Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
time will tell.
i brought it up as a direct comment to an earlier statement.
but fair enough.
with respect to the numbers, i haven't been in the weeds enough to know where JAMN is. Stopped digging through the metrics after i sold last year.
but generally, as a believer in the opportunity n a potential reinvest down the line, i wish the lesdership would just focus on one viable market, prove it, n move fwd from there. this shotgun strategy of going everywhere is just not feasible.
all of this is imo
its relevant bcz ur an owner of the company, whose value is almost entirely tied into its name.
uhh...u lost me.
it's not question about the family hurting its name, it is about whether anyone would buy out the company without full ownership of the marley coffee name. the premise is, why spend millions to build up the name only to potentially lose it to the family, who could then just take the brand, slap it on a new coffee product n run with it.
ur looking it at wrong. look at it as an investor.
you're generous.
if you think the Marley's are going to just let folks use their name, you haven't looked into how they've broken up the ownership structure for each of their various interests. any easy one to look into is why isn't Marley Mood beverages under JAMN?
they designed this as such to protect their name and to benefi from it. im not hating. i think they're smart. if i were in their position i would've done the same thing. but as an investing opportunity, we have to call it what it is.
all of this is imo
ADR fees will be assessed regardless of the pps. Might as well consider it a tax.
If there was ever an instance where politics screwed up a stock, ALBKY is it. Merkel's actions directly destroyed ALBKY. Will be interesting to see how she handles VW.
JAMN has limited value for MP. At this point, JAMN needs MP more than MP needs JAMN.
And no one is going to buy JAMN without the name. It's suicide. Why buy the company and build the brand only to have the Marley family revoke the license or hold you hostage for more money every 20 years during renewal discussions.
branding is all MC has. it is the one thing that can make MC special. it is global, because of Bob. but it has been diluted, bcz a JAMN investment only grants shareholders a limited stake in the coffee line (and only for a limited time).
all of this is IMO. glta.
have to agree with brophtron on this one. besides the two parties, no one knows the exact details of the deal. the deal could be great or it could have a clause that says in the event of a change in ownership for either party, this deal becomes null.
what is promising is MC's new distribution channel with Target.
as i've said for years, IMO, distribution traction will ultimately make or break this company.
all of his is IMO.
MC made it to my local target.
here are some thoughts:
the bag size is larger than the bag sizes at safeway n molly stones. the bag size change effectively equals a new product, which is smart, because it protects safeway/molly from target n secures a different rev stream for MC. if MC gets into costco, i would expect an even larger bag size.
i also came across marley mood beverage drinks at a local fresh n easy. marley mood is a different company than MC. still pissed that the family has split up its ventures. it's smart for the fam in the short term (lower cap requirments = lower risks), but sucks for investors and the fam in the long run.
all of this IMO. glta.
fair question.
the answer lies in the capital restructure plan that was executed a year or so ago. that plan leads us to where we are today. alpha's balance sheet is strong (relative to its peers), because of it. the plan brought in the kind of institutional investors that are necessary for long term growth for the company (and the country), but it also curtailed pps growth because it used warrants to lock in the investors.
the answer also lies in overall market size. ratios are important, but alpha is in greece not the united states. ratios vs. raw numbers.
the final answer lies in politics. alpha's future is tied to germany's whims. in a twist, the worse gernany's economy does in the near future, the better it'll be for alpha. germany has been holding up QE and the sooner they realize they need it too, the better it'll be for europe.
glta. all of this IMO only.
fyi: marley natural n privateer holdings. there goes that pivot.
glta.
http://www.privateerholdings.com
all of this is IMO only
yea, unfortunately, we're in a different phase now. the s&p's outlook would've moved the stovk significantly a year ago. today, it boils down to germany, ukraine, n the ecb. i'm bullish, but time will tell. glta!
all of this imo only
it is. there are larger issues now, however. most of it is centered on the ecb's ability to execute a QE policy n on whether germany will play along. i believe it'll happen. time will tell.
all of this IMO only
the settlement is predicated on having sealed documents. who knows what they'll do now. can be the dumpster or the moon for stakeholders.
the settlement, the one that hinged on the sealed docs, was, imo, actually extremely favorable to longs. mostly because of the 150m subordination of apple's interest. in the short term, stakeholders take a hit, but eventually recoup lost equity as the company gets its act together. the 150m was key, because it equals time for the company.
fwiw, i suspect no one will come out looking very good. apple will likely get tangled in a political n tax related nightmare and gtatq management will look like idiots for agreeing to a monopsony (google it).
all of this is IMO only
quotes we're the previous article posted earlier by a fellow member. link follows:
http://www.nhbr.com/October-31-2014/In-new-affidavit-GTAT-says-it-was-tempted-by-a-bad-Apple-deal/
good article. per the article, this seems to capture the pros and cons of the deal with apple:
"In addition, GTAT would be able to remain at the Arizona plant rent-free for at least a year, and Apple would allow GTAT to borrow $150 million, without claiming first dibs on that money as a secured creditor. [imo: great]
The agreement also says GTAT would be able to concentrate on its old business of selling furnaces, even to Apple’s competitors and avoid an “enormous distraction” battling “one of the largest corporations in the world." [imo: smart]
Finally, Apple agreed to vote for Chapter 11 plan, so that GTAT can emerge sooner from bankruptcy." [imo: not so good for existing shareholders, because of time n potential losses from ch 11]
all of the above is IMO only
thanks, grow. appreciate it. will comtinue to monitor.
glta.
i agree that the extra costs associstrd with packaging and shipping, but assuming the raw materials are excess, it's the price they have to pay to develop another distribution channel.
imho, ultimately, MC's survival will depend on its ability to develop a brand n it'll depend on its distribution. they've chosen the latter model as a means to create value, which is analogus to facebook/insert any social media company's model. value isn't always predicated on numbers. many social media companies have gained enormous value by arguing that what matters is eyeballs--that is, the number of visitors n the potential thst they can create off of that.
time will tell.
all of this is imho
interesting views.
don't agree with #1, because it goes against apple's model. apple designs, invents, n innovates. it does not manufacture.
don't agree with #2, because saphire glass is an evolution not a revolutionary innovation. whether appke is first to use it or not, its impact on demand will be minimal.
agree with #3 n #4. google: monopsony.
all of this is IMO only.
making a lot of assmptions here. the beans/roast could just as easily be excess production from jamn. translating to no extra cost and no immediate top line growth, but develops a new distribution line for the company.
really, i don't mind your perspective, but each time you respond, it reminds me of b-scool. in b-school, peers are caregorized into different categories. those who are ceo/entrepreneur types. those who are cfo types. those who are controller types (not worthy of cfo categories, because they're pretty much just bean counters). and middle managers.
without fail, when responding, those in each category will see things through their own prysms. your responses are consistently in the ______ category. to see which category you're in, here's a simple question. you're now the ceo of jamn. how would you grow the company?
all of this is imo only.
new to this board. cash flow positive, patents, stock repurchases, global distribution, n a market that is potentially 1/2 if the world. why hasn't it ran? demand, competition?
all of this is imo only
we're going to need to agree to disagree.
all of this is imo only
when purchasing a new product, consumers aren't comparing remington to MP; they're comparing each to keurig. 100% of each company's strategy needs to be on the market leader. if they're focused on each other, it'll be a race to the bottom. here's an example:
it would be like southwest (as a new entrant) coming in and deciding to compete against alaska airlines instead of united. if your focus is on alaska, which, let's say has only two major routes (anchorage to honolulu n anchorage to seattle), you would directly create routes from anchorage to those other cities. since alaska only has those two routes, you effectively force alaska to directly combat you--you find yourself in a price war immediately, which destrpys your margin n puts u in a winner take all fight immediately. while all of this is going on, united expands n laughs.
on the other hand, if ur focus is on united, ur firced to innovate. united has scale n distribution n legacy fliers. what do u do? in southwest's case, they went to second cities where major carriers did not operate. they flew out of oakland n oklahoma city. this allowed them to create a base, scale, n gain legacy fliers. at the same time, alaska was doung its thing. in a few yrs united finds itself having to compete against alaska n southwest, they start flying out of second cities to do so, n find their once loyal flier base is no longer so loyal.
all of this IMO only.
ur perspective makes sense if both companies were penetrating the market. they're in a developmemt phase. when developing a market your aim needs to always be on the market leader. why spend resources against a new entrant (like yourself) when neither of u may be around in three years?
also, it may be better to collabprate when possible with other competitors--doing so insures tgat if the competitor gains traction n ur new product does not, u have laid the early groubdwork for ur products to be a part of remington's cup options?
further, it makes sense from a product adoption perspective. the quicker the product becomes a commodity, the less leverage the market leader has.
all of this is IMO only
one of the first things a strategy course teaches is that the biggest opporrunities stem from a crises or a change.
mj legalization has been changing. starting with mmj than states based legalized mj n eventually/hopefully to federal legalization.
i disagree with you in that i do not see federal legalization as the beginning of the 3rd craze. i see that as the beginning of the first blue chip phase n the end of the mj penny phases.
this is so, bcz fubdamentally the markets are about raising capital--through stocks or bonds. the penny market plays a couple of different roles in heloing companies to raise funds. for fallen angels, it is a last resort. for some, the penny space, sadly, is a vehicle for manipulation. n for others it is the only access to outside capital. mj stocks, fundamentally speaking only, falls into the third category.
like any emerging sector, there will be thousands of mj companies. eventually there will be a few big players in each niche of the sector. most of the big players will buy out others in the space and/or will be putchased by the established players in the tobacco n alcohol spaces when mj is federally legalized (kicking off the blue chip phase).
all of this is IMO only
market share.
an enemy of my enemy is my friend. MP's battle is with keurig not remington. MP n remington's machines will survive if they can each take market share from keurig.
allowing (encouraging? facilitating?) jamn's partnership with remington strengthens a competitor against keurig, which forces keurig to battle multiple fronts. it also lays the ground work for future collaboration n using jamn to do so not only strengthens jamn, it is completely free of collusion due to the less than 10% ownership.
all of this is imo only
understand your concern. alstock n i go back on a different company, so i do not view his message the same way as you do. ultimately, its up to potential investors to research n decide for themselves. it's early, so i'm just doing DD, which will take some time given my focus is on a diffferent play at this time.
all of this is imo only
thx for ur feedback.
without having done much DD, i can't answer many of the quantitative questions. likely won't be much though given where the company is in its formation.
qualitatively, i'm looking at it as a potential investor, one who hasn't had to endure the dilution. it's appealing bcz it is in a state where the laws may be changing, it is in a space where traditional vice companies (alcohol n tobacco companies) cannot play due to the laws, n it is round 3 of the mj craze--where manufactured runs will be less the reason for runs n where, imo, runs will be predicated on legit plays.
in general, i find it funny when folks throw numbers n ratios into the discussion when discussing pennies. now, i agree that numbers n ratios are important n are the language of investors, but their importsnce are minimized in pennies. pennies are pennies for a reason.
with all of that said, still thinking things through. time will tell n glta.
all of this is imo only.
hey alstocks,
got your messsge. do not have premium, so can't reply.
all is well n hope the same for u.
new to this board. will read up on everyone's comments n DD this company. looks promising thus far.
motion
good article. per the article, this seems to be key:
"The refinancing may provide the retailer with enough leeway to close a larger number of underperforming stores, helping the company consume less cash. RadioShack creditors blocked a plan earlier this year to shut 1,100 stores, forcing the retailer to limit the closings to as many as 200.".
RSH's ability to increase their cash flow runway will make or break this company. looser restrictions = less stores = longer runway.
the deal effectively replaces RSH's former creditor (GE) with Standard General and SG's creditor partners. allows old investor to exit, new investors to buy-in for peanuts, n to try to turn it around.
time will tell.
all of this IMO only.
RadioShack Agrees To Financing Plan http://online.wsj.com/articles/radioshack-agrees-to-financing-plan-with-hedge-fund-standard-general-1412337522
seems to be directly related to MP's battle with keurig. seems strategy is to combat keurig by partnering with competitors (remington's new machine) to take away market share from keurig. MP is using MC to do so.
interesting.
all of this is IMO.
the per store velocity can be explained if they've indeed dropped the distribution from 10k to 5k stores. drop the losers, stay with the stores with traction, sales per store increases.
i'm not as worried about the actual sales per day. distribution nullifies low sales per day at each location.
i am intrigued by the distribution attrition though. they're likely doing so to save on costs, which further validates my fear that they're positioned for one exit only.
speaking of which, most of the packages that i have, have rowan's picture on it. as an investor, i would've prefered they keep it under rohan's identity. tweak it to keep it outside of bob's brand. it is possible to do so, bcz marley is a common surname. its near impossible to trademark a global surname.
going from non-exclusive to an exclusive, but limited (to 15 yrs; negotiable 3x) agreement provides more value, but limits the company to effectively one exit--it needs to thrive as a standalone entity.
all of this is IMO
lots of things to think through, but brand velocity vs. top line growth isn't one of them. the growth is 27%. 2X brand velocity can be explained by new stores. the distribution has exploded. many of the tail end stores may have minimal sells when they first opened. doesn't take much to go from 500 buys to 5000 buys, so it is easy to see how they can get a 2X velocity per store when factoring in tail end distribution growth.
i know what you're hinting at and i agree it is key. distribution attrition is the worse possible thing for JAMN, but your velocity n growth indicators are dead ends.
had been wrapping up b-skool last few years, so i've been a bit pre-occupied. havent been able to do the kind of DD that i need to do. just noticed that in 2012 MC entered a 15 year (renewable) exclusivelicense agreement to use the Marley name. if i recall correctly, the brand used to be under rohan's identity. the picture is rowan and not bob. wondering if it made much sense to pivot to bob, because licenses have limited value and really, imo, limit MC to one exit option.
all of this is IMO.
so whats the pivot here? conferences, shell company, VC proxy?
agree that the EV idea seems to be a long way off.
just read saleen's 10k. would think the largest issue is whether they'll be able to sell vehicles directly over the internet.
all of this is imo.
yea, i'm just doing DD right now. no intent to jump in yet. thx for the feedback.
all of this is imo
thanks, fredvestor. i can likely figure it out, but was hoping someone had done so. it looks like their overall net margin is negative $6m for the latest 10k and the diluted eps is -$.09, which makes sense because it aligns with the low share price.
numbers aside, i'm intrigued by saleen and am trying to make sense of why they're doing a Tesla model.
on some levels, it makes a whole lot of sense. it's a premium car, has premium customers, and will likely net a high(er) margin (hence the orignal question; will the tesla model net a greater margin than those in the past?).
on the other hand, i see at least ten Teslas a day (i work in silicon valley). most have these ugly electric vehicle stickers on them (stickers to access the carpool lane), some are already beat up, because they're commuting vehicles, and i think, very few owners are car folks, who would buy a saleen version (most are techie nerds; are VCs with money to burn).
but beyond Tesla, Saleen has some brand potential. just not sure how and where they can take it.
thoughts?
all of this imo
i'm new here. historically, what kind of net margins does the company make per car?