This company listing is no longer active
Revlon (REVR.Q) Aktienübersicht
Revlon, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells beauty and personal care products worldwide. Mehr Details
| Schneeflocken-Punktzahl | |
|---|---|
| Bewertung | 2/6 |
| Künftiges Wachstum | 0/6 |
| Vergangene Leistung | 0/6 |
| Finanzielle Gesundheit | 0/6 |
| Dividenden | 0/6 |
REVR.Q Community Fair Values
See what others think this stock is worth. Follow their fair value or set your own to get alerts.
Revlon, Inc. Wettbewerber
Preisentwicklung & Leistung
| Historische Aktienkurse | |
|---|---|
| Aktueller Aktienkurs | US$0.07 |
| 52-Wochen-Hoch | US$10.95 |
| 52-Wochen-Tief | US$0.051 |
| Beta | 1.81 |
| 1 Monat Veränderung | -72.00% |
| 3 Monate Veränderung | -90.00% |
| 1 Jahr Veränderung | -98.74% |
| 3 Jahre Veränderung | -99.38% |
| 5 Jahre Veränderung | -99.65% |
| Veränderung seit IPO | -99.97% |
Aktuelle Nachrichten und Updates
Revlon drops after Citibank wins appeal in $500M transfer case
Revlon (NYSE:REV) fell 8.7% after a federal appeals court ruled that a group of the cosmetic company's creditor have to return $500 million that was accidentally sent to them by Citibank (C). A group of three judges vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case to district court, according to the ruling viewed by Seeking Alpha. Citigroup (C) originally lost the case in February of last year in its effort to recoup $900 million it had mistakenly transferred to Revlon (REV) lenders. The defendants — including Brigade Capital Management, HPS Investment Partners, and Symphony Asset Management plus seven others — claimed that they were owed the payment since Revlon (REV) was in default on a loan. Citigroup (C) sued Brigage Capital Management in August 2020 to return its share of more than $900M that the bank mistakenly transferred to Revlon lenders. The bank said wiring the money to Brigade and other lenders on Aug. 11 was the result of a clerical error.Revlon drops after judge declines to allow formation of equity committee
Revlon (NYSE:REV) fell after a judge declined to allow the formation of an equity committee for the cosmetic maker's common shareholders. Developing story ..Revlon CFO Victoria Dolan to retire
Revlon (NYSE:REV) has announced changes in its finance leadership, with CFO Victoria Dolan retiring. Ms. Dolan will remain with the company until Sep. 30, 2022 to ensure a smooth transition of her responsibilities. Matt Kvarda, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal, will join Revlon (REV) as interim CFO, effective Oct. 01, 2022. Mr. Kvarda holds nearly 30 years of experience, serving in interim leadership roles at numerous companies including as interim CFO at TEAM (TISI) and interim CFO at Jacuzzi Brands.Hearing On Friday Was A Disaster For Bankrupt Revlon Shareholders
At the very end of the DIP hearing on Friday, Judge Jones seemed to indicate he would not require extending the November filing date of the RSA and plan. An oral decision on various DIP issue was delivered by Judge Jones during the final hearing on Monday August 1. Judge Jones, who is a new bankruptcy judge, does not seem to be decisive and does not seem to be "shareholder friendly". Mittleman is using an ad hoc shareholder group to advocate for Revlon shareholders. Since milestones were not extended, it is a major negative development for investors. Based on a statement by Judge Jones at the very end of Friday's DIP financing hearing for bankrupt Revlon (REV) it looks like the critical November milestone to file a restructuring support agreement - RSA will not be extended. This is a major blow, in my opinion, to Revlon investors because, as I covered in a prior article, a filing of a RSA after the holiday selling period most likely would reflect an improved Revlon. A final decision by Judge Jones was made during Monday's hearing not to require any extensions. Various parties also had a meeting with Revlon's management earlier on Monday morning. This article is an update to previous articles. DIP Hearing I "attended" the DIP financing (amended DIP agreement docket 299) hearings on Thursday, Friday, and Monday via Zoom. While the hearings never got intense, a number of participants seemed frustrated during the process. (See below for my opinion of Judge Jones.) Before the lunch break on Friday, Judge Jones urged the various parties to reach settlements on the outstanding issues and at that time also indicated that he was leaning towards an extension of the November 1 DIP milestone to file a RSA and November 30 to file an "acceptable" plan. After lunch, the lawyer representing the BrandCo DIP lenders offered to extend those dates to November 15 and December 14. The lawyer representing the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee stated that various new proposed changes (There were also other proposed changes.) were "insulting". I agree. They are almost meaningless and are just a way to imply to the court that BrandCo lenders are in control here. After additional testimonies and statements ended late on Friday, Judge Jones stated he would not make a decision until Monday August 1. He again urged the various parties to reach settlements on various issues over the weekend. At the very end, he stated that he would agree to the "business judgement" of Revlon's management that they would be able to file a RSA by November 1, which is a change from before lunch. Originally, the BrandCo DIP lenders wanted a RSA filed by the end of July and plan by the end of August. Revlon originally wanted to have until the end of December to create a business plan that would be used as a basis in negotiating a RSA. Those parties eventually agreed to creating a business plan by September 30 and filing a RSA by November 1. During the hearings, Revlon had to defend their "business judgement" that they could complete a reasonable business plan by September 30. The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee strongly disagreed with that "business judgement". They thought much more time was needed to create a business plan that reflected an improved supply chain/vendor operation. In a very unusual move, Revlon's lawyers filed a short "Closing Argument" (docket 311) near the end of the day that further asserted that the court must follow management's "business judgement". Revlon's Stock Price Since June 15 Bankruptcy Filing REV data by YCharts Impact of Judge David Jones Judge Jones is a new bankruptcy judge and was a major disappointment, in my opinion. He did not have control over the process and seemed too reluctant to make needed decisions. I have been in many bankruptcy courts over the years and have watched great judges and poor ones. At this point. he seems unwilling to defend the various priority classes that are being "rolled over" by the BrandCo lenders. He is not a Judge Berstein who was always cognizant of all the stakeholders. The lawyer for the OUC even stated that he (Judge Jones) could assert that if the parties could not agree on certain issues that he would file in these issues himself, which the other Judge David Jones in Texas has done. This lawyer seemed to be implying that the extremely well-respected other Judge Jones "knows what to do and that you don't". I was shocked that Judge Jones told the various parties to be "available" for the rest of late Friday in case he again changes his mind and decides to make an oral ruling late Friday. This was right after he said he would make an oral decision on Monday. "Available"? What? On a late Friday during the summer? Can all these lawyers bill for being "available"? I think that the two page "Closing Argument" that was filed late on Friday by Revlon's lawyers may also indicate that these lawyers also do not have the highest opinion of Judge Jones. The content was at a level for an audience that was just in first year law school - not a sitting federal judge. I do not recall ever seeing a similar type of filing during an actual hearing, but it seemed to have worked. He was leaning towards an extension of the time to file a RSA before lunch and switched to indicating he would follow Revlon's "business judgement", which would not require extending the time. He read his decision during a hearing on Monday that only had some modest changes that were already agreed to last week, including raise the budget to bring litigation from $50,000 to $350,000 and lengthening that challenging period to 90 days from 75 days. The milestone dates will now be November 15 for the RSA filing and December 15 for filing the plan. As I often remind investors, the bankruptcy judge is a very important variable in estimating the recoveries for various claim classes. Often the desktop results are completely different than actual results because of the decisions by the judge. Most investors understand the differences in SCOTUS justices. The same often applies to bankruptcy judges. What I heard during the recent hearings could indicate that Revlon shareholders need to worry that this judge might not be "shareholder friendly" and is not decisive enough to avoid being controlled by the BrandCo lenders. (He definitely is not a "Judge Judy".) Current Business Status Revlon filed for bankruptcy because of liquidity/high leverage and severe supply chain problems. It did not file because of a severely flawed business model that forced Sears into Ch.11. If they can reduce their debt and increase liquidity under a Ch.11 reorganization plan along with a hoped for a much-improved supply chain, they could become a very viable company. With new more creative marketing/advertising campaigns Revlon could again be a leader in their industry. Currently, it is the supply chain issues that are impacting Revlon. According to management, they were only able to fulfil about 70% of their orders at the time they filed for bankruptcy. They are paying $40.4 million on an interim basis and $79.4 million on a final basis of the $130 million accounts payable to pre-petition trade creditors. They absolutely must get needed raw materials to make their products immediately to avoid lower supplies of their 8000 different "stock keeping units". If they don't, it could negatively impact the annual retail "shelf-space allocation" in September. I find it unlikely that these supply chain issues will change enough before the September 30 deadline for filing their business plan. It looks like, in my opinion, that the BrandCo lenders want a business plan and thus a RSA, that reflects these current problems and not one that would reflect an improved operation. They want a lower enterprise valuation number so they can justify getting a larger percentage of the ownership of the new Revlon. (I am assuming that BrandCo lenders are going to attempt to get most of the new equity for their secured claims.) I expect the first indication of Revlon's current financial results will be their monthly operating report - MOR that they should be filing at the end of August for the period from their June bankruptcy filing date thru July 31. This could be a horrible report. Investors need to also remember these MORs do not follow GAAP accounting, so they need to try to make appropriate adjustments. Other Updates At this point, it looks like Mittleman is going to be using an Ad Hoc Group of Non-Insider Shareholders to advocate for Revlon shareholders because an official equity committee has not been appointed. They filed their verified statement (docket 306) that lists members Kevin Barnes owning 20,000 Revlon shares, Adam Gui owning 1,000 shares, and Christopher Mittleman owning 989,525 shares. The meaning of an "acceptable plan" was clarified during the hearings. It does not mean that the BrandCo lenders are requiring as a DIP milestone that they accept the entire plan. It means that the "acceptable" plan must include full cash payment of the DIP financing and the $939 million 1lien BrandCo financing, unless 2/3 of the holders agree to "other treatment". (I am thinking that they will try to get equity in the new Revlon as partial payment, especially since "credit bidding" was mentioned a few times during the recent hearings.)Recent updates
Aktionärsrenditen
| REVR.Q | US Personal Products | US Markt | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7D | -22.2% | -0.5% | -0.8% |
| 1Y | -98.7% | -19.0% | 27.1% |
Rendite im Vergleich zur Industrie: REVR.Q unter dem Niveau der Branche US Personal Products , die im vergangenen Jahr eine Rendite von -19% erzielte.
Rendite vs. Markt: REVR.Q hinter dem Markt US zurück, der im vergangenen Jahr eine Rendite von 27.1 erzielte.
Preisvolatilität
| REVR.Q volatility | |
|---|---|
| REVR.Q Average Weekly Movement | 31.9% |
| Personal Products Industry Average Movement | 7.7% |
| Market Average Movement | 7.2% |
| 10% most volatile stocks in US Market | 16.3% |
| 10% least volatile stocks in US Market | 3.2% |
Stabiler Aktienkurs: Der Aktienkurs von REVR.Q war in den letzten 3 Monaten im Vergleich zum US -Markt volatil.
Volatilität im Zeitverlauf: REVR.QDie wöchentliche Volatilität (32%) war im vergangenen Jahr stabil, liegt aber immer noch höher als bei 75 % der US Aktien.
Über das Unternehmen
| Gegründet | Mitarbeiter | CEO | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1932 | 5,600 | Debbie Perelman | www.revlon.com |
Revlon, Inc.'s Grundlagenzusammenfassung
| REVR.Q grundlegende Statistiken | |
|---|---|
| Marktanteil | US$3.79m |
| Gewinn(TTM) | -US$673.90m |
| Umsatz(TTM) | US$1.98b |
Ist REVR.Q zu teuer?
Siehe Fair Value und BewertungsanalyseErträge & Einnahmen
| REVR.Q Gewinn- und Verlustrechnung (TTM) | |
|---|---|
| Einnahmen | US$1.98b |
| Kosten der Einnahmen | US$835.70m |
| Bruttogewinn | US$1.14b |
| Sonstige Ausgaben | US$1.82b |
| Gewinn | -US$673.90m |
Zuletzt gemeldete Gewinne
Dec 31, 2022
Datum des nächsten Gewinnberichts
k.A.
| Gewinn per Aktie (EPS) | -12.46 |
| Bruttomarge | 57.80% |
| Nettogewinnspanne | -34.03% |
| Schulden/Eigenkapital-Verhältnis | -28.1% |
Wie hat sich REVR.Q auf lange Sicht entwickelt?
Historische Performance und VergleicheUnternehmensanalyse und Finanzdaten Status
| Daten | Zuletzt aktualisiert (UTC-Zeit) |
|---|---|
| Unternehmensanalyse | 2023/05/03 01:50 |
| Aktienkurs zum Tagesende | 2023/05/01 00:00 |
| Gewinne | 2022/12/31 |
| Jährliche Einnahmen | 2022/12/31 |
Datenquellen
Die in unserer Unternehmensanalyse verwendeten Daten stammen von S&P Global Market Intelligence LLC. Die folgenden Daten werden in unserem Analysemodell verwendet, um diesen Bericht zu erstellen. Die Daten sind normalisiert, was zu einer Verzögerung bei der Verfügbarkeit der Quelle führen kann.
| Paket | Daten | Zeitrahmen | Beispiel US-Quelle * |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finanzdaten des Unternehmens | 10 Jahre |
| |
| Konsensschätzungen der Analysten | +3 Jahre |
|
|
| Marktpreise | 30 Jahre |
| |
| Eigentümerschaft | 10 Jahre |
| |
| Verwaltung | 10 Jahre |
| |
| Wichtige Entwicklungen | 10 Jahre |
|
* Beispiel für US-Wertpapiere, für nicht-US-amerikanische Wertpapiere werden gleichwertige regulatorische Formulare und Quellen verwendet.
Sofern nicht anders angegeben, beziehen sich alle Finanzdaten auf einen Jahreszeitraum, werden aber vierteljährlich aktualisiert. Dies wird als Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) oder Last Twelve Month (LTM) Daten bezeichnet. Erfahren Sie mehr.
Analysemodell und Schneeflocke
Einzelheiten zu dem Analysemodell, mit dem dieser Bericht erstellt wurde, finden Sie auf unserer Github-Seite. Außerdem bieten wir Leitfäden zur Verwendung unserer Berichte und Tutorials auf YouTube an.
Erfahren Sie mehr über das Weltklasse-Team, das das Simply Wall St-Analysemodell entworfen und entwickelt hat.
Metriken für Industrie und Sektor
Unsere Branchen- und Sektionskennzahlen werden alle 6 Stunden von Simply Wall St berechnet. Details zu unserem Verfahren finden Sie auf Github.
Analysten-Quellen
Revlon, Inc. wird von 2 Analysten beobachtet. dieser Analysten hat die Umsatz- oder Gewinnschätzungen übermittelt, die als Grundlage für unseren Bericht dienen. Die von den Analysten übermittelten Daten werden im Laufe des Tages aktualisiert.
| Analyst | Einrichtung |
|---|---|
| Constance Maneaty | BMO Capital Markets Equity Research |
| Stephanie Schiller Wissink | Jefferies LLC |