after the end of the Q, with no replacement, is a red flag.
I've always said on this board that getting rid of mngt. would make the price soar. This is not what I envisioned.
Having CR as CEO, Chairman, CFO, and plant manager is dubious at best.
The inference is that the qtr did not go as expected. Maybe there was another one time thing that CR blames the boy wonder, linesch, for.
I dunno-no one does. I can just say that if things were swell, there wouldn't be a shake-up without a replacement.
I don't like hubris CR puts off.
If you've listened to the calls then you may know what I mean.
The stock was pumped by SA a yr ago, then it went to 3.8 in the following months.
This is definitely a show me stock. They just cant get opne qtr out cleanly.
A couple things I noticed:
On the SEC form filed Jan, 21 it is noted that James resigned Jan 6th.
On several job posting boards a CFO job was posted for Reeds on Jan 6th. I think it was James' call to resign, or else Chris would have posted a job listing earlier and had a transition period.
baldingcontrarian, you've already admitted a while back elsewhere, the PLSB message perhaps, that you had sold your position in REED. I believe the stock was around $6.50 - $7 at that time. It had since climbed close to $9 shortly afterwards. You wouldn't now be trying to talk the stock down more for some reason, would you? You know, to try to get back in, and then slowly change your tune yet again? No need to answer. I already have the info I need to make that call.
i sold at 7 to buy peix at 4. When I'm done there I will see how things shake out.
I have been very skeptical of management while being a shareholder.
Anyone who was here 2-3 Q's ago should remember.
Whether I own the stock or not I will always be honest.
CFO is still with the company at least till the end of January. No idea if he was ousted or not. Reeds stock was at one point up 800-900% over the past 2 years and this has got to be a valuable achievement any smart CFO would have to quickly use to land another job.
A big focus of the last quarter conference call was on how they could optimize marketing spend. Jim mentioned it was a "sore point" and Chris mentioned that "am I bugging Jim for this? Yes."
Some other quotes: "This year is about marketing", "grow rapidly in a way that pays for itself", "More strategic about how to errode top line", "Probably won't go beyond current spend" , "I have an analyst that is doing work on this inside the company". Chris also mentioned he wants to analyze how outside sales compares in performance to calls from HQ.
Since clearly Chris is concerned about all this financial analysis and there seemed to be friction between Jim and Chris, it seems like the departure may be focused on this issue and not an indication that the quarter was bad.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The outing of the CFO was something that needed to be done. They need a better bean counter and anyone who is interested in the company's success would welcome stringent cost controls and better ROI.
If they put a guy from Wharton in there to fill the CFO void then the stock would go up $2.00 The situation is even a bigger positive if they land a pin stripe with experience in beverage/marketing on top of Ivy. No matter how many times you diss CR, he's the genius behind product development and creating the company. The company is and will continue to do well, as they grow sales and now cleans up the Finances.
You really have no clue here. First, the CFO was not oustered, he resigned to go to another company. And second, you don't understand at all how the company works if you are putting any sort of blame on the CFO. The CEO controls everything, that's very obvious. And no, that is not a good thing, to the extent that it is happening. And a couple other things you say are pretty funny and misinformed greatly, I'll leave it at that.
I didn't know what to make of the PR. I'm not any more of a fan of this kind of abrupt change than the next guy. Still, I have puzzled over Linesch's role before -- CFO spearheading new product lines -- on a nuts-and-bolts level. Maybe someone can set me straight on that one.
Anyway I thought the commentary was interesting.
"With our sales and marketing budget close to $10 million a year and growing by $2-3 million a year, we need someone with experience evaluating that spend to help us generate the best return on investment."
The 10-Q from 11/14/2013 selling and marketing expense for the previous NINE months was about $3 million. This year the budget is almost $10 million. Am I comparing apples to apples? If so, that represents an awfully large jump - wouldn't that mean good things?
If anyone can help reconcile these numbers I would appreciate it.