Very nice conversation guys and I like the relevancy also with Gold being such a big portion of the commodities marketplace. Intrinsic value is a tough one, but I would have to agree with Blue. I've always been of the mindset that Gold has no inherent, to use another word, value. We determined a long time ago that based on its luster and origins that it was both rare and beautiful and as such we placed it at a premium valuation. However, the precious metal has only, when adjusted for inflation and compared with other asset classes, depreciated in value. In nominal terms it has appreciated but not much else which could also be an indication that it has very little if any intrinsic value.
Jim has made some compelling suggestions, but for the most part, they are not in keeping with the modern accepted value assessments. While the usefulness of Gold is far and way more substantive than paper monies, and what I believe Blue was highlighting, it hasn't functioned as any type of currency in the modern era. The biggest cause for price swings in gold over the last 100+ years has been government purchases or sales and little more.
I would also have to agree with Veganinvestor although partially. So far as using Gold as an alternative currency I don't think Gold could ever revert to the days of Sumatra or the Ottoman Empire. Evolution and modernization dispensed of Gold as any form of currency centuries ago. Provisions for sustenance are a far more useful and valuable currency. It is likely the reason for touting the value of food and water as most important in most doomsday movies. An iPhone is a funny idea but would likely be rendored functionless in such a scenario as well.
The idea of intrinsic value is kind of funny as it relies on an extrinsic definition, but if we take some of the root word origin to understand its function as a part of origins and nature, I would have to acquiesce along Blue's line of thinking. It's all a matter of opinion I guess.
It's a funny commercial and well done imo, however there is no visual representation or eluding to SodaStream in the commercial. What investors should mainly concern themselves with at present is how soon will Sears and Home Depot begin the gas exchange process as both now carry the Refrigerator. Other retailers will commence sales of the refrigerator in the near term as well.
Well said GJ98, but so far as a catalyst for gold's speculative rise, I'm not sure that it has been acknowledged for what most economists/pragmatists around the world are beginning to realize with few uncertain terms...gold is not a hedge, it never has been nor under any practical measures will it ever be. It only exists as such because the marketplace determines it to be, but for practical matters, if we assume all currency debasement, it will serve to be the last of the debased "currency hedges", but nonetheless it will ultimately debase to a greater degree than traditional monetary units. Obviously within this thesis there remains a trading opportunity.
SODA and SBUX have discontinued talks due to run rates which don't currently support the idea for a licensing deal. Focus remains elsewhere although anything can happen.
Since its launch a few weeks ago BBY has sold 36 of the Samsung Sparkling water refrigerators. Today it is featured in the BEST BUY weekly circular on sale for $2,699 after $1,000 in savings.
Well, we are in the 5th wave here according to the charts, and almost always upon completion of the 5th wave there is a pullback, but how much who knows.
To those in the Capital Ladder base. If you want a copy, let me know. While you may not agree with DB's recommendation, it may prove beneficial to know the why behind the recommendation. goldenseth@ymaildotcom
Problem that most people overlook is refilling stations are a necessity, that is the second layer to the distribution problem of CO2 building for any, any other company. Permits for CO2 refilling stations of mass scale are extremely hard to come by, then there is the logistical servicing issue and on and on and on. KISS it and go with SodaStream.
Again hilo, you are not accepting the reality which is that a machine can't operate without CO2. It doesn't matter who comes out with a machine, they will need to have CO2 to power the machine and a distribution network to perform the exchange. This is why SodaStream's first mover advantage and monopoly of the exchange market is such a high barrier to entry. Coke wants to sell a machine, good fine, they are going to need to be powered by SodaStream and that means SodaStream sells even more gas at roughly 90% gross margin.
It has little to do with machines and much more to do with CO2 distribution and exchange. That is the biggest barrier to entry.
We initiated coverage in summer 2011 I believe, with a Buy recommendation and $53 PT which was reduced to $50 in 2012.
The NFA and SEC offer firms a great deal of leeway with regards to ratings, but not price targets as moving price targets can result in influencing stock price movement as evidenced by today's price action. There are strict time constraints and criteria that the SEC outlines which warrant/allow firms to change PTs. So while I'm not prepared to change our PT even if it settles out higher than $64 a share we may be inclined to change our rating recommendation. Please don't take this as an indication that I'm considering this measure at this time as our ratings usually hold firm in spite of PT achievement for some time. Oh and yes, the current recommendation is Buy.
We raised our PT to $64 at 8:00 this morning. We had many discussions yesterday with investors and other analysts. I hope you all read our summary of yesterday's event as it will be expanded upon to include forward looking analysis in the coming days. It's not such much what was said, its the conversations that you didn't hear off stage and during intermissions. You heard about HEB, Kroger, Office Depot and Alco, but there are some that weren't mentioned and I hope you heard my question about Canada and understand why I posed this question. Nice job longs and much luck to you over the coming months.
They beat analysts estimates handily and by a huge margin. The company benefited from a 500+ point margin improvement; lower green coffee costs, favorable product mix shift and lower warranty claims. Here's the problem you don't want though: They missed sales by a wide margin and they guided sales below their own FY13 forecast. Earnings per share benefited from fewer shares in the float due to the buyback plan as well. The company can only masks poor sales for so long, just like MNST which really missed the bar, and again, during quarter. And a buyback plan can't save you if youre GMCR for too long, again, just look at MNST which has had a buyback plan for several years now. The bottom line is sales have to be there and for GMCR, they are showing signs of deteriorating sales strength in a very competitive market category. I haven't had a position in GMCR since early in Q2 and did quite well. I will be instituting a new position in the near term.