I posted this somewhere before but it looks like it didn't stick. In their own "Report" GLAUCUS say they are short and not factual Page3: "You are reading a short-biased opinion piece. Obviously, we will make money if the price of HAIN stock declines. This report and all statements
contained herein are the opinion of Glaucus Research Group California, LLC, and are not statements of fact."
Why down? Perhaps a delayed reaction to Glaucus Research's comments from yesterday.
From Bloomberg terminal (subscription,not online version):
"Hain down; Initiate at "Strong Sell" by Short-Seller Glaucus"
"Glaucus price target: $38.
Claims childres's' tea sample contained traces of known carcinogen; tea samples tested allegedly violated U.S. pesticide standards.
HAIN didn't immediately respond to message from Bloomberg seeking comment.
Glaucus is short HAIN
In Nov., Glaucus questioned Teavana, claiming allegations about pesticides in its teas"
Either way not great press. IF there's a problem with HAIN, the key will be how HAIN handles/resonds to the situation. Of course, all of the above may be nothing. Obviously a short will do what it can to move the share price. Next week may be interesting.
Thank you. There are so many sharks out there trying to steal hard working money from people. Unreal. We should have a rule that NO ONE can short shares before publicly saying bad things about a stock. Unreal.
I read the report or blog and it seems like they focus on only a few of the brands of HAIN, not all of the brands. In addition, they do not tell you how much of traces are found and they mostly apply to things such as the green teas or flavored teas. Personally, we drink the herbal teas because with any type of Tea, you are going to find some trace of something, it is nearly impossible not to have a trace of some sort of pesticide unless you are growing it yourself indoors with purified water and soil that has been tested. I do not think that is realistic. They fail to mention anything about the growing brands under the HAIN umbrella and they try to make the point that growth through acquisition is a bad thing when clearly it is not unless you overpay for those acquisitions and then are not able to grow them.
The interests of the writer is to make the share price drop so they can gain on their short. I believe that if they had found something negative in any of the other products, they would have written about them. These short sellers are trying to replicate Ackmans battle against HLF in order to gain which should be illegal but according to the rules of the SEC, they are able to use these tactics. One interesting note, when the author refers to WWAV, the silk brand is loaded with an ingredient called Carrageenan which is equivalent to MSG which many people have a negative reaction to. To each their own, I personally think HAIN has a very good future ahead of itself.