^^ in investing it is critical to know when one is wrong. But in order to do that one has to know what one believe in the first place.
Usually if the basic premise of investing in a stock is because one guy said this or one analyst said that, is usually a bad idea because when things happen, which eventually it will, one doesnt know how to react. You may make five times listening to that guy and get hit big time for that one time that things go awry because people tend to get overconfident and you have no idea what to do or who bailed. And relationship bitters because ironically nobody remembers the 5 times.
Thats why i never recommend stocks to relatives after the initial few geh kiang idea when i just started out decades ago.
As for sino-grandness i am intrigued as an observer because on one hand we have 1) SHK 2) delay in IPO 3) large debt commitment 4) large working capital 5) anecdotal evidence that the drink is not widely consumed or distributed to be sizable compared to huiyan; but on the other hand we have 1) Goldman 2) non redemption of CB in sept 2014 3) TTA investment
VBs who have followed this thread knows my view, but as usual good thing about investment is one can participate and learn without tickets. VB have been following this thread pretty well and we all know the fat lady sings in June, just as we shouldn't be surprised with the rebound post oct when TTA invested.
PS GG there was already a private short selling report back in sept by Newman
(09-01-2015, 05:30 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Bounce post placement is not unexpected. Nonetheless it is a positive development but VBs should remember that the fat lady sings later in June/July which is still a binary event so strategise carefully
(30-10-2014, 10:29 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like EGM is required and with lower placement proceed without increasing size to compensate, seems company short term cashflow is not an issue ie no pressure from bondholders as of now. Trading stock now until confirmation of "show me the money" from the Thais before January. EGM will also allow vested parties to ask more questions.
I learned a new word today, "dawdle". Thank you.
To learn, is to admit faithfully a mistake, otherwise chances of repeat it, is almost a certainty.
Nothing more shameful, or damaging to one's ego, than repeating the same mistake again and again.
Chinafarmer has stated the following:
"If slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Elevan, welcome etc do not really give two hoots if the end consumer really buys them. They still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. As such the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight."
Chinafarmer's point that supermarkets do not care about sales is very hard to comprehend. Why will supermarket lets its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales?
The following article suggests that some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees when products are taken off the shelf, for not meeting sales targets: This shows that they do care about whether the items they carry are saleable or not:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/trade11223/$FILE/4_listing_fees2014.pdf
(03-03-2015, 12:22 PM)simpleman Wrote: [ -> ]Chinafarmer has stated the following:
"If slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Elevan, welcome etc do not really give two hoots if the end consumer really buys them. They still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. As such the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight."
Chinafarmer's point that supermarkets do not care about sales is very hard to comprehend. Why will supermarket lets its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales?
The following article suggests that some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees when products are taken off the shelf, for not meeting sales targets: This shows that they do care about whether the items they carry are saleable or not:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/trade11223/$FILE/4_listing_fees2014.pdf
Simpleman,
Your article just proved my point.
A supermarket will be more than willing to let its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales as:
1) "Many grocery store chains charge listing fees that cover their costs in rearranging the store shelves and the warehouse, plus the administration costs associated with adding a new product.
Supermarkets may also demand a pay-to-stay fee – (rent) on shelf space allotted. These fees depend on many variables, including potential sales volume, trade allowances, product promotion offered (e.g. samples, in-store demos, promotional pricing, co-op advertising), product category, and company size. In grocery marketing, shelf space and position are critical."
2) If the item is slow-moving and generates little sales, "Some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees. These fees are charged when products are taken off the shelf, likely due to products that do not meet agreed to sales targets."
As such, your article has provided evidence that if slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Eleven, welcome etc will still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. If the product doesn't sell well, delisting or failure fees may be charged. With such a model, will the supermarket(s) give two hoots if the end consumer really buys the product? Therefore, if the loquat has paid the relevant slotting fees, the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight.
Thank you for the article.
(02-03-2015, 06:06 PM)desmondxyz Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Cyclone can explain the rational behind? Violation of rule? 
On behalf of cyclone, a moderator log on the deletions:
Several posts were taken from another forum, and posted here in our VB over a short period. The intention was suspicious, although sharing was quoted. All the posts were negatively toned. Cyclone has taken action to delete all, except one. The action has ensured the thread was not hijacked for any reason.
I am supporting cyclone decision
Regards
Moderator CF, and cyclone
P/S: Both cyclone and me have no vested interest.
(01-03-2015, 12:44 PM)Young Investor Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. There are several companies producing loquat drinks now, with the following market shares (based on survey by Frost Sullivan):
Garden Fresh.............78.2%
Furenyuan................10.9%
Minzhong.................6.6%
Tianghai Donfang.......3.9%
Kagome...................0.2%
The fourth Loquat Tree - Frost and Sullivan
The Loquat and its supporters often mention Frost Sullivan market intelligence numbers to vouch for the loquat but fail to ask two important questions:
1) What was the survey/research methodology that Frost Sullivan employed? Did Frost Sullivan base their findings by simply collating figures from the various companies' annual reports/financial statements/ results presentations/corporate website?
2) Did the Loquat commission and pay Frost Sullivan to publish a market survey on the loquat drinks market?
Answers to the above will determine if investors should take the Frost Sullivan market survey with a huge pinch of salt.
(03-03-2015, 12:48 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2015, 12:22 PM)simpleman Wrote: [ -> ]Chinafarmer has stated the following:
"If slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Elevan, welcome etc do not really give two hoots if the end consumer really buys them. They still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. As such the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight."
Chinafarmer's point that supermarkets do not care about sales is very hard to comprehend. Why will supermarket lets its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales?
The following article suggests that some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees when products are taken off the shelf, for not meeting sales targets: This shows that they do care about whether the items they carry are saleable or not:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/trade11223/$FILE/4_listing_fees2014.pdf
Simpleman,
Your article just proved my point.
A supermarket will be more than willing to let its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales as:
1) "Many grocery store chains charge listing fees that cover their costs in rearranging the store shelves and the warehouse, plus the administration costs associated with adding a new product.
Supermarkets may also demand a pay-to-stay fee – (rent) on shelf space allotted. These fees depend on many variables, including potential sales volume, trade allowances, product promotion offered (e.g. samples, in-store demos, promotional pricing, co-op advertising), product category, and company size. In grocery marketing, shelf space and position are critical."
2) If the item is slow-moving and generates little sales, "Some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees. These fees are charged when products are taken off the shelf, likely due to products that do not meet agreed to sales targets."
As such, your article has provided evidence that if slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Eleven, welcome etc will still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. If the product doesn't sell well, delisting or failure fees may be charged. With such a model, will the supermarket(s) give two hoots if the end consumer really buys the product? Therefore, if the loquat has paid the relevant slotting fees, the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight.
Thank you for the article.
Chinafarmer
Yes, supermarkets are protected by:
(1) listing fee when it accepts an item for sales, and
(2) delisting fee if it kicks out the item for not meeting the agreed sales target.
7-Eleven in Guangdong has been selling Garden Fresh since 2012. Garden Fresh would have been out by long ago if it were selling below target.
7-Eleven in Hong Kong would have checked with its Guangdong counterpart before agreeing to take in Garden Fresh.
7-Eleven Hong Kong should have also found out how well Garden Fresh has been faring in Wellcome.
(03-03-2015, 10:01 PM)simpleman Wrote: [ -> ]Chinafarmer
Yes, supermarkets are protected by:
(1) listing fee when it accepts an item for sales, and
(2) delisting fee if it kicks out the item for not meeting the agreed sales target.
7-Eleven in Guangdong has been selling Garden Fresh since 2012. Garden Fresh would have been out by long ago if it were selling below target.
7-Eleven in Hong Kong would have checked with its Guangdong counterpart before agreeing to take in Garden Fresh.
7-Eleven Hong Kong should have also found out how well Garden Fresh has been faring in Wellcome.
Simpleman,
You have conveniently omitted "Failure Fees". The article you posted suggests that depending on retailers, failure fees may be imposed should the product choose to remain on the shelves despite being unable to meet agreed sales targets. Thus, a slow moving product may continue to stay on the shelves as long as they are able to pay listing fees and/or failure fees (if any) should they continue to sell below target.
Your article has simply reaffirmed my thesis that supermarkets do not list products just because sales are good. Their business model is not predicated upon the successful sales of a product. Thus, supporters of the loquat should not blindly believe that since the loquat drinks are listed in reputable stores, sales must be good. Hiding behind the Supermarket Loquat Tree (7 11, Jardine Matheson, wellcome, etc) to lend credibility to the loquat is flawed.
As such, your first argument that "7-Eleven in Guangdong has been selling Garden Fresh since 2012. Garden Fresh would have been out by long ago if it were selling below target." does not stand.
Your last two arguments are based on your first argument. Thus, they do not stand too.
(03-03-2015, 12:48 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2015, 12:22 PM)simpleman Wrote: [ -> ]Chinafarmer has stated the following:
"If slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Elevan, welcome etc do not really give two hoots if the end consumer really buys them. They still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. As such the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight."
Chinafarmer's point that supermarkets do not care about sales is very hard to comprehend. Why will supermarket lets its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales?
The following article suggests that some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees when products are taken off the shelf, for not meeting sales targets: This shows that they do care about whether the items they carry are saleable or not:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/trade11223/$FILE/4_listing_fees2014.pdf
Simpleman,
Your article just proved my point.
A supermarket will be more than willing to let its valuable shelf space be occupied by a slow-moving item which generates little sales as:
1) "Many grocery store chains charge listing fees that cover their costs in rearranging the store shelves and the warehouse, plus the administration costs associated with adding a new product.
Supermarkets may also demand a pay-to-stay fee – (rent) on shelf space allotted. These fees depend on many variables, including potential sales volume, trade allowances, product promotion offered (e.g. samples, in-store demos, promotional pricing, co-op advertising), product category, and company size. In grocery marketing, shelf space and position are critical."
2) If the item is slow-moving and generates little sales, "Some retailers also charge de-listing or failure fees. These fees are charged when products are taken off the shelf, likely due to products that do not meet agreed to sales targets."
As such, your article has provided evidence that if slotting fees were indeed being paid ( I do not know), 7 Eleven, welcome etc will still earn slotting fees regardless if the product is being sold. If the product doesn't sell well, delisting or failure fees may be charged. With such a model, will the supermarket(s) give two hoots if the end consumer really buys the product? Therefore, if the loquat has paid the relevant slotting fees, the argument that sales of loquat drinks must be good just because these supermarket allowed them on the shelves for a long time, bears little weight.
Thank you for the article.
China farmer
Listing fee is a one-time payment, and the new item has to meet sales target within a specified period of several months to stay on the shelf. Thereafter, the item can still be taken off if it is not selling well.
Retail outlets have no reason to keep slow-moving items that lower turnovers and consequently profits.
You may wish to check with Dairy Farm or Sheng Siong or NTUC Fairprice to learn more.