Recent

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Message Board

dogma_blade 73 posts  |  Last Activity: May 20, 2015 3:28 PM Member since: Feb 16, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 2, 2015 9:58 AM Flag

    Not the case, in the 60 minutes bit they tested Lowe"s, LL and Home depot product.Only LL product tested above the California/federal standard.

    Chinese were very open about being willing to help a company cheat.60 minutes sent in undercover producers posing as potential buyers. All of the factories said that they could produce to the California standard , but it would cost more, they added that they had no problem producing to a lower standard, for less money and slapping on a label that said the product met the standard.

  • Reply to

    COMPLETE SOLUTION...

    by michael_moore_is_fat Mar 2, 2015 9:34 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 3, 2015 7:35 AM Flag

    For someone claiming not to be short this stock, this run up sure has you running around like a chicken with their head cut off.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 3, 2015 5:07 PM Flag

    Great point!!!

    Company only had negative 5,000 in total cash flow from operations over the last 4 quarters, not bad.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 4, 2015 5:43 PM Flag

    2 years running.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 5, 2015 9:15 AM Flag

    Why????????

    There is no reason to break out the number, just because the stock going up seemed to cause you to lose your shiat.

    As I have been saying all along, if sales continue to rise at over 15% things will be fine.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 5, 2015 8:17 PM Flag

    yes.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 6, 2015 8:29 AM Flag

    Lets see, 3 more quarters acting like the last 2 and they will have over 6 million to draw down on the credit line and will have so much inventory on the books that they will not have to order new equipment for the next few quarters.

    Oh yeah the revenue will also be over 14 million a quarter.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 6, 2015 9:56 AM Flag

    Using your own numbers. Charge for port 11 a month times 4 years is 528 dollars.

    Using that math adding 20,000 ports would cost over 10.5 million.Are you using that new math, where numbers don't need to add up and you can pull s out of your a.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 6, 2015 11:12 AM Flag

    you are truly losing your grip on reality.

    Little high school debate boy resorting to calling people names because he cannot handle the truth.

    The reality is that the network they have built is profitable.Revenue is rising and the cash burn is shrinking.

    Keep doing the cut and paste of the cash flow from operations for the last 4 quarters, other than trying to convince yourself about your own delusion you might convince someone who is too lazy to look at what brought those numbers about.

    Trying to sell is as an operational trend is the act of a class a d-bag.

  • Reply to

    THINGS ARE SO MUCH BETTER???

    by michael_moore_is_fat Feb 24, 2015 2:44 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 6, 2015 3:05 PM Flag

    According to your own useless numbers the "cash burn" over the last 4 quarters is only 5,000 dollars.

    Why is the number so low?

    Because cash flow from operating activities is not the real cash burn number.

    The reason for that is that it includes CFO,CFI and CFF.

    The cash flow from financing made the numbers rise in the first 2 quarters from the sale leaseback.

    In the last 2 quarters cash flow from investing increased inventory numbers, add paying the debt and lease obligations down and the negative numbers show up.

    While the real cash flow was worse than the loss off 50,000 over the last four quarters, you might want to take a look at the cfo, backing out debt repayment to get a real idea of how things are going

  • I see the village idjutrs keep braying about how the funds buying the stock are "index fund".

    If that were the case, how would that be bad?

    More importantly what indexes is USAT included in?

    Seems like more of the misdirection high school debate team bs that the fools are used to braying.

  • USAT five year return 104.39%
    PAY five year return 77.01%

    That must be why he wants to go back over 10 years to look at results.

  • Reply to

    Fat Mikey wants to compare PAY to USAT results.

    by dogma_blade Mar 18, 2015 9:53 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 19, 2015 10:00 AM Flag

    If you go back 5 years you will probably see Pays cash flow improvement pretty close to the 20% from the 2 years listed, but will USAT's go from an over 20% improvement to over 100%?

    The fact is that USAT stock has outperformed PAY over the last 5 years.

  • Reply to

    USAT in index funds???????????

    by dogma_blade Mar 18, 2015 5:25 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 19, 2015 10:08 AM Flag

    What are you smoking?

    What index is total stock market?

    It seems that you have trouble distinguishing an "index fund" and a sector fund.
    The "total stock market" and "microcap stocks " are not indexes.

    You seem to be unable to name a minor or major index that USAT has been added too.

    All of this seems to be a stupid smoke screen to try to avoid the fact that institutional ownership has grown.

    As you pursue your attempt to show that nothing positive at all can happen to the company, no matter what the news is it has to be negative.

    I am looking forward to the post about the 96% loss over the past 20 years when the stock is hitting 5 dollars within the next 3 years.

  • dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 20, 2015 8:50 AM Flag

    It is to bad the village idjut did not take advantage of the opportunity presented.

    The day after George Jensen's resignation the stock bottomed out at 1.08.

    120% return in a little over 3 years, not bad.

    The whining fools think the existence of the company itself seems to be the problem , when it looks as though they might have gotten rid of the right individual.

  • Reply to

    $2.45

    by watchisle Mar 20, 2015 4:25 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 20, 2015 10:42 PM Flag

    It is too funny see the childish posts from the village idjuts with their high school debate mentality and their frat boy outlook on life.

    "Like dude dude he totally lost that argument fist bump fist bump" ROFLMAO

    The first claim was simple, institutional ownership of the company stock had risen. since evidently the village idjuts could not dispute this they tried to redirect the argument to something else by claiming that it was index funds doing the buying, The answer to that attempt to redirect is so what?

    I love that fat mikey thought he had tripped me up when he could say that USAT was in the Russel Micro cap indexes, did he realize that the Russel Microcap funds are not in the top holders of the stock. the only time a stock being in an index is brought up is when it is placed in one of the few big indexes and in the case of the Russell one when the stocks are added or removed from the indexes. When the Russel's change out some stocks in the next few months some stock will have over sized moves based on being added or removed.Of course all of that is much ado about nothing as there is no reason to back out the index funds when measuring the change in institutional ownership.

    If it is so important all you have to do is direct everyone to the major financial website that reports change in institutional ownership along with change in institutional ownership ex change in index ownership.Since they cannot handle their being any positive facts about the company it becomes imperative for the practitioner high school debate rules to try and change the parameters of the argument.

    The claim about losing the financial turnaround argument is even more laughable.

    Positives- revenue growing at 20%, transaction revenue on installed network growing over 20%, cash flow improved greatly over the last few years, last year reported first GAAP profit, low debt lever with a few million still available on credit line.
    Negative-still cash flow negative
    Who won?

  • Reply to

    $2.45

    by watchisle Mar 20, 2015 4:25 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 21, 2015 6:30 PM Flag

    "Watchisle repeatedly insisted that all institutional holders are active managers buying USAT on its merits"

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    So what you are trying to say is that in his first statement Watchsie said that institutional ownership by active managers had increased???

    Why would he say that?

    It is more likely that he said institutional ownership had increased.There would have been no reason at all to differentiate between active and index funds unless someone trying to avoid the fact of the positive news tried to claim that index purchases should somehow be removed from the number.

    You have yet to give any reasonable explanation why index funds should be removed from the total and have not shown any business website that does that.

    It is just a simple stupid attempt to continue saying that any positive news cannot be positive no matter what. It is rather funny to see you squirm in your attempt to discredit every obvious piece of good news.

    Keep swinging away, you don't seem too foolish.

  • Reply to

    $2.45

    by watchisle Mar 20, 2015 4:25 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 21, 2015 9:37 PM Flag

    The fact that you do not understand the way index funds work speaks volumes.

    Per the SEC's own site.
    "Some index funds invest in all of the companies in an index; other index funds invest in a representative sample of companies included in an index"

    The reality is unless a fund is trying to mimic a major existing index, funds can create their own lists of companies based on parameters set up by the funds and call them indexes.Even the major indexes make changes to the stocks they put in their funds. You are trying to make it sound as though their is some magic list that forces funds to buy stocks whether they want to or not.

    2 two of the biggest funds have " total market index" Those sound like very restrictive indexes that don't have many stock to choose from.

    Feel free to list all of the special stock lists that the index funds owning USAT get their stock options fund. The Russell fund,the one that makes it's choices public and has USAT on it's list is not even one of the biggest holder.

    What in the heck do analysts covering the stock have to do with your inability to accept that institutional ownership of the stock has increased.

  • Reply to

    $2.45

    by watchisle Mar 20, 2015 4:25 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 22, 2015 12:19 PM Flag

    If for some reason you believe that these new issues that you are trying introduce to this thread are important feel free to start a new thread with the issues and see if anyone cares enough to respond.

    This thread is about the growth in institutional holding in the stock.

    We have been addressing doodie heads contention that it doesn't matter because he believes that index funds are all designed by magical organizations that force all index funds to buy certain stocks. Thus no index fund has the power to make choices on their own to add certain stock based on their merit. ROFLMAO

  • Reply to

    everyone is up

    by watchisle Mar 23, 2015 4:35 PM
    dogma_blade dogma_blade Mar 24, 2015 9:27 AM Flag

    Who would have thought doodie head, the king of the grammar police would have trouble with a simple word.

    Since
    1.
    in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.

    "Since the summer of 2009"

    That would include dates after the summer ,but not during the summer..

HAIN
63.075-0.175(-0.28%)11:29 AMEDT