most marketing expense is and should be pushed down to resellers
also, CTHR's cost basis is extremely highly variable, so reducing the price point to fit the product above CZ, but below true synthetic diamonds will not be counter-productive....it will in fact be quite productive....you don't get reduced margins when you have 40 employees, the product is manufactured off site and is sold by resellers who bear a great deal of advertising $$
have you actually studied this company????.....does not seem like it given your silly comments
Yes, I have studied this company that lost $2,258,000.00 in the last year. A 1 quarter gain of 665K, and 3 quarters of huge losses.
My arguments are sound, not silly. Arguments contrary to mine are silly.
This company is a manucturer of artifical gemestones, not a jeweler or a jewelry store. Their advertising is to jewelers, not raw public. Though I have seen some jewelery with their name on it, not sure what happened with that.
I agree that the product has value, but disagree with misleading customers and investors with hype and questionable tests and examples, such as:
Burning diamonds at 1100 degrees with oxygen pumped in. Air is about 80% nitrogen. If the used pure nitrogen instead, the diamond would remain at higher tempuratures long after the moissanite decomposed.
You know what would convince me on the stock buyback, I would like to seen an announcement as to how many shares have actually been bought back and how much was paid.
<<< Their advertising is to jewelers, not raw public.>>>
That is what they have done, and it has failed. It produced some sell-in, but not sell-through. Why ? Because they did not generate consumer demand to drive the system, they failed to create awareness among consumers.
<<<what would convince me on the stock buyback>>>
The only potential justification for any buy backs, is if it was absolutely necessary to keep the stock listed for now, and can be followed with business execution that will ensure that the stock will appreciate greatly.
<<<most marketing expense is and should be pushed down to resellers>>>
Not when you have an unknown product and brand, and need to develop that awareness and brand among consumers before there is retail share for retailers to fight over.
With diamonds, everyone is aware, and coop money to retailers can be effective in making deals with retailers. But with moissanite, it is first critical that consumers be made aware, to generate consumer demand.
<<<reducing the price point to fit the product above CZ, but below true synthetic diamonds>>>
It seems like you don't understand moissanite. Or you are brainwashed about diamond. "true synthetic diamonds" ? "True" synthetic diamond is the exact same thing as mined diamond. Same substance. Only difference is in the minds of the marketers selling mined diamonds, and in the minds of those consumers brainwashed by the D marketers. Synthetic D is priced lower to try to steal some share, because synthetic D does not have any uniqueness, it is just regular old D.
More importantly, moissanite is BETTER than diamond. The data exists to prove it. Measurable properties that are desirable in jewels. Moissanite beats diamond. In any event, C&C must market moissanite as THE BEST fine jewel. And as such, the current prices are a great value. The price should NOT be lowered. It will not help to lower the price.
Moissanite is NOT a "tweener" jewel. Moissanite is the top quality jewel, with data to prove it. The fact that the price is lower than D is just a pleasant surprise (and also due to D being artificially inflated in price).
<<<have you actually studied this company???>>>
Since BEFORE the IPO. Every detail. Every move they made/make.
P.S. I don't post (or read) often on these yahoo boards anymore. So don't expect consistent discussion from me here.