What it states is that companies like RMIL will have to deal with the marketing prowess and power of PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Nestle' in a increasingly commoditized market for bottled water.
True, but they have the better, cheaper product and small companies have been beating BIG ones for a long time. I remember this small little company named microsoft that took on the HUGE IBM, and the small little gateway 2000, that took on the HUGE COMPAQ.
RMIL is unlikely to have their new bottling plant on line before Summer, 1998 and thus no earnings. However, they will have operational charges against earnings(if any), and then they will have to transport this product farther to market than those closer to major markets. (or else sell to a lot of foreign firms where costs are less relevant)
Those closer to major markets are also closer to the wastes and pesticides of those major markets, Perrier has been transporting from France for years and Coke and Pepsi will need to PURIFY that water and that in turn makes their costs go up, not true in Ten Sleep.
They will have to transport to California, which consumes 33% of the market, against perrier, which must transport from France.
And did you not read my earlier post, the Asians are very interested, and why not, remember Linda LIANG (which sounds asian to me) they would probably rather buy from a small company with an Asian they know than some huge behemoth they do not trust.
Most of all, to have their products carried in various markets or convenience chains, special "arrangements" will have to be made with these stores in order to convince them to carry RMIL products over those of the bigger producers. (We all know that incentives are paid by large producers of commodity food items to supermarkets in order to carry their products exclusively.)
Small companies with superior ideas, services, or products have been beating huge behemoths since the dawn of the industrial age.
And so far as I have seen, the RMIL/RMCW merger was contingent on $5 million in financing which no one has yet seen, although an agreement has allegedly been penned. So you have a company which will likely not be profitable until next summer at best. I would feel much better about the chances of a short squeeze were this a company returning to profitability, but it is bleeding money from every orifice and will continue to do so for some time. And then you will have to assess the effects of dilution.
It is like I have said earlier, I am buying into that PURE product, managers have come and gone (not that I am saying there is anything wrong) but the product always shines through in the end, whereas the best management in the world can only polish a terd for so long before the company dies.
Shades, people do short squeezes because a unvalued company has been unfairly beaten down in the marketplace or the company is returning to profitability and the shorts haven't felt the need to cover. They don't have much chance of success with a company that can't figure out what they want to do, garment fabrication or bottled water, nor meet some sense of financial stability and operational progress.
You may have had a valid point with OVIS and their garments, but when the PURE water entered this deal I was in it for far more than a short squeeze, we are in a market that Coke and Pepsi realizes they will have to enter, because even with all the marketing dollars in the wolrd, when it comes to peoples health, you can only mislead them for so long, unless you are TopCat of course.
RMIL is a poor candidate for any of these things and one only has to look at the public filings and press releases and use deductive logic to understand the worthiness of investing large amounts of money into the company. And someone will be left holding the bag eventually. Those who have bought in early are already profitable, but those who bought at $3-4/share are seeing serious deficits. It will take serious fundamental change, (like seeing $10 million ACTUALLY show up in an account) to make this puppy go higher.
A company with a PURE product may take awhile to defeat blunders, learn from their own mistakes, and take on the big boys, but in the end it is the product that wins or loses the game, no matter how much marketing you throw at it. Look at the entire water sector, it is growing, look at that company vermont pure you nays posted a story about, they went from 1 dollar a share to 4 bucks now, PURE water is the life giver and even Coke and Pepsi with all their huge billion dollar marketing schemes know you can only fool the public for so long and that we all want to live longer, healtheir lives, so they are getting in where the futre dollars are going to be.
Good luck, shades... but remember that RileyG didn't seem to place the same spin on those last two paragraphs as you did. Hence, one more example of selective truth on his part.
I do not know about that, but I do know that your lead nay Mike Kugler has been shown to be in error 2 times and make incorrect inferences which would have been easily affirmed, and this man is supposed to be a supervisor in this game, ask yourself Ron, what is he hiding, for cetainly his DD could not be that bad in the position he is in. |
