% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Message Board

dogma_blade 72 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 29, 2016 1:36 PM Member since: Feb 16, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 22, 2016 9:49 PM Flag

    Between April 2014 and January 2016 US production has actually dropped 570,000 bpd.If the amount of drop in production has been speeding up the farther into the price drop we go there is a chance for the price to come back in the second half of the year.If the drop in production sticks to a decrease of about 27,000 bpd each month it will be awhile before the bottom is reached.

    The numbers of rigs being pulled from all types of drilling and the 50% drop in oil being shipped by rails at a few of the railroad companies could make people hopeful.

    Everything probably would have bottomed out if Libya's production had not dropped from 1.4 million bpd to .4bpd during the civil war and all bets are off if they find a way to reboot production.

  • dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 22, 2016 9:41 PM Flag

    Oil refinery shutdowns are a trader play and have nothing to do with real supply and demand, especially in the current situation.

    Refineries order less oil.
    Customer demand on end of supply chain does not change at all.
    If there is a need supplies of already refined oil are drawn on and replaced when the refineries go back on line.

    The refinery slowdowns will have no effect on where oil is in 6 months.

  • Reply to

    Turdpak was sued using MMIF id

    by davebodee Feb 17, 2016 3:30 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 18, 2016 10:36 AM Flag

    Why is everyone talking about a lawsuit from over 6 years ago?

    I know Fat Mikey wants to remember the last time he was right about the company.

    The lasty few times he has tried to whine about the pay at the company there has been the sound of silence as the pay is now in line with the executive pay. Last month he had to flat out lie to try and make it seem as though the executive pay at USAT was much closer to the pay at Crane than it actually was.

    If you want to talk about lawsuits. How is the big class action suit from last fall coming. Were they even able to find enough people who lost any money on the stock?

    If I remember you were calling for big massive expenses from the suit!!!!!! HAHAHAHA

  • Reply to

    We have been here before...

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 17, 2016 9:34 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 17, 2016 4:54 PM Flag

    How cryptic and spooky whooooooo!

    Oh wait a minute the post said nothing. Whatta putz !!!!!

  • Reply to

    We have been here before...

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 17, 2016 9:34 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 17, 2016 4:53 PM Flag

    The board secretary getting her knickers in a bunch.

    Of course or is it coarse, she is completely unable to address any numbers and is completely at a loss to explain the continued increase in stock price.

    Stick with the high school debate book tactic, redirect and attack when you got nothing left to play. HAHA

  • Reply to

    We have been here before...

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 17, 2016 9:34 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 17, 2016 1:59 PM Flag

    Look at the myopic dipshiat missing the whole point as usual.

    He was probably just waiting for someone to post so that he could go into a long monologue.

    My post addressed the foolish statement

    "We have been here before..."

    My first reaction was to ask if you were a friend of little stevie at one time because you used the term "we", which to you of course is code for Malvern insider.

    My point was of course that the stock never was anywhere near 400 a share and the company as a whole is in fact worth more than 10 times what it was in 2000.

    Since the company is now able to pay for it's growth without the big dilution the stockholders are finally benefiting from the companies growth.

    It is very fitting that you are posting this on the 10 year anniversary of the 1 for 100 split. It has been 10 years since the company was issuing stock like crazy to finance the growth. That might be why the stock is up over 100% in the last five years.

    You know as well as I do that the increase in stock price is going to have a negative impact on reported numbers for the third quarter. Last quarter the stock rose .24 and the non cash negative from the change in the warrant value was 1.2 million.So far this quarter the stock is up .79 , if the number of options and warrants has not changed and the stock stays in this area until the end of March the negative dollar amount for the warrants could break 3 million.This would make it appear that the loss has increased without having any real effect on cash flow.

    That of course is why the stock rose this quarter even though you were whining about the loss. Everyone knows the change in value of options and warrants is a non cash item.

    Keep screaming and yelling, as long as the charges and lease part of the numbers keep growing over 20% the trend will continue to be up.Take advantage of any significant pullback as a buying opp.

  • Reply to

    We have been here before...

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 17, 2016 9:34 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 17, 2016 12:30 PM Flag

    In fact the stock did not break 5 in 2000 and ended the year at 1.13

    In the 10k that year there were only 10.5 million shares in place, putting the value of the whole company under 15 million. Because of the dilution and reverse split those share are now only about 105,000 of the total shares outstanding.This accounts for less than 1/3 of 1% of the shares outstanding. It is not even possible for many current shareholders to be among the group of unfortunate stock holders from 2000.

    On the bright side the total value of the company has gone from under 15 million to 140 million and stockholders are finally gaining as the company no longer needs to issue shares of stock to finance the growth

  • Reply to


    by jewelrymiser Feb 12, 2016 3:14 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 12, 2016 3:53 PM Flag

    Today WLL bonds downgraded and a talking head showed up on CNBC talking about the risk of default in oil companies and the company he talked about the most was Whiting. Ha claimed that there was a 14% chance whiting would default within the year.

    The analysis sounded like it was based on the ability to roll or refi debt. There was no talk of price level of oil needed for companies to be ok.

  • Reply to

    The Numbers???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 12, 2016 9:33 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 12, 2016 12:05 PM Flag

    Are you busy repeating yourself?

    You really are running out of ammo and have nothing left but lies to post.

    The reason that i do not post as often on this board is that I am not camped out here like you are and since I made my trades and am out of the stock I have no reason to watch as closely as if I was still invested.

    Unlike you I can admit I got out too early and missed out on a large part of this run up. If the stock ever pulls back enough I will look at possibly re entering.

    As I posted before, possibly in the June quarter when the revenue increase will be smaller because of the spike in sales of ports last year when the money was made available.If it never comes back to my buy point I will find somewhere else to invest.

    enjoy your twisted obsession with this company. I will come back to see what new ID you start using when the stock breaks the 10 mark.

  • Reply to

    The Numbers???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 12, 2016 9:33 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 12, 2016 11:40 AM Flag

    Look at the desperation and the lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA

    The company had positive cash flow and the change in the value of the options, a non cash event, is the only reason the company did not report a profit. If the stock continues to rise the same thing is going to happen in the short run. It has no effect on real profit.

    Here is my favorite though

    "Average e-Port produces $200.54 in cashless revenues per year"

    Even 3 quarters ago when he was trying to make it look as though the majority of ports were not profitable the top third had 3477 in revenue per year and the bottom 2/3 were producing 213 .How did the average revenue for all ports drop to 200 when the revenue is rising faster than the number of ports? The answer is it isn't.

    138,000,000 divided between 369,00 comes to 373.98 per port for the quarter, times four gives you 1495.92 per port for the year.

    I am sure if the ports were only producing 200.54 a year the way fat mikey wishes, the stock would be introuble.

  • Reply to

    so the great disruptor is at 52 week lows

    by netprophecy2 Feb 9, 2016 11:39 AM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 11, 2016 12:39 PM Flag

    Do you think before you post??????

    OK, Reed's is based in Los Angeles. What cross town rival are you talking about??

  • dogma_blade dogma_blade Feb 9, 2016 12:31 PM Flag

    So you are actually trying to say that USAT has over 75% of the market?

    Less than 8% of 6 million machines is 480,000 ports.
    USAT's 369,000 ports at the end of 2015 would put it somewhere between 75 and 80% of the market.

    That seems a little high to me, but when you are desperately trying to make numbers that appear good seem bad You are bound to look like a fool with many of the more grand desperate claims.

44.845+3.755(+9.14%)10:00 AMEDT