SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: BDR who wrote (18245)6/17/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: Whisperer!  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Agreed...CUST, XDSL, TMRT and FIND are all major dogs. Short the hell out of them while you still can. Ride them all to $0.01!!!!!!!



To: BDR who wrote (18245)6/17/1999 7:31:00 PM
From: xcr600  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18691
 
Snapple was the company. Quaker paid over 1bln, and if I recall correctly, sold it for somewhere around 300mln. Not a good investment.

btw, what's with the 3-2 split on LRW? The way it's falling, post split it will be single digits.

x



To: BDR who wrote (18245)6/18/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Mark L.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 18691
 
While I have no opinion on LRW, I do have one on Snapple. I was one of the investors who sold out to Quaker Oats (I know what you're thinking--no, I'm not worth a gazillion dollars. I had a very small piece; Tom Lee had the big piece). There is such a thing as branded premium ice tea. We proved that, and then Arizona Iced Tea proved it again. While it is true that we got a good price for Snapple, I believe that, for instance, it was more possible for Snapple to grow into its valuation than, say, Yahoo. We had fabulous demographics and wonderful sales momentum.

The difference is that Yahoo is superbly managed, and they are carefully improving and leveraging their brand recognition, while Quaker dropped the ball with Snapple. The fact that you couldn't even remember the Snapple name says it all.