Thanks Doc...the feeling is mutual. I'm glad you're still around.
Wow...it's my lucky day! Blue posted that he agreed with me and gave me a "backhanded compliment" in the same day. Thanks Blue! :)
You also offered good advice in not trying to be logical with AMD...but sometimes his ridiculous misstatements need to be addressed.
Do you ever reality test anything you post?
If "System sales have close to ZERO profit margins" as you posted then how is it possible that SODA's Gross Profits were $24 million lower in 2014 vs. 2013 when their Consumable Revenue increased $10 million over 2013 .
The reason that Gross Profits were down $24 million is simple...Sparkling Water Maker Revenue decreased $60.5 million for the year.
If system sales have close to ZERO profit margins as you claim...then a $10 million increase in consumables revenue should have lead to an increase in Gross Profit $'s.
The fact that Gross Profits decreased $24 million despite a 17% increase in CO2 unit sales and a $10 million increase in Consumable revenue indicates that the lose of $60.5 million in Sparkling Water Maker sales was the leading contributor to those lost Gross Profit $'s.
Obviously, Sparkling Water Makers deliver a lower Gross Margin % than CO2 does. However, Sparkling Water Makers are a critical source of Gross Profit $'s....as the company's 2014 results clearly show.
Great summary drofiteer.
SODA thought there was huge and growing demand for their products so they got way too aggressive in everything they did and then it turned out there was actually little and and shrinking demand for their products...and they're now paying the price.
IMO...they're repeating their mistake with the new strategy...there is not huge consumer demand for a home sparkling water maker.
An expanded partnership with Pepsi might save them but I'm not convinced even that is enough. Pepsi wants to get in the category and they're working on some innovation with SODA but I doubt they want to partner with a company that is viewed by the investment community with such little regard.
drprofiteer - I understand your point...SodaStream doesn't sell well enough to justify selling their products in 38% of Walmart's stores.
There is no good news in SODA losing distribution in 1,700 Walmart stores. They will lose far more in revenue then they will gain in possible cost savings.
It sounds like having customers is prohibitively expensive. Based on your analysis maybe SODA should “trim their presence” and get rid of all of their customers. Think of all the money they would save :)
Seriously... some of your points are valid and some are not….however every retailer you do business with has high volume stores and low volume stores. You deal with it as the cost of doing business. Do you think there are 1,700 Walmart stores that don’t sell Pepsi or Coke…or Keurig?
What happens to the SODA customers who shop those 1,700 stores and replaces their CO2 there?
"Retailers will devote space to products that SELL!" You're correct but do you realize how low SODA's sales are per retail store?
SODA says the sell in 70,000 retail stores. They sold a little over a million Soda Makers in Q4. That means that the average store sold 14.5 Soda Makers in the Holiday quarter or about one Soda Maker per week for the 13 week period. If you assume that 15% of sales are made on the internet it brings that number to less than one Soda Maker per week per retail outlet.
Do the same math for Flavors and CO2 and you will determine that SodaStream's products are very low volume per store.
Not exactly a must have product for most retailers especially considering how much space is dedicated to SodaStream's products.
AMD how does "Trimming the number of doors greatly reduces SODA distribution and sales promotion costs. " ?
SODA ships their product to Walmart's warehouse and Walmart's trucks deliver the product to their stores.
How does trimming the number of Walmart stores reduce SODA's distribution costs? If anything shipping less product to Walmart's warehouses actually increases the cost per unit to ship it.
The only thing the elimination of 1700 stores does is continues to reduce SODA's sales in the US.
AMD...yes I'm aware that most of SODA's business is done outside of the US and that became more true than ever in 2014.
The US was SODA's largest market in 2013 accounting for 43.2% of their total sales. However, SODA's 2014 US sales were down 49% and accounted for only 29.4% of the company's total sales.
It will difficult, if not impossible, for SODA to grow revenue and profit without growing in the world's largest consumer market...the US.
Bring it up with Seeking Alpha because their transcript says "17,000". If you read my post I asked if the transcript misquoted him.
So SODA is going to "trim their presence" in 38% of Walmart's US stores? OUCH!
Also from the CC Transcript, Daniel said “And next month we will be trimming our presence at Walmart by roughly 17,000 doors as we concentrate primarily on their top performing locations.”
Walmart only has 4,516 stores in the US so he either misspoke or he was misquoted in the transcript.
What is the correct number of Walmart stores that SODA “will be trimming their presence in”?
And by “trimming our presence” does he mean reducing their space and SKU’s or does he mean not being sold in a number of Walmart stores at all?
That was Daniel’s clueless answer to a question on yesterday’s Conference Call… according to the transcript.
The Analyst from Deutsche Bank Securities asked Daniel where he thought Keurig Cold’s space at retail was going to come from when they launch their product.
Daniel’s answer in its entirety was “We don’t know, I really don’t know.” End of subject.
Seriously? His company is about to have a major competitor in less than 8 months and apparently he hasn’t given any thought about where that competitor is going to get their space!
Daniel…the answer to the question is that Keurig Cold and Coca-Cola are coming after your space. They’re coming after your current customers and your potential customers. They’re coming at you with a big marketing budget, lots of brand awareness, and a large assortment of beverage brands that people know and love.
If the CEO hasn’t even realized that Keurig Cold’s is coming after his space and his business then he has no chance to defend against it. It’s time he stops considering it “vaporware” and starts taking the threat of Keurig Cold and Coca-Cola taking dead-aim at his company more seriously.
The stock plummeted yesterday not solely because they announced bad results (which were no surprise) but also because the investment community has no faith in the company’s plan to turn it around. Daniel didn’t help himself with that answer.
I probably should...but isn't the real point that SODA should have disclosed any and all Q4 write-offs in their Q3 Earnings Report where they issued Guidance to their Shareholders. Seems like a pretty large omission of critical information.
They mentioned write-offs in their Third Quarter Earnings Report where they officially announced their Results and issued Guidance to shareholders?
So this company's management revises Guidance down significantly and the stock gets crushed accordingly and they don't mention the additional bad news of a write-down? Why did they not get all the bad news out there all at once??
Seriously? Here's the direct quote from the company's latest ER "The Company now expects full year 2014 net income to decrease approximately 42% over 2013 net income of $42.0 million."
A 42% decrease over 2013 Net Income of $42 million means they were guiding for 2014 Net Income of $24.36 million. With YTD Net Income of $20.485 million thru Q3 that means they're projecting Net Income of $3.875 Million for Q4. $3.875 million divided by 21 million shares is $0.18/share.
The question that has been raised is...does the $0.18/share that the company Guided to and the Analysts are projecting include the impact of the Write-downs that have been mentioned?
As you know, the Company's full-year Guidance was for Net Income of $24.4 million. That means that Q4 Net Income needs to be about $3.9 million to achieve the full-year Guidance.
The question was...does that $3.9 million take into account the write-downs?
You would assume...maybe hope...that SODA's Guidance issued at the end of October would take into account the impact of all write-offs for the balance of the year. That might be a really bad assumption with management that habitually misses their own Guidance.
Wasn't SODA's EPS Guidance $0.18 per share for Q4?
The company's Q4 Guidance for Net Income was $3.86 Million divided by 21 million shares equal $0.18/share.
If the Analyst's estimates are wrong then so is the Company's Guidance.