way, yes, only because they seemed to buy it so cheap. What's 32M shares when there are 485M O/S and another 500M taking a vacation?
Again, the reality of the next 10Q will answer the question: What did CVSL buy for it's $10.5M and a job for Tami. If you know the answer, you haven't shared it.
I believe a statement similar to this was read before the CC:
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Current Report and the Agreement contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in the Current Report and the Agreement, including statements regarding future events, our future financial performance, business strategy, and acquisitions strategy, and our plans and objectives for future operations, are forward-looking statements. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “can,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” or “will” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Although we do not make forward-looking statements unless we believe we have a reasonable basis for doing so, we cannot guarantee their accuracy....
Thank you. I've addressed this issue in the past and it wasn't well received by some.
I think it puts the purchase price of Longaberger in a better perspective. $10.5M in promissory notes (with $6.5M convertible) plus the salary. I found that to be a very good deal for CVSL and a not so good for Longaberger (too low) if revs were $100M annual. Now that it represents a only portion of the revs, it makes the price look better for Longaberger but still a very good deal for CVSL.
Paying $10.5M plus ~$1M/year in compensation for $69M revs (a guess; I still don't know how much CVSL controls based on the difference between Class A and B ownership) maybe considered not just a good deal, but a great deal for CVSL Almost too good? Could the $100M figure be a little optimistic or old?
Still, whatever that rev or net earnings turns out to be, it's spread over ~486M shares (ignoring the second tranche shares). Rochon sees investors willing to pay a premium for growth potential, if I heard and interpreted the CC correctly. It's that premium thats going to drive the pps up from what it is now, because, IMO, it looks fairly valued based on fundamentals. And I think that premium will be based on how the non-dilutative acquisition strategy plays out.
Consolidated Income and Non-Controlling Interests
Looking forward to the next 10Q to see how the Longberger revenue is allocated to trust controlled by Tami. As I understand the sale, the trust retains a portion of the common stock of the old Longaberger.
"In connection with its entry into the Purchase Agreement and the Subscription Agreement, the Company acquired an aggregate 1,616 shares of TLC Class A Common Stock, representing 64.6% of the issued and outstanding shares of TLC Class A Common Stock, and 968 shares of TLC’s Class B Common Stock, representing 38.7% of the issued and outstanding shares of TLC Class B Common Stock. The remaining shares of issued and outstanding TLC Class A Common Stock and TLC Class B Common Stock, which are the only authorized classes of capital stock of TLC, are held by The David W. Longaberger Revocable Trust, Restated 09/04/98, of which T. Longaberger is the trustee. The shares of TLC Class A Common Stock and TLC Class B Common Stock have identical rights, except that the shares of TLC Class B Common Stock do not have voting rights. All of the authorized shares of capital stock of TLC are issued and outstanding."
If I understand accounting, "reported earnings per share will be based only on the income attributable to the parent."
If my understands are wrong, I'd like to know. And I'm sure no one will hesitate to tell me. Fire away.
Another model is JCOF, which is also using the cloud model and which, it so happens, Rochon is on the board. The CVSL IR guy was also associated with JCOF. I presume that you did your DD and you're familiar of the early "success" of JCOF.
Rochon also has other experience in MLM. I expect you are also familiar with IV7Direct. That was Richmont's MLM endeavor a few years ago.
You say you've been holding for two years. That means you saw it triple, at least. I hope you took some profits on the big run up to $0.70. Please tell me that you did.
Sour grapes? There's no fruit on the vine yet. Time will tell whether they're sour or sweet (and to whom).
Please entertain a question: CVSL paid $10.5M (based on the promissory notes), for 51% of Longaberger stock. Does all the Longaberger income (be it $100M or some other figure) accrue to CVSL? Or only 51%?
Auric, I'll respond to you, knowing that the others will be reading every sentence.
I haven't listened to the CC but will when it's posted. I'm sure they put on a good show.
From what I've read hear, I'm seeing shades of that other stock that the IR guy was involved in (owner will use his own shares for acquisition, no R/S).
You tell me: How many shares are actually available for acquisition if there is to be no dilution? 500M? 1000M? Those shares are going to purchase billions in assets?
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Oh, and the poster who thinks he's going to accumulate 1M shares? The float is reported @ 7M. If there's no dilution and the shares are tightly restricted, GLWT. Does he not see that logic isn't on his side?
I can't wait to listen, but color me cautious...extremely. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out over the next few years.
BTW, did anyone ask about IV7Direct?
I'll take your surrender to mean that you have nothing to substantiate a claim of no R/S ever.
Funny, that seems to be happening more and more. No more claims of billionaire.
Next up...ya'll try to substantiate that Richmont Holdings is worth $3B.
Go ahead. I can wait.
Oh, please. Show me where it was stated that an R/S will never, ever happen. Then talk to the investors in the company that previously employed your IR guy. R/S would never happen. Guess what. It happened.
Pay attention to what is said on the CC if they address it. They will never say never. They will say we have no plan to do it. It is unlikely. We don't need to do it. All true and all protected by the safe harbor statements.
Criminy. The filing was for 5 BILLION A/S and at some point in the future there will be 1 BILLION O/S.
The second tranche will happen, IMO, and the O/S will double overnight. When there's 1 BILLION shares O/S, why would you get excited about an acquisition of $25M annual revs? There will have to be lots of acquistionss. Run the numbers and compare them to established MLMs for P/S and P/E. Then tell us what kinds of revs are needed to support $1 pps and 1 BILLION shares. Then we can start talking about an R/S. And then it starts to look like another stock that you should be familiar with. Your IR guy is.
Can you substantiate that Rochon is a billionaire. I have yet to find a reference to confirm it. Also, the main page of this board says Richmont is a $3B holding company. Can you substantiate that as well?
Auric, do you know how much CVSL paid for Longaberger? I have my understanding ($10M), but I'd like to have it confirmed or refuted. The gang here doesn't seem to want to get technical. I appreciate that you do.