The deal absolutely was to have product on Walgeens shelf. I live in Chicago and FitMiss Delight IS on the shelves in every Walgreens in which I've looked.
There is not a LOT of it on the shelves - typically 4-6 containers - but that is simply a reflection of the stores - shelves are deep enough for only 2-3 containers, and all products (not just FitMiss) are given a very limited amount of shelf space.
When you look at the supplement section of Wags, it just doesn't LOOK or FEEL like an area of high activity / consumer interest. And I guess when you think about it, that makes sense - if I decided on impulse to get some supplements, Walgreens wouldn't be on my short list of "where should I go for that?" choices. My expectations for revenue impact are currently considerably lower than when they first announced that FitMiss would be available in 7000 stores. Nonetheless, being in Wags can't be anything but a good thing. And I feel like the other FitMiss products that are supposed to be available in Wags later this year (e.g., pre-mixed shakes) might be a better fit for Wags in terms of generating greater volume of sales (though fewer dollars per sale).
I've got no insight into the drop, just a reaction of 'wow".
Markets aren't particularly rational, and it sucks when you're on the wrong end of market irrationality. And unfortunately that's where we appear to be, at least from a fundamentals perspective.
The recent SA article concerns me. The shareholder's update provided enough information to DEDUCE some numbers that WEREN'T provided and make seemingly-reasonable GUESTIMATES about other numbers that weren't provided.
In an earlier post, I combined the 2013 loss per share that WAS provided in the update with the total loss per share as of Sep 30 and my guess as to the Y/E share count to estimate the Q4 earnings figure - and came up with an awesome result.
The SA author used information in the update to deduce that Q4 gross margins will come in very low - around 24%. And his math seems to be right. I can't reconcile 24% gross margins with the $2M+ NET profit figure (i.e., after non-cash charges) I was expecting for Q4 - either non-cash charges or actual expenses would have to decline dramatically, which I am not expecting to happen (these seem to go in only one direction at MSLP, and that is UP). So now I fear yet another disappointing qtr, and yet more assurances that the poor results were a one-time anomaly, and that "we expect margins to return to normal" going forward. And, just maybe, that due to the declining stock price they need to reserve another million (or two, or three) shares to "attract and retain employees".
And I think the market is sick of hearing that particular song.
Shrewd analysis, backed up by a wealth of facts and figures...
But for now, I'll stick with management's (likely conservative) 2014 EPS estimate of $0.22, plug in my own (likely conservative) 2014 estimates of $12M in non-cash charges and weighted shares outstanding of 11M, and positive cash flow of roughly $1.32 per share.
For the nine months ending Sep 30, weighted shares outstanding were 6,626,125 and net loss was $13,729,627, or $2.07 per share.
Management provided an estimated loss per share of $1.44 for 2013. Logically, then, Q4 should be break-even if the weighted shares outstanding for the twelve months ending Dec 31 come in around ($13,729,627 / $1.44), or 9,534,463. Below 9,534,463 represents a net profit for Q4, above 9,534,463 represents a net loss for Q4.
Let's assume the weighted shares outstanding figure comes in at 8,000,000, which is absolutely higher than what the actual number will be. That equates to a loss for the year of (8,000,000 * $1.44) = $11,520,000. This suggests a NET profit (i.e., AFTER non-cash charges) for Q4 of $2M+.
Which is pretty odd given that management just forecast a net profit of roughly $2.5M for 2014 after 36% revenue growth.
I expect non-cash charges related to stock issuance to be around $15M, and hence expect positive CF of about $1.50 per share - with some upside potential, since the sales projection seems pretty conservative. I'm not happy with the market's reaction, but not overly concerned either. Math is math, and eventually the rest of the world will get the math.
A couple of obvious reactions...
1) 2013 net sales of $110M implies Q4 net sales of around $37M. $37M * 4 - $148M. So the 2014 net sales estimate of $150 - given that Q4 doesn't reflect a full qtr of FitMiss in Wags, additional FitMiss products in Wags in the second half of 2014, a second MP product in Costco in the second half of 2014, "normal" growth that can be expected to occur in 2014, and new products that the update suggested might be released in 2014 - seems AWFULLY conservatie.
2) The $0.20-$0.22 EPS translates to less than $3M. I certainly HOPE this is AFTER the $15M or so in non-cash charges I expect them to incur for amortization of stock grants. Whether it's before or after makes a MASSIVE difference, and should have been explicitly stated in the update.
mtc44380, has MSLP given any indication of when the ER/CC will be? Q4 / YE figures are frequently released MUCH later than other qtrs. Last year, for example, MSLP released Q4 on Apr 1. I HOPE you're correct, but I'm not counting on seeing official Q4 figures anytime soon.
They said "by the end of January" in their prepared comments, then during the Q&A said they were "shooting for" mid-to-late January. As long as they deliver by the end of January, I see no cause for complaint.
In general, I think they've done a pretty good job of delivering on stuff they've explicitly stated or strongly hinted is in the pipes - e.g., endorsement deals (Arnold, Kapernick, Flo-rida, Decker), new products (FitMiss and Arnold), new sales outlets (Costco, Walgreens).
There has been no news on a couple of OTHER things in the CC that they hinted were reasonably imminent - resolution of the SEC inquiry, and a relationship with an investment banking firm (with an accompanying line of credit that would hopefully preclude further dilution). Assuming these items are still progressing, there is the potential for a LOT of very good news in the coming weeks.
I hope you're correct, and that I eventually have reason to be delighted about the "investment in" / "partnership with" FUSE. But I'm not exactly holding my breath. In fact, if ANYTHING even VAGUELY beneficial for MSLP EVER comes out of that, I will very happily buy you a nice bottle of scotch. I admittedly know nothing about the company, but the share price speaks volumes.
Per my post, I thought they said mid-January. I don't understand your recommendation that I check my calendar (which is, btw, the same as YOUR calendar - or at least so I hope). It seems to suggest that they COULDN'T have said mid-January, since it was already past mid-January, and guidance hadn't yet been released. This is not sound logic - it overlooks the possibility that he company could fail to deliver something by the date it said it would. This, too, is not a difficult concept to grasp.
I have reviewed the CC transcript and found that my recollection, while better than yours, was not entirely correct. When pressed for a date, Rpllock said they were shooting for "mid-to-late January".
FS = Fuse? Who cares about that? It's the 2014 financial projections, which they said they'd release in mid-January, that I want to see...
Fitmiss is in the Walgreens down the block from my office. It's on an endcap rather than in the main aisle. Only four containers out, so per my previous post it's hard for me to imagine a ton of volume per store.
Based upon an inspection of the supplement section of the two stores closest to me, it's hard for me to imagine a lot of units being sold at each store - there's only three or four containers of similar products on the shelf.
"shareholders get NOTHING!"
LOL! Shareholders aren't normally paid salaries. Are you perhaps talking about dividends? Go invest in utilities.
What shareholders of high-growth stocks hope to GET is STOCK APPRECIATION!
I looked up the closing price for Dec 31, 2012. It was $4.25.
The stock you're bashing is up 95% YoY.