Wrong?
About Elite being profitable when it shifted its product portfolio and (gasp) decided to sell products it was not going to commercialize? You mean the same products that their buyer has yet to commercialize?
I thought the answer Nasrat provided was logical and grounded in business acumen - they could not get insurance to cover the products! Ergo, it would be management malpractice to pursue commercialization of products for which Elite would be uninsured. Aware as I am of business risks, I believe the decision by Nasrat to be wise. The essence of business is to adapt and pursue the best avenues for growth and, ultimately, profitability. As business executives know, one of the accepted ways to do that is to avoid risks. Whether the strategy has been successful is understand the results...and we have seen them...Elite is profitable!
That Elite remains among only 40% of all small companies that are profitable should matter to investors because, as Adam Smith made clear, profitability is the purpose of being in business. (I trust we all know who Adam Smith was.) Relatedly, I see that PepsiCo decided to sell its juice business because they did not see the benefit to its profit margins. Moreover, J&J is splitting off its consumer health division because it sees better investment opportunities in its pharma & medical devices. And as far as I know, neither company asked investors for permission. I say that as someone invested in both.
Personally, I do not engage in telling investors what they should or should not do. I do not do it here or anywhere else. One of the many things I learned by being an executive with a FORTUNE 50 company is what was once said out loud by the CFO, "stay in your lane, bro!" The related translation? Investing in a business is very different than working in one and it is why investor attacks on Nasrat might provide heat but little light!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
