Reply to Mr.Monski,#490, point by point.
Q. "Ever think it is funny the management has NO experience in this business?"
A. No more funny than when I remember Alexander Graham Bell who was a teacher of deaf students who got into the business of developing the telephone which we use every day.
Also no more funny than an unexperienced computer techie who wanted to sell software, named Bill Gates who along with Paul Allen began a teeny weensy company called Microsoft. Have you heard of them?
My point is that inexperience, even if it is true for MILK, is not prima facie evidence that the company is in trouble. While there are many more examples of FAILURE than SUCCESS in start-up companies, usually there are objective evidences of trouble. I have not yet seen those objective evidences. I stress "objective".
Q. "Ever think its (sic) funny how the stuff is supposdely (sic) carried all over the world yet it isnt (sic) reflected in the sales firgues (sic)?"
A. I was under the impression that your and Nijad's problem with Say Yes! is that there is little to no financial data available. How then do you know what is and is not included in the sales figures? Additionally, I have not heard that Say Yes! has contracts over seas yet. It's in the plan, but not reality yet ... as far as I know. Therefore I would have to say, "No" I don't think it's funny as your question asks.
Q. "Can you explain the 1 cent insider stock sold around Jan.'96?"
A. I have no data on this other than what you have mentioned. On the other hand, I am not sure this is even something to be worried about. If there is a problem with this, explain it to us.
Q. "Can you explain why a company thats (sic) LOSING $$ would spend SO much money on promoting its STOCK rather than its product?"
A. First, I reiterate that you seem to know quite a bit about the company's financial records, right down to the relative amount it is spending on promotions of one type or another. The very thing you are claiming you don't have access to (financial records) is the same thing you NEED to have in order to base this question on.
Secondly, the links that I posted yesterday in this thread, which admittedly were written last Summer, show that a PROFIT is expected for 1996 and 1997. I don't call a profit a loss. I too, look forward to more current numbers and I plan to evaluate my position when they do come.
Thirdly, I have seen a lot of promotions by third parties of this stock, and some by the company itself. I think your hyperbole "SO much money" is unfounded. I have seen a lot more of product promotions than I have of stock promotion.
Lastly, promotion of the stock, if it happens at all, is probably a (misguided?) attempt to move the stock into a position so that it can be listed on the NASDAQ, which Say Yes! wants to do this year, if all goes well. This is just my guess.
Q. "Can you explain why no LARGE dairies are hooking up with Say Yes?"
A. I can give you my opinion, for what it's worth. Large dairies have large sales volumes and many clients. They therefore must be very cautious to changes. Large companies in general are not as likely to accept changes as small ones, and are even less likely to be used as "guinea pigs" for someone else's product. Large companies would see the risks as potentially jeoprodizing their existing market position.
Small companies, on the other hand, are more likely to entertain the diversity in their product line, to spend some time evaluating the new product, and to take the risks needed to increase market share.
Lastly, in this strategy, the successes obtained from small dairy contracts become the very evidence that larger dairies need to take the steps required to add this new product to their line also.
Q. "Do you REALLY think everything here is on the up and up?"
A. You are asking me for my opinion, and that is what I will give you. Based on the evidence currently available to me, I believe that this company is both legitimate and actually doing quite well for its first year in existence. |
