Member Info for Hosai

As I said yest, I wrote this comment a few days ago under a times article under a family members name (who has the times account) - "Look at their valuation verses fundamentals next to peers such as Warpaint and ELF Beauty. Needs to get to 70p odd just to match warpaint who they should be higher than. There's a reason Boo management were trying to steal it."

I had a notification that Adam Minto liked it and am 99% sure it was him (for various reasons including he never commented on anything elsewhere in the times, no-one sees who likes posts on the times other than the commentator and even the commenter only sees a fraction of the likes so even I may have never been told it was him - it could have said "John Smith and another liked your comment" just as likely as "Adam Minto and another" which is what it said). So fairly low enjoyability for a fake person.

Anyway, it makes me think when you also consider Minto follows and likes Rev B a lot on linked in that he still has a long term faith in his shares, wouldn't sell them cheap to boohoo for example and may not be a fan of boohoo, though unfortunately it appears he can't vote though?

It also could be the case that he was liking the ELF/Warpaint part but not so much the boohoo part in which case he may not have strong feelings on boohoo and feel they can get his shares up just as well?

However if the founders don't trust boohoo (and they believed Bob wouldn't win the vote) they would be the key ones who could help holders. If they sold they half their holding to an external party by early Aug it would give Bob a lot more votes. They prob wouldn't want to do this, but it would save the other half of their holding from boohoo (if they were wary of boohoo).

8 of the 15 collab products are now sold out on the US website (3 of these sold out products are sets that are over $30)...either they didn't stock up enough or are selling very well - https://www.revolutionbeauty.us/makeup/collaborations/revolution-x-disney-pixars-finding-nemo.list

I've prob gone a bit crazy but I just spent a fair while crafting and sending an email the ELF CEO basically making the case via with various figures and comparisons that they should make an offer for Rev B.

Obv mentioned Rev B largest market in US now with products in Walmart, Walgreens and Target and how their social media following while not at Elfs level wasn't that far of when you consider Tik Tok followers/likes etc.

I pointed out that ELF could dilute their market cap by just 7% and raise around $425 million (at the time I wrote their MC was $6.07 billion).

Then that if they offered in the region of $400m - $425m for Rev B ($400 million is equivalent to 102.32p share price) the Rev B shareholders may accept (not sure if this is true but either way a rejected higher offer would be great for shareholders).

Then pointed out that in this scenario they would be diluting by 7% but gaining a company that is forecasting to make revenue this year equivalent to 36.3% of the revenue they are forecasting and 13.8% of the EBITDA they are forecasting (for the EBITDA part I extrapolated from Q1 £3.5 million). Obv this ignores all the potential cost saving synergies etc.

Also mentioned Rev B revenue part was their FY24 forecast and that they had recently reported 60% revs growth in Q1 so forecast was potentially conservative.

Got his email from rocketeach.co which seems to fairly reliable. No idea if it will actually be seen by him or just a secretary but can't hurt to put it out there.

Elf Beauty now at £4.85 billion...equivalent to 56.68 Rev Beautys (4.85b/85.56m).

Surely Rev have to be being eyed up by the large beauty companies or even ELF itself? ELF don't really have the cash but they could dilute by 10% and raise £485 million.

Would be gaining a company that makes revenues around 40% of their current revenue so a large market share add for them.

# Considering Minto is quite like heavy on things like linkedin and has been on other platforms I think it was prob him.

Lol hilarious...as I said though, an actual comment is more likely to be a fake (as instant reward for the pretend person).

Not so much liking a comment on the times to which only the actual commenter can see the name of the liker and even they may not be able to see the name depending on which name the times shows in the notification.

Considering Minto is quite like heavy on things like linkedin

Also the times tends to have peoples names as user name its a general policy. It's not like lse where nearly everyone has an alternate type user-name like Hamster35.

I'm aware of that Hereshopin, however with that "William Grace Hunter" I believe the name was, which was a great name. Had actually made a comment and was commenting on Mouldings linked in. He was also commenting something like "i am sure private equity will be interested here" and was pretending to be a blackrock executive I believe. There is obvious "reward" there for the fake person.

This was a like on a times post and no-one else can see who has liked it except for the person who made the comment. Even for the person who makes the comment times often only gives some of the names so for example it could have said "John smith and one other liked your post" just as easily as "Adam Minto and one other". It seems very low reward. Also it wasn't even obviously bullish, more just interesting.

CWWX, if I see "Adam Minto" making comments then I will start to believe it's not him (however this article was yesterday and no such comments under the articles have materialized). I struggle to imagine someone making an account of him but only to 'like' one or more posts to which the person who commented may or may not even be notified that he liked the comment because the times doesn't notify of every like. It seems a bit low reward for a fake person?

CWWX, I mean I know ppl sometimes make parody accounts but I've followed all the (fairly few) times articles on rev B and have never seen anyone post under his name before (the rev articles don't get many comments prob due to being a relatively smaller company).

You think someone just privately set up a fairly unknown CEO name just for fun in order to read the times and like the odd post?

It doesn't even always tell you all the names of ppl who had liked your post so it would be quite a stretch if it was some kind "fake liking prank" with the goal of the person seeing who liked it? The notification was "Adam Minto and one other liked your post".

I wasn't sure whether to mention as in some ways it seems trivial but equally sort of interesting.

I posted a reply to a comment on the times website (under a family members name who has the account) about the AGM antics.

This was the comment - "Hilarious. The shares are quite obviously worth zero"

This was my reply - "Why zero?! Look at their valuation verses fundamentals next to peers such as Warpaint and ELF Beauty. Needs to get to 70p odd just to match warpaint who they should be higher than. There's a reason Boo management were trying to steal it."

I got a notification that 2 people had liked my post, one of them had the name Adam Minto. Not sure how many ppl are out there with this name?

Anyway like I said, it doesn't mean all that much but I guess could deduce (as-well from the fact that Adam M still keeps liking/loving Rev B posts on linkedin) that:

- Minto believes it's worth a lot more

- This may make it less likely he will sell to an external party unfortunately, but equally is less likely to sell to boohoo low either.

- He may not actually be pro boohoo, though if he isn't allowed to vote then it isn't that useful.

However, as in this situation he and the other founder may be the key players who could save us from a boo coup (equally may not need them to block boo who knows). I do wonder what if he could sell say half his holding to another party who could vote. He would get some money (not as much as he'd like) but if he feared boohoo taking over it would save the other half of his holding from that outcome.

Realize I'm deducing quite a lot from one 'like' but just putting it out there.

That buy from Bob is a big deal (and Zissman). Indicates they clearly aren't convinced boo getting control and maybe the things they wrote about boo will take to admin etc is persuasion to vote for Bob et al rather than genuine belief, else why would they make large personal buys?

Has to be one of the only shares out there where if we had an rns saying the largest share holder had sold a chunk the sp would prob rise...

As I mentioned before boo still have some way to go imo. After the management incentive shares being added, boo in terms of the shares we know about would have 26.6/70.72 = 37.6% of the eligible vote in late July/early Aug (assuming founders abstain again).

Also one or more of the founders could sell their holdings to a large beauty player before Aug 7th nullifying boo before the vote.

However even after the vote assuming boo took control if the founders then sell their stake to an external party more friendly to Bob in say 4 months then Bob could do what boo have done and demand a general meeting where all the holders vote him back in again over the boo board.

My only fear is if the lenders get fed up but I don't think boo would continue if they got a sniff of that as they would lose £15 million and have no priory over buying RevB than any other party would have.

It prob doesn't help that I have the sense there is a lot of misunderstanding from lay ppl half following revb in the media. Think many believe that boo are trying to oust the board who did the financial shenanigans, partly because the articles written and often so convuluted and badly written (also coz it's quite a complex story).

I mentioned before NYX cosmetics and 'the ordinary' being valued over 4x revenue by larger beauty companies such as estee lauder and l'oreal in takeouts.

These are quite similar companies to Rev B in terms of going for growth over margin, 'the ordinary' is known for being "affordable".

Rev B currently at around 0.37 times sales. Could easily have some bids come in over the next few weeks/months (which hopefully would be rejected).

Agree Drd, it's disappointing but boo basically took a crap on this just before re-listing. Market doesn't like the uncertainty. Also might be fears boo will buy more easily if sp drops becoming self-fufilling (even if its not clear how much they can with their RCF).

Doubt he'd want to push it too far in light of the audit issues Hereshopin. The comparison would have been with genuine FY2023 Q1 revenues as those have now been adjusted in line with the investigation etc to whatever revenue genuinely occurred in that quarter.

Seems like they were prudent with the FY2024, considering they'll likely make £15-16 million odd EBITDA (going of £3.5m in quarter 1 which tends to be weaker) but only guided to high single digit EBITDA.

ELF Beauty now valued at around £4.79 billion. With Rev B at £80.53 million that means ELF is worth 59.48 Rev Beautys.

For FY24 ELF predicting £568 million revs and £116.5 million EBITDA.

For FY24 Rev B originally predicted £205 million revs and £8 million EBITDA (although this was before they announced for q1 they'd had 60% sales growth and £3.5 million EBITDA so I'd imagine higher than these figures, maybe £14 million EBITDA?)

If we go with EBITDA which is less flattering than revenue for Rev B, ELF should likely be worth around 8 Revolution Beautys, not 59.48 Rev Bs.

It is rather a shame that the focus atm is centred around boo rather than Rev B having 60% revenue growth for q1.