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.
Yeah, because they were wrong in their reporting.
There is no Bellissima commercial per se. He was referring to the CBS Sunday Morning spot as being the equivalent of a major commercial.
In this usage, "Bellissima licensor" should be read as "the entity granting a license to Bellissima." The same document uses the exact same terms in the preceding paragraph when referencing BiVi:
The best reason for her to postpone exercising her option is that she thinks/suspects/knows that the O/S on a fully diluted basis will increase. At least, that is the reason I'd put it off. I'd want to grab as many shares at .001 as I could.
No, she does not.
The license agreement entitles her to "10% of monthly gross sales of Bellissima Brand products payable monthly," so she certainly has a stake in the success of Bellissima gross sales, but at present, that is the extent of it.
In November, 2015, she was granted an option to purchase 1% of ICNB common stock at an exercise price of .001/share. There has been no filing/ p.r./etc. that indicates the option has ever been exercised.
She didn't do that either.
From the CBS Sunday Morning tease: "She liked it so much, she bought the company, or part of it." Huh? No, she didn't.
True, but that's using the product as a loss leader, a different situation.
Personally, I have not witnessed this phenomenon in which they introduce the product at $16.99 then raise the price 47%. It appears to be a marketing strategy better suited to heroin or Oxycontin than Italian sparkling wines, but I can't say it isn't happening in some locales.
(1) Sell a bottle for $16.99. (2) Let buyer experience the rather pedestrian taste. (3) Raise price by 47 percent.
It's a somewhat unusual marketing approach, but, hey, if it works, it's okay with me.
Yes, hopefully. On a $3 reduction in price, I assume that Bellissima would eat some of it and the retailer would eat some of it, but I don't know the trade well enough to speculate about the likely percentages.
If ICNB is indeed reducing the price to $16.99 at major chains (#msg-132820690), there's a reason, and it's probably not because they're worried they would sell too many bottles at $19.99. That said, I think $16.99 is a much better price point.
Auditing 2016 should be a piece of cake. Total sales in the first three quarters totaled $5027, so they should be able to breeze through those quarters.
I can understand why ICNB, the corporate entity, might want to acquire the remaining 49% of Bellissima LLC. I'm asking why Rich DeCicco, the individual, would want to sell it to ICNB. I can't think of a reason (that is positive for ICNB shareholders).
Let's say you're Rich DiCicco. You own 49% of Bellissima LLC. Its sale could net you tens of millions of dollars. Why would you sell your 49% to ICNB? They can't offer you voting control. You already have that. So why?
In the pre-Bellissima second and third quarters of 2016, ICNB reported sales of precisely zero, so it's hard to believe that BiVi Vodka is worth much of anything.
It's the most wonderful thing that ever happened.
Ontario. That has a population even larger than that of Illinois, doesn't it?
Precisely. So one there's one sale price that would make Rich a very happy and wealthy man. There's another sale price that would make the rest of the common shareholders dance in the streets with joy. It is likely that the first price is much, much lower than the second price. There's the rub.
Yes, I know that. ICNB owns 51% of Bellissima LLC. Rich owns the other 49%.
Since when? All the filings show him owning 49%.
Conversion would give Rich voting control, but any dilution after the conversion would wrest voting control away again, would it not? Wouldn't that be a reason to delay conversion?
My musing is this: At a certain point, Rich the 49% owner of Bellissima LLC and Rich the CEO of ICNB could find themselves on a collision course.
I don't necessarily want to sell anything. I'm just posing a question.
It is definitely the pipe dream of some but not mine. I'm asking whether the Bellissima LLC asset could be sold in and of itself without the buyer acquiring all of ICNB.
I assume it could be done. Companies sell off assets all the time. I'm just wondering if I am unaware of a provision that would prevent it.
True.
My feeling is that he is more prolific at it than good, but I get your drift.
Tell me whether or not you think the following statement is true: Rich could sell the Bellissima LLC asset to Company X for whatever price he deemed appropriate.
You're welcome. I'm afraid I can't answer the rest of your questions. Hopefully, someone else can. I will say this: Always be mindful of what people claim Tom said and promised v. what Tom actually said and promised. "Tom says NO R/S!" and "We do not want to R/S" are two completely different statements.
"Tommy Boy" is now talking about bashers? Yeah, that's always a real good sign.
The buyout rumor is soooooo last week. Nevertheless, I am surprised at the restraint shown in that no one has yet initiated a rumor that Bellissima will be served at this upcoming social event of the season:
http://pagesix.com/2017/07/04/exclusive-secret-sex-party-is-heading-to-the-hamptons/
"So where can I find this buyout info?" You can't. It's a fabrication.
RE: "I was trying to figure how they arrived at 70mil in estimated retail revenue. 120,000 cases is the only number reported by casamigos."
All I can come up with is that whoever made that calculation assumed that a case held 12 bottles rather than six.
"On June 17, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") announced the registrant's 1:2,500 reverse stock split of the registrant's common stock. The reverse stock split took effect on June 20, 2016, with FINRA changing the registrant's ticker symbol to 'BVTKD' for 20 business days (after which time the symbol will revert back to "BVTK")."
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=11453411
Mcfamin, that's an "if" not a "when." How this will eventually play out is anyone's guess.
ICNB has never been shy about releasing good news. They released the better than expected fourth quarter case sales numbers a mere four days into the new year.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ICNB/news/Iconic-Brands-ICNB-Bellissima-Prosecco-News?id=147956&b=y
If the second quarter number are GREAT, I expect that you will know about it much earlier than mid-Auquest.
You're welcome! Allow me to encourage further. Casamigos is expected to average 14-15K cases per month this year, and each case of Casamigos generates roughly twice as much revenue as a case of Bellissima.
Casamigos: Is sold in 20 countries and sold 120,000 cases last year.
"Clooney and Gerber still taste every batch of the tequila, which is sold in 20 countries and doubled its volume of sales in 2016."
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooney-tequila-brand-casamigos-2017-3
"Casamigos sold 120,000 cases last year, and it is expected to sell more than 170,000 cases this year."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/business/george-clooney-tequila-casamigos-diageo.html
"This is akin to any beverage company going bankrupt and people saying Bellissima is next. Completely unfounded and nonsensical." Well said.