Loading...
REVR.Q logo

Revlon, Inc.OTCPK:REVR.Q Rapport sur les actions

Capitalisation boursière US$3.8m
Prix de l'action
n/a
Ma juste valeur
Indisponible
1Y-98.7%
7D-22.2%
1D
Valeur du portefeuille
​
Voir

Revlon, Inc.

OTCPK:REVR.Q Rapport sur les actions

Capitalisation boursière : US$3.8m

This company listing is no longer active

This company may still be operating, however this listing is no longer active. Find out why through their latest events.

Revlon (REVR.Q) Aperçu de l'action

Revlon, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells beauty and personal care products worldwide. Plus de détails

REVR.Q analyse fondamentale
Score flocon de neige
Évaluation2/6
Croissance future0/6
Performances passées0/6
Santé financière0/6
Dividendes0/6

Analyse des risques

Capitaux propres négatifs

Cours de l'action très volatil au cours des 3 derniers mois par rapport au marché US

Les revenus ont diminué de 14.6% par an au cours des 5 dernières années

A moins d'un an de piste de trésorerie

+ 3 plus de risques

REVR.Q Community Fair Values

Create Narrative

See what others think this stock is worth. Follow their fair value or set your own to get alerts.

View all narratives

Revlon, Inc. Concurrents

Historique des prix et performances

Résumé des hausses, des baisses et des variations du cours de l'action pour la période du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2009 Revlon
Historique des cours de bourse
Prix actuel de l'actionUS$0.07
Plus haut sur 52 semainesUS$10.95
Plus bas sur 52 semainesUS$0.051
Bêta1.81
Variation sur 1 mois-72.00%
Variation sur 3 mois-90.00%
Variation sur 1 an-98.74%
Variation sur 3 ans-99.38%
Variation sur 5 ans-99.65%
Évolution depuis l'introduction en bourse-99.97%

Nouvelles et mises à jour récentes

Seeking Alpha • Sep 08

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.
Seeking Alpha • Aug 24

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 ..
Seeking Alpha • Aug 09

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.
Seeking Alpha • Aug 01

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

Seeking Alpha • Sep 08

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.
Seeking Alpha • Aug 24

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 ..
Seeking Alpha • Aug 09

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.
Seeking Alpha • Aug 01

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.)
Seeking Alpha • Jul 26

Revlon: Fasten Your Seatbelts, It's Going To Be A Bumpy Bankruptcy

A hearing is currently set for July 28 for the DIP financing motion, which could be a very heated hearing. Some shareholders have requested that the U.S. Trustee appoint an official equity committee. The Official Unsecured Creditor Committee is requesting the judge to approve an additional three months beyond November 30 to create a reorganization plan. Key employees are getting retention bonuses up to a total of $15.375 million. Trading in bankrupt Revlon (REV) stock has had a bumpy ride over the last few weeks and I expect that their entire Ch.11 bankruptcy process is going to have an extremely bumpy ride because of the complexities of this case. Of course, actual Revlon future operating results are critical for stakeholders, but there are some future judicial decisions that could have dramatic impact on investors holding Revlon's debt and stock. This article is an update to my prior Revlon bankruptcy article. Official Equity Committee As expected, some shareholders filed a request with the U.S. Trustee for an appointment of an official equity committee. (Seeking Alpha broke this story on July 13.) I have reached out to the Office of the U.S. Trustee, but I have not received any official response, but since a committee has not been appointed yet, I am assuming that it was denied at this point. The next step would be for these equity holders to file a request with the bankruptcy court requesting Judge Jones to instruct the U.S. Trustee to appoint an official equity committee. Since he is a very new judge, he has no history on this issue. Official equity committees are covered under section 1102, but that section does not specifically state the requirements for an appointment. Those have been established by a long history of case law. All of the following must be met - not just most: Revlon meets these requirements Case must be large and complex. There is an active market for the stock. The stock is widely held. The request is timely. Questionable if Revlon meets these requirements The company is not "hopelessly insolvent". Shareholders cannot be adequately represented without an official equity committee. Unlikely Revlon meets these requirements Reasonable chance for meaningful recovery by shareholders. Shareholder's needs outweigh the costs. Just because an official equity committee is appointed, that does not mean there will be a recovery for Revlon shareholders. Breitburn Energy Partners had one and had fairly high-quality legal representation, but equity holders still received nothing. Horsehead Holding had one, but partially because the committee's legal representation was absolutely horrible, in my opinion, shareholders got nothing. Revlon's Stock Price Last Three Months Data by YCharts DIP Financing Motion The next real fight in this bankruptcy case will be the hearing, which is currently set for July 28 and most likely will continue to the next day, for the approval of the DIP financing motion (docket 28). I expect this will be a very intense hearing because much of the entire case rests on the issues associated with this motion. DIP Facility (docket 44) is for approximately $2 billion: 1) superpriority, senior secured and priming term DIP facility up to $1.025 billion, including a $575 million new money and $450 million refinancing for the prepetition ABL facility. 2) superpriority, senior secured and priming ABL DIP facility up to $400 million. 3) superpriority junior secured intercompany DIP Facility amount not to exceed the amount of royalty payments owed to the BrandCo entities as licensors under the BrandCo license agreements. (Implied amount of up to $575 million) The fight is between the BrandCo DIP lenders and everyone else. In 2020, Revlon transferred much of their intellectual property, including brand names, to new entities (BrandCos). These new entities received royalties under license agreements. On the surface it looks like just a bunch of inter-company payments, but these BrandCos entities issued secured debt. (I plan to cover in more detail the issues associated with these transactions in a future article.) There are many items within the DIP motion that are being fought over and I am just covering a few of them. First, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an objection (docket 239) which included a proposal to extend by at least three months the required DIP milestone period to file an RSA by November 1 and an "acceptable" plan by November 30 (to at least February 1 and early March 2023). This would allow the results of the busy holiday shopping period and the results of potential decreased supply chain problems to be factored into creation of the Ch.11 reorganization plan. (The longer the better for REV shareholders, in my opinion.) The requirement of an "acceptable" plan by BrandCo DIP lenders effectively would mean that the BrandCo DIP lenders would be in the driver's seat creating the plan. Under section 1121(b) the Debtors (Revlon) has a 120 day exclusive period to file a plan and if it is filed within 120 days, it has an automatic extension of an additional 60 days to seek acceptance of the plan. Frequently extensions are sought and given to extend the 120-day period. The Committee is trying to revise this "veto power" by the BrandCo DIP lenders. The proposed DIP does not have a carveout for paying post-petition vendors. The Committee wants a carveout to make vendors much more comfortable about being paid. I think this carveout is absolutely critical for Revlon because some vendors still might be reluctant to deal with Revlon even with being considered section 503(b)(1)((A)) administrative expense claims that have priority to being paid. The problem is that if Revlon's results get worse, they could become "administratively insolvent" and be unable to fully pay administrative expenses. Many vendors might be keenly aware of what happened to Sears Holdings (OTC:SHLDQ) post-petition vendors who agreed to a large "haircut" and are still waiting for payment for their remaining reduced 503(b) claims. Another contested item is that if there are eventually proceeds from litigation against BrandCo lenders that are being asserted by various parties or proceeds from any other litigation, the proceeds become part of the assets that secure the DIP financing. What? So, if BrandCo lenders eventually have to pay a judgement, that same cash could go right back to the BrandCo lenders. (This is our legal system at its finest - not). Of course, the Committee is against this. Key Employees Get a Retention Bonus After a hearing on July 22, Judge Jones approved (docket 281) the key employee retention plan - KERP (docket 116). This would pay approximately 160 "key" employees, who are not insiders, up to a total of $15.375 million. There were some changes from the original proposed KERP, such as the amount was reduced from $16.4 million, but the plan still implies an average payment of $96,000 per employee. This is an attempt to keep employees, but "if any KERP Participant is terminated with cause or quits without good reason prior to the earlier of the confirmation date of a plan and June 30, 2023, any KERP payments received by such KERP Participant shall be repaid" to Revlon. Two Debt Holder Groups These are members of the two primary groups that are currently involved in the bankruptcy process. It is interesting to note that some of these hedge funds own many different types of Revlon debt, including the unsecured notes.
Seeking Alpha • Jun 29

Why REV Stock Is Trending After Filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Revlon, the iconic beauty brand, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Revlon has been losing market share for years. The bankruptcy filing will give the company a second chance to restructure its debt.
Seeking Alpha • Jun 19

Bankrupt Revlon Had Massive Trading Volume Last Week - What Is Happening?

Revlon was the most active stock on Friday with over 146 million shares traded, compared to a float of just over 7 million shares. Revlon filed for Ch.11 bankruptcy late on June 15 in New York. According to a report, Indian Reliance Industries might be interested in buying Revlon. NYSE has commenced proceedings to delist Revlon. Citibank's $900 million payment error is a wildcard in potential recoveries under a Ch.11 reorganization plan.
Seeking Alpha • May 11

Mittleman Investment - Revlon: Business Rebounding From The Pandemic

Revlon's business is rebounding from the pandemic, despite its stock price continued insistence to the contrary. The Revlon brand itself performed much better in Q4 2021 than the wholesale numbers they reported would imply. A tiny float, combined with a highly leveraged balance sheet, makes Revlon one of the most volatile stocks Mittleman Investment Management (MIM) has ever owned.
Seeking Alpha • Feb 25

Mittleman Brothers - Revlon: Creeping Back Towards Normal Economics

Revlon had a brief run-up to $17.65 in early November on seemingly speculative activity. REV stock remains over-leveraged. Revlon has the proven multi-decade resilience from which a resurgence can spring.
Article d’analyse • Feb 04

Revlon (NYSE:REV) Will Be Looking To Turn Around Its Returns

When we're researching a company, it's sometimes hard to find the warning signs, but there are some financial metrics...
Article d’analyse • May 27

Shareholders May Be Wary Of Increasing Revlon, Inc.'s (NYSE:REV) CEO Compensation Package

The results at Revlon, Inc. ( NYSE:REV ) have been quite disappointing recently and CEO Debbie Perelman bears some...
Article d’analyse • May 12

Returns On Capital Signal Difficult Times Ahead For Revlon (NYSE:REV)

To avoid investing in a business that's in decline, there's a few financial metrics that can provide early indications...
Article d’analyse • Feb 08

Who Has Been Selling Revlon, Inc. (NYSE:REV) Shares?

We often see insiders buying up shares in companies that perform well over the long term. The flip side of that is that...

Rendement pour les actionnaires

REVR.QUS Personal ProductsUS Marché
7D-22.2%-0.5%-0.8%
1Y-98.7%-19.0%27.1%

Rendement vs Industrie: REVR.Q a sous-performé le secteur US Personal Products qui a rapporté -19 % au cours de l'année écoulée.

Rendement vs marché: REVR.Q a sous-performé le marché US qui a rapporté 27.1 % au cours de l'année écoulée.

Volatilité des prix

Is REVR.Q's price volatile compared to industry and market?
REVR.Q volatility
REVR.Q Average Weekly Movement31.9%
Personal Products Industry Average Movement7.7%
Market Average Movement7.2%
10% most volatile stocks in US Market16.3%
10% least volatile stocks in US Market3.2%

Cours de l'action stable: Le cours de l'action de REVR.Q a été volatil au cours des 3 derniers mois par rapport au marché US.

Volatilité au fil du temps: La volatilité hebdomadaire de REVR.Q ( 32% ) est restée stable au cours de l'année écoulée, mais reste supérieure à 75 % des actions de US.

À propos de l'entreprise

FondéeSalariésPDGSite web
19325,600Debbie Perelmanwww.revlon.com

Revlon, Inc. Résumé des fondamentaux

Comment les bénéfices et les revenus de Revlon se comparent-ils à sa capitalisation boursière ?
REVR.Q statistiques fondamentales
Capitalisation boursièreUS$3.79m
Bénéfices(TTM)-US$673.90m
Recettes(TTM)US$1.98b
0.0x
Ratio P/S
0.0x
Ratio P/E

Le site REVR.Q est-il surévalué ?

Voir Juste valeur et analyse de l'évaluation

Bénéfices et recettes

Principales statistiques de rentabilité tirées du dernier rapport sur les bénéfices (TTM)
REVR.Q compte de résultat (TTM)
RecettesUS$1.98b
Coût des recettesUS$835.70m
Marge bruteUS$1.14b
Autres dépensesUS$1.82b
Les revenus-US$673.90m

Derniers bénéfices déclarés

Dec 31, 2022

Prochaine date de publication des résultats

s/o

Résultat par action (EPS)-12.46
Marge brute57.80%
Marge bénéficiaire nette-34.03%
Ratio dettes/capitaux propres-28.1%

Quelles ont été les performances à long terme de REVR.Q?

Voir les performances historiques et les comparaisons

Analyse de l'entreprise et données financières

DonnéesDernière mise à jour (heure UTC)
Analyse de l'entreprise2023/05/03 01:49
Cours de l'action en fin de journée2023/05/01 00:00
Les revenus2022/12/31
Revenus annuels2022/12/31

Sources de données

Les données utilisées dans notre analyse de l'entreprise proviennent de S&P Global Market Intelligence LLC. Les données suivantes sont utilisées dans notre modèle d'analyse pour générer ce rapport. Les données sont normalisées, ce qui peut entraîner un délai avant que la source ne soit disponible.

PaquetDonnéesCadre temporelExemple de source américaine *
Finances de l'entreprise10 ans
  • Compte de résultat
  • Tableau des flux de trésorerie
  • Bilan
Estimations consensuelles des analystes+3 ans
  • Prévisions financières
  • Objectifs de prix des analystes
Prix du marché30 ans
  • Cours des actions
  • Dividendes, scissions et actions
Propriété10 ans
  • Actionnaires principaux
  • Délits d'initiés
Gestion10 ans
  • L'équipe dirigeante
  • Conseil d'administration
Principaux développements10 ans
  • Annonces de l'entreprise

* Exemple pour les titres américains ; pour les titres non américains, des formulaires réglementaires et des sources équivalentes sont utilisés.

Sauf indication contraire, toutes les données financières sont basées sur une période annuelle mais mises à jour trimestriellement. C'est ce qu'on appelle les données des douze derniers mois (TTM) ou des douze derniers mois (LTM). En savoir plus.

Modèle d'analyse et flocon de neige

Les détails du modèle d’analyse utilisé pour générer ce rapport sont disponibles sur notre page Github; nous proposons également des guides expliquant comment utiliser nos rapports et des tutoriels sur Youtube.

Découvrez l'équipe de classe mondiale qui a conçu et construit le modèle d'analyse Simply Wall St.

Indicateurs de l'industrie et du secteur

Nos indicateurs de secteur et de section sont calculés toutes les 6 heures par Simply Wall St. Les détails de notre processus sont disponibles sur Github.

Sources des analystes

Revlon, Inc. est couverte par 2 analystes. de ces analystes ont soumis les estimations de revenus ou de bénéfices utilisées comme données d'entrée dans notre rapport. Les soumissions des analystes sont mises à jour tout au long de la journée.

AnalysteInstitution
Constance ManeatyBMO Capital Markets Equity Research
Stephanie Schiller WissinkJefferies LLC