The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
That's fair enough Wolf I guess though to go back to my point the founders together have 31.5% odd. I can't imagine it will be the case that they will never vote again. Or will eventually sell to people who can vote.
Obv boo could buy the shares but then they would be obliged to an realistic and funded offer for whole company if they went over 30% and am not sure why want to go that far.
So imo it's more a case of influence rather than control which with 26.6% shares is prob appropriate. I'm not anti boo though, just obv want my Rev B shares to rise. Lets hope both companies can do well moving forward.
" they are boo appointees through right? They will be carrying out the wishes of Boo."
Wolf what's in it for them to carry out the wishes of boo? Is booing paying them with cash/shares? Surely for their personal careers they want to do the best for the company they will be working for (Rev B).
404x, "Claimed Blackrock employee was pumping THG in Linkedin comments of all places". No I didn't, I realized with everyone else after about half an hour he was fake?! Even for ppl who believed it's not really "bad call"?
"Claimed Minto was responding to him in Times comment section"
I said he liked a comment I made under a Rev B times article (made under a family user name who I use the times account of). On the times no-one sees who likes comments other than the person who made the comment and even then you only get notified of the some of the names so extremely low reward if it was a fake person. Not sure why you are so certain this can't be true that would have liked a comment on an article about Rev B the company he founded?
"wouldn't allow even mild critical discussion of some of RevB board's actions without endlessly arguing against"
I'm long on Rev B but think you are exaggerating here again, I often just disagreed, I don't "not allow" criticism.
It will be an independent CEO, only two of the directors have connections to boohoo so have been appointed as non-independent execs. So from what I see it's 2:7? Peter Hallett and Rachel Horsefield are independent NEDs.
Unless boo are going to be paying off Horsefield and Hallett with boo cash/boo shares as a bribe to risk their careers and not be independent.
T4G they did appoint them but Rachel Horsefield and Peter Hallett don't have any obvious boo connection? Therefore my point was more maybe boo just think they would be good for the job rather than a means of taking control as some are hinting. Either way am hopeful we can move forward now and both companies can do well.
Market doesn't always react straight away. It might not have loved the results being predicted out at end of August. However I find it hard to imagine another audit delay when they will have agreed with accountants how best to account for everything previously and said themselves they likely went overly prudent with interim 2023 results for example.
A good new CEO will obv be a good catalyst. At some point this has to move up higher towards Warpaint and even ELF imo.
404x Rev B will appoint an independent ceo so don't see how removing Holt removes a "barrier of control" for boo. Boo will have an influence with 2 out of the 9 rev B directors but obv not control.
The Rev B founders together have the largest holding of circa 31.54%, they aren't going to abstain from voting forever. If boo tried to take more board control founders would vote against it (if they believed it wouldn't be good for Rev B share price). Boo only own 26.6% or so (maybe 28% with Kamani holding etc). Everyones holdings have been diluted a bit as-well by Bob's share options.
Founders aren't going to abstain from voting forever. If they became unhappy with boo influence they would eventually vote against that direction if boo tried to increase it.
Also with Bob exercising his options boo are a little more diluted (tho we are too obv)
Some ppl talking like boo have control now. Not sure why, they will have 2 directors out of the 9 (once independant ceo joins). 3 if you counted horseheath as with boo but she only has a connection to thg not boo I believe?
Can't see any of those assets managers voting with boo, (unless they trust boo to get the sp up). Feels like they'd be more friendly to Bob.
The director buys take the PI down to 14%, then Kamani has lets say 1%? He must have voted with boo to get them up to 29%.
So that leaves the rest of the PIs with around 13%.
Therefore assuming asset managers all vote for Bob and boo still with 29% support (they can't have gained much more or would have had to make a mandatory takeover offer) then if half the 13% (6.5%) PIs vote (assuming most in favour of Bob) then boo are at 46.8% (29/61.96) so not enough.
Even if only 20% of PIs vote (assuming voting for Bob) then boo would only be at 49.95% (29/58.06). This message board alone has 11.75% of the PI vote.
The 58.06 I get from the founders not voting which takes denominator down to 68.46, less 80% of 13 (10.4).
Ajc I guess in that scenario you'd wonder why they aren't voting which is enabling boo to have this power.
Either they are happy with boo and believe boo are the best thing for rev b sp or they think boo are bad for rev b sp but boo have offered them a fortune in either cash or boo shares (significantly diluting boo) to make up for their large rev b holdings.
Considering the founders may not even be bullish on boo you'd think would need a lot of boo shares to compensate for where they likely see rev b sp returning to. Plus boo lose their own holding and all the other negatives already discussed.
It's funny how much Boo is influencing this share when they appear have only 26.6% (maybe 29% with Kamani holding etc).
Obv it's mostly an issue due to the founders not voting. However if the founders thought boo were intending to trash the share in some way then the only way they would be enabling boo by not voting if is boo had offered them something. Boo would have to offer them a fortune though to make up for where they likely believe their shareholdings could re-rate to, either in cash or boo shares which would mean significant dilution for boohoo. Also would mean trashing a company they are attached too and their legacy (they would be known as founding a company that collapsed and had to be saved).
In terms of Boo it would also mean trashing their own holding plus having to convince directors such as Rachel Horseheath and Neil Catto to be known as directors who were in charge of a company who went into admin meaning no companies shareholders would trust them to work as directors anymore.
Also would mean any shares boo buy in future in companies would soon tank because no shareholders would trust boohoo anymore. Then there would also be all the legal problems and no guarantee boo get the company at the end as their shares have become worthless, someone like THG could buy it instead.
Therefore there are lots of reasons seemingly against this. Going back to the founders it could be the case they are not allowed to vote and also don't trust boo, however in this case they would surely sell some of their shares to a Bob friendly party who can vote with Bob. They might not want to sell at this price but it would protect the rest of their investment (if they didn't trust boo and weren't allowed to vote).
It did seem quite extreme however at that time the sp was suspended, it was easier to imagine such a thing happening.
It was based on boos previous admin acquisitions however there is a difference you'd think when in this case boo have bought 26.6% of the shares which in the doomish scenario would surely go to waste whereas in their admin acquisitions I believe they owned no part of them before then buying out of admin against competing buyers.
On the other hand Boo could have given a counter narrative as to what their plan was other than a vague reference to "growth" but they haven't yet publicly done so.
Reb B posted on linked in about DM Drogerie which is Germanys largest retailer with 2096 stores in Germany (3,700 in across Europe as a whole).
Not sure how long they have sold products with them but it does seem Rev B is in all the biggest retailers worldwide.
"Thank you to our key partner dm-drogerie markt Deutschland! Our Revolution Beauty stand at the DM 50th Birthday Event was SO busy. We celebrated YOU! 🇩🇪We are so thankful to all the teams from DM who work so hard to hero our brands.
We showed quick tips and tutorials, showcased our BH Los Angeles icons, with sneak peaks from Revolution 👀
We are so proud to be a part of DM and cant wait for more partnerships ✨"
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/revolutionbeauty_thank-you-to-our-key-partner-dm-drogerie-activity-7085588770179174401-vK5o?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Wolf many of the PIs were able to buy very low (same as boohoo) hence the large holdings imo.
Also not everyone will be "sensibly" diversified, I def have more in here than I should in terms of having a conservative or balanced portfolio.
Silverlight I guess they could but equally Bob Holt et al could be doing the same. I imagine he has good connections?
Also if boo intentions were actually bad you would think it would be hard to encourage third parties to buy to vote with them?
Boo could I suppose pay them back somehow via cash or shares? But if there intentions are bad it does seem they'd have to be paying off a lot of ppl, including obv paying the Rev B founders a fortune to have them onside.
Think Kamani private holding etc would count as part of boo in terms of if they went over 30% as he's connected to boo.
PhatJ from my calculations , assuming PIs are around 14% of the shares, then PIs own around 43.36 million shares.
(obv Kamani will be part of those PIs and voted with boo to get them their 29% support so in a sense the rest of the PI is prob more 13% depending on his holding and other boo private affiliates).
This means with 5 million shares held on his message board we would have 11.5% of the PI vote.
In terms of the vote if founders abstain and boo had 29% support again but everyone voted this time then boo would have 42.36% of the vote (29/68.46).
If half the 14% PIs don't vote (7%) but all other players do then boo would have 47.18% of the vote (29/61.46).
Therefore even half of the PIs voting should be enough (obv with all these assumptions). Boo could have bought more but not much more as a 30% they would have to have made a mandatory offer.
Meaning with us having 11.5% of the PI vote (and if only half PIs voting needed) we are already 23% of the way there just from this message board.