FUEL is a small company with a niche, redundant "solution." It has been badly managed as a public company and should have never been brought to market in the first place.
1. Web ad inventory diminishes in value daily. The touted programmatic approaches represent a faster race to the bottom in an environment where ads are ubiquitous and virtually worthless. Placing worthless ads faster and more accurately is a small solution which ignores the elephants roaming the rooms.
2. Ad blocking and privacy are dominating themes which have yet to reach critical mass. Each of these issues will devalue FUEL's business.
3. MDV is your large holder at 22%. They have already extracted north of $100Million on the IPO and secondary sales. They don't need FUEL to go to 22 to continue extracting incremental value. When they elect to sell -- either the company or a large portion of their holdings -- you are going along for the ride, at whatever price they determine.
4. It takes FUEL $1.20 to achieve $1.00 in revenue. They are losing money on every sale they make -- on an OPERATING basis. This is unsustainable.
I don't believe FUEL is worth 22, or anywhere close to that figure. FUEL was s story stock when they IPO'd to much hype and rampant over optimism. The story will not have a happy ending, imo. Good luck.
Ah, Velti. I recall them fondly. VELT was actually, literally, shorted to ZERO -- one of the very few which can make that rare claim. Yes, they went BK. Stock traded up to the $20's before the long glide down.
VELT was different than FUEL. Velt was founded in Greece, and as an early stage private co, operated extensively in that region. Velt took on a lot of less than perfect clients, did a lot of trial work they never got paid for, etc. And they carried those book entries on the balance sheet forever. When it became clear they couldn't collect on $200 million + A/R, the then new CFO wrote in all off, the stock cratered and never recovered. As all this was going on , VELT was also competitively out run. VELT was essentially an SMS mobile marketing company (Text messages). This was a big deal before the i-phone and android, but as smart phones took over, no brands wanted to do SMS marketing anymore - so no VELT growth. Velt also had no cash on the balance sheet.
I'm no fan, but FUEL is better off, and better run, than VELT. There's a cash cushion, after all. Keep your eye on the A/R as noted above. There were smart analysts on VELT who insisted the company report DSO's and this gave visibility to the growing problem of aging receivables (LOTS!) not being collected. FUEL also has a very aggressive and needful VC ownership base -- like MDV. This thing'll be sold before it sinks under the waves.
Why sell out now? You've ridden this all the way down.
Do you really believe AVP is that bad? You're getting a 7% dividend to hold.
Avon revenues are directly tied and highly correlated with the number of active Avon representatives. These are the "door-to-door" sales reps: there are millions of them around the world - about 5 million. In the US alone, we can estimate roughly than Avon has about 300,000 active representatives. If you have listened to a recent earnings call, or read a transcript, you will see that among the important questions asked by top analysts and then dissected on every call is the current number, retention rates, turnover rates, new recruitment rates associated with Avon representatives.
The 33,000 headcount listed on Yahoo and other sources represents worldwide full time employees. They run warehouses, develop products, manage inventory, create marketing campaigns and every other thing an $ 8 billion company needs to do. This employee base has been trimmed, and is constantly assessed for further "right-sizing".
Avon will not be tossing the MLM/rep model aside for online sales and distribution any time soon. Avon IS a direct sales company, with a product line designed to match that distribution model. The Avon brand, divorced form the sales rep, is a non-starter.
The past two days changes the calculus here. Status quo is not acceptable.
1. Wouldn't be surprised if Sheri's gone by Monday.
2. Investor relations team should be canned.
3. 7% dividend at $3.50 cannot stay - expecting a dividend cut or suspension.
4. BOD and operational leadership have lost the faith of investors and Wall Street. More changes are needed there.
The floor on the stock has to be cash -- that's about $1.50/sh. Current MC at 1.5B + Debt at 2.5B + Cash at 0.7B = 4.7B/435Mil shares out = $11/share. Currently trading at 1/3 that value.
Something's gotta give.
And $100 million cash dividends which can be suspended at anytime.
Putting the credit line aside, they have 700m cash, 100 dividend and 200 operating cash flow. Why would they need cash? If the debt has a share price covenant now breached maybe there's a call? Could be lots of things --
If the news reports are true (and they may not be true), the bidding is for a P/E to make an equity investment -- a PIPE -- not a buyout. PIPE's are always finalized well south of the prevailing market share price -- because the equity investor will be size, and they demand a buffer and a good deal. Something like this: $500 Million at $3 = 167 million shares and nets a 25% stake in the firm - management control.
Assume you were a P/E and Scully driving hard bargain - talks starting a month w. shares at 6. Do you think an article like yesterday's WSJ helps your negotiating position? I do.
Yes - in the zone of $12 - $14.
But no one -- no one -- will offer anywhere near a 300% premium for this. Can't be justified on a DD basis, and no auditor, independent can sign off on an offer like that. Lucky to get mid single digits now. Legacy longs, north of 7-8 are in real trouble.
Prior to a PIPE, they'd cancel the dividend. PIPES = last resort cash raising.
The WSJ article isn't a "fake" -- but it sure feels funny. Perhaps a plant.
Avon is running an auction process for what is known as a private investment in public equity, or PIPE, with firms including Cerberus Capital Management and Platinum Equity. Bids are due next week, the people said, with some adding that a PIPE is just one of the options the company is considering. It’s unclear how big a stake would be sold and there’s no guarantee such a deal will materialize.
By DANA CIMILLUCA, DANA MATTIOLI and SERENA NG
Updated Sept. 10, 2015 2:17 p.m. ET
If true, it's clear AVP is concerned about liquidity, and getting a PIPE now would avoid fire sales later, assuming the business continues to deteriorate. It's evidently clear too, that AVP has failed to find an interested buyer of all or part of the firm.
A PIPE will be dilutive to common shareholders. This has been pointed out before: AVP has about $3 Billion in treasury stock on the balance sheet.
Well, there's some bad AVP news. And as usual, retail is the last to know.
I have to say that AVP with a 3-handle is real ugly.
Any thoughts out there? Dividend cut/suspension? Scully leaving? Sale of of Liz Earle fell apart? SEC investigation - again? Huge earnings loss pending?
Not sure the BOD is even thinking about tossing Sheri out, let alone whether it would be hard to do so. The current board includes 4-5 veterans of the disastrous and messy de-throning of Andrea Jung, who even after stepping aside as CEO, remained as Chairwoman and then as a Board Advisor. They definitely don't want a re-run of that fiasco.
Have to agree there is compelling value down here south of 5. Stock price now supported by about 40% cash ($1.60/share). And that's ridiculous.
The big indices suffering terrible reversal into the close, and may end the day in the RED. The Dow was up over 600 points going into the open today, and might finish negative.
Not good -- for AVP or any stock issue.