So you are going out on a ledge an saying that growth year over year will come in under 46%?
I am not quite sure where you got that your predictions equals no growth, but then again math was never your strong suit.
The only prediction that seems outlandish is the 0 port growth, not very likely.
If the sales of ports drop slightly from the last quarter and you take into account the varilease expense and the preferred dividend a loss for the quarter is not that hard to conceive.
I will be happy if they add over 15000 ports the license and transaction fees revenue beat last years total revenue for the quarter off 12,252,000 and of course it would be nice to continue being cash flow positive.
If they do report a loss for the first quarter there might be some short term pressure on the stock with another blurb about the company not meeting analysts projections.As long as the revenue and network continue to grow the long term trend should be up.
I remember reeds talking about syrup, but have not heard anything about them selling it.
If you have let me know.
My point is that Gosling is not a premium product and it is sold mostly in liquor stores and standard supermarkets.
If you can get others to bottle a syrup product the growth rate can be much greater than a brewed product.In the "premium " end of the market, all you have to do is look at Zevia and Bai to see that.
The problem Reeds has with that idea is that Reed'st has become successful despite a foolish boss, lumpy production growth and some bad advertising spends by having the best value proposition in the premium brewed part of the market.
Take the quality of the product away and you have a questionable leader, bad production and some questionable add spending.It would without a doubt be time to sell then.
Have you ever asked yourself why (ROX) Castle Brands has not benefited more in terms of revenue and profit from the growth of Gosling's ginger beer.First of all ROX does not own the Gosling name, it is in a 50% partnership with the Gosling family for the name.It is probably the only profitable part of ROX, but some of the profit is put back into promotions and advertising before the family and ROX can get their profit share out of the company.
Since the Gosling soda is a syrup based soda in a can ROX can, and does contract out the production out to another company. It appears that the bottling and much of the distribution of Goslings ginger beer is being handled by Polar beverages. Polar is one of the biggest bottling companies in the country 900,000 cases is not that big a deal for them.
As for being the best selling premium ginger beer in America , All they have to do to keep that title is tell us what makes their flavor syrup that they mix into the carbonated water better than Shweppes and Canada Dry which both outsell Goslings by quite a bit.
A week of posting back and forth with dippy about the loan for seasonal inventory where he kept claiming he understood the concept but was saying that it was not the case because this company was somehow different than every other company out there and just burned money. He had the answer, was always right and I was just a bottle counter.
Why isn't he crowing about being right?
Sales dropped and the company was only slightly profitable, so according to him there is no way they would be able to pay back any of the loan.Why isn't he on the board telling me how he told me so and the case is closed?
Huh , whats that , you say they paid back 400,000 of the loan by letting inventory drop, having AR drop more than AP and taking a little from cash, but that can't be,Nutty said it wasn't possible.
He claimed to understand seasonal inventory and even factoring but swore that this company was different and I did not understand.How could he have been so wrong?