I lost all my money buying recommendations from Ultimate Stock Alerts! Now I'm forced to scavenge the highways for fresh roadkill. Sure glad winter is here, roadkill doesn't spoil right away, gives me more time to harvest the carcasses. It's tough out there competing with the stray dogs, cats, hawks and buzzards, gotta stake your claim early.
One day, while cutting up a recently-departed deer, I ran into this fellow down on his luck. I asked him how did he fall into such desperate condition and told me he lost all his money using Ultimate Stock Alerts. Well imagine my surprise! I learned there were several others in my neighborhood who lost all their money trading stock recommendations from Ultimate Stock Alerts. This is really bad because there's not enough roadkill in the area to feed all of us and winter is upon us now.
Wo is me, how could I have allowed Ultimate Stock Alerts to put me in such sad circumstances? Don't let this happen to you, and if it does, stay out of my neighbor hood -- find your own roadkill.
I lost all of my money trading Ultimate Stock Alerts!
They put a virus on my computer, stole my identity, hacked my bank accounts. Now I'm homeless and getting my meals out of the dumpster behind Wendy's. The stuff isn't all that bad but partially-eaten salads tend to wilt really bad on warm days. I particularly enjoy licking the melted cheese and grease off the wrappers, but you have to get 'em while they're still warm, otherwise the cheese just sticks to that foil paper.
Don't let this happen to you, stay away from Ultimate Stock Alerts!
"Pulse will be bigger than jones soda ... "
You DO realize that Jones Soda is a total train wreck, right? Comparing Pulse to Jones is nothing more than comparing one loser with another. Actually Pulse is the bigger loser because Jones at least has brand recognition and you see their products everywhere.
At 20-cents per share and declining, PSR & other metrics are pretty meaningless at this point, ditto for charting. They might have some validity if daily volume cranked up to the millions instead of a few thousand shares.
Game over, move along, there's nothing more to see here. Single digits by New Year's day. I dumped this after dismal Q2 numbers, stock price was twice what it is now!
Sorry, but It's over folks. Any company that goes public via a reverse merger (remember Darlington Mining?) is almost certainly a pump & dump operation. I didn't catch on to that fact until after I bought it, but decided to hold out for another pump & then sell. The second pump didn't happen because there was nothing to pump & mgmt. couldn't afford to pay another "analyst" to do it again.
The next time I feel like gambling, I'm hittin' the blackjack tables, better chance at winning something!
Dividend payout ratio = 34%, pretty decent.
In other words 34% of annual earnings are paid out in dividends. As a general rule-of-thumb for most companies, anything under 50% is considered fairly conservative. If PDS earnings dropped by half, that would put the payout ratio at 68%, a bit riskier but still pretty safe.
For comparison, here are the payout ratios from some other energy companies:
HAL = 15%
SLB = 29%
BP = 91% (they're paying a 5% divy)
CVX = 38%
XOM = 33%
NBR = 15%
PTEN = 42%
As you can see, with the exception of BP, PSD's payout ratio is pretty much in line with everyone else.
Hi Jane, long-time-no-hear.
Maintaining my powerful muscular physic and incredible stamina requires discipline and total commitment. I jog / walk / hike regardless of conditions, the weather means nothing to me.
Sorry about PLSB, frankly I'm surprised you're still supporting them, I gave up & dumped the stock a while back. It was a worthwhile gamble at best & I gave them plenty of time to get through some growing pains, but there's clearly something very wrong here.
The latest sales numbers say it all, the chronically-low trading volume says a lot too -- not even the penny-stock momentum players want to touch this thing. PLSB has pretty much been abandoned even as a pump & dump candidate.
Mgmt. is silent about the "rollout" of the reformulated functional drinks yet they keep announcing new distribution "deals". The lemonades / coconut water are seasonal products and not doing well on a year-over-year basis. IMO, It's becoming clear the reformulated / re-labled functional drinks are a pipe-dream & I'm guessing the lack of funds may be the reason why.
Hope you're still not holding on to them, the price dropped nearly 50% since i sold.
"Dr. Pam Peeke, has not published any endorsements of the Natural Cabana or Pulse brands."
I'm guessing they paid for the limited use of her name. I doubt if anyone at PLSB actually met her beyond a chance meeting at some health food conference. Dr. Peek's bio does, in fact, include a reference to PLSB's advisory "board" (now only two people). I suspect this may be a limited contractual agreement to user her name. She's not going to do anything for them without getting paid, this is why we haven't heard anything about her.
Mgmt. recently dropped her name in some phony "congratulations" message concerning a recently-published book. Notice how you don't see Dr. Peek's image or name used on the website, you don't see her holding a bottle of Cabana. I bet mgmt. doesn't have legal permission to do that. Makes wonder if her agent didn't cut them off from any further agreements beyond the advisory board listing. This whole relationship strikes me as quite odd.
Another lame distribution agreement. Oooo, the stock moved up a whole 2-cents today, LOL! What a frelling joke!
Notice how they strategically ignore the sensitive topic of monthly sales? With 20,000 outlets in the U.S. you'd think they'd be bragging about monthly sales numbers. Notice how sales are NEVER mentioned outside of the SEC filings.
Uh, it's 35 degF and snowing right now! Did a one mile jog in a raging blizzard this afternoon, covered head-to-toe in wet SNOW! Boy, could I go for a nice COLD Cabana Lemonade. Summer is over folks, no lemonade / coconut water sales. I guess it never occurred to them to develop a hot winter beverage, you know, kinda diversify a little bit to get more consistent sales over the year? How about a healthy low-cal, no-sugar mocha drink you can toss into the microwave? Makes more sense than coconut water.
No sales, no profits, no money for advertising. They can't even afford to pay someone to come in and do a proper pump & dump -- now that's really sad.
As to the newly-reformulated functional drinks? In the immortal words of Simon & Garfunkle -- the sounds of silence ! This latest announcement still refers to the old "Heart Healthy" moniker for these drinks.
YOU set the initial conditions for this stupid example -- not me! I found this object, I know that it is gold and of high-purity -- THAT'S A GIVEN, YOU SAID SO!
I said the that gold is worthless -- UNTIL YOU SELL IT FOR CASH!!!!!!!! You cannot buy anything with a bar of gold, it's not a fungible asset. Now read this v-e-r-r-ry carefully: GOLD IS NOT MONEY. Long long ago it USED TO BE money, but not anymore. Now pause for a moment and let that concept sink in.
I know what gold is, I know this object is pure gold, I know there is a market for gold and, therefore, a price has been set. I can look up that price. The dealer is not going to sell at-the-market, he's going to discount the market price to cover his costs and to make a profit. It's up to me to negotiate a price or go to another dealer.
If you gave me 10 oz. of pure gold at zero cost, I'd gladly sell it for $800/oz. & collect $8,000. I'd try to get more, but if that's the best I can do, fine, I'll take the money and run. So the dealer sells it for $1,100/oz, how does that hurt me? I walk away with $8,000 I didn't have before.
Suppose I bought a Rembrandt painting for $1,000,000 and sold it a year later at auction for $1,200,000; that's a $200K, or 20%, profit in a year. Now, the new owner takes the SAME PAINTING to the same auction house a year later and this time if goes for $2,000,000! Did I lose out on an extra $800K in profit? No! The market priced that painting at $1.2M when I sold it, that's all the market was giving AT THAT TIME. Another year goes by and now the painting is "worth" $5,000,000. All of the sudden there's a a huge global economic depression, stocks crash, companies go bankrupt, soup lines, the works. The current owner of that painting is desperate and needs cash just to buy food for his family; reluctantly, he auctions of his beloved Rembrandt for the sum total of $500!
1. Ten ounces of gold is totally useless unless you exchange it for cash. It's useless to the dealer as well until he sells it; in fact, it's a deficit transaction because he had to pay me $10 cash to acquire it.
2. Since I "found" the gold, it cost me nothing so any cash proceeds would be welcomed.
3. If I go to a dealer, then obviously I know its real gold & therefore has an established market value. This is where your logic is flawed. If I was starving or owed $10 to Tony Soprano, then I'd sell it for $20 -- my needs are immediate, I'll take what I can get. Otherwise, we negotiate a more reasonable price.
4. The dealer is running a business based on trust. Both sides know he MUST discount the value of the gold so he can make a profit and stay in business. The question becomes, how much? Do you seriously think I'm not going to know gold is selling around $1200 / oz. (oops, not anymore!)? We negotiate, we establish an informal contract of exchange. A dealer who rips off his customers won't stay in business for long.
More likely the dealer might offer me $800/oz. and pocket the $400/oz. for a 25% profit. Ultimately, the choice is MINE -- not the dealer's. Do I hold on to a worthless lump of metal or take the $8,000? Take a guess!
I can't spend a nugget (bar, coins, etc.) of gold, it's not fungible, one has to convert it into cash (i.e., notes issued by a Federal Reserve Bank).
"Silver will continues to be used for many industrial applications ... "
You make a good point, but if one strips away the "precious" from "precious metal" then all you have left is, well -- metal. In that case, silver becomes just another commodity like oil, iron ore or copper; as such, it will be subject to the same economic forces and market demands that affects any other commodity. Actually, I'd rather invest in certain rare-Earth metals for the long-term largely because they're vital to our economy / military industrial complex and are in far less abundance than silver. Many of these metals come out China & Russia, both of whom can control access and pricing.
During the 1500's Spain and Portugal were the world's greatest super-powers; at one time they had the audacity to draw up plans to divide the world amongst themselves (most of Africa and Asia were still a mystery at that time). By the late 1600's both became irrelevant even though they had mountains of gold and silver, no one would extend them credit -- they couldn't sell their gold. Using the modern system of banking & finance, the rest of Europe had moved on. France, England and the Netherlands became the new global super-powers in ways that Spain and Portugal never could. There wasn't a single major sea voyage or expedition whose ships and cargos were not financed and ensured by Dutch banks.
It was modern banking that financed all those expeditions and early colonies in North America ,Malaysia, China, and India. Paper notes gradually replaced gold as a monetary medium. For a long time paper money could be exchanged directly for physical gold (remember the old U.S. "Silver Certificate"); as economies grew, banks couldn't carry enough gold to back up all the paper notes issued -- Silver Certificates became promissary notes back by the "full faith" of their governments. That "faith" is based on three factors: the government's power to tax, the strength of its banking system and the overall state of the economy.
A totally PM-based economy would push our economy back to the 1600's -- a U.S. Naval Task Force would be comprised of two-masted wooden sailing ships bristling with 20-pounder cannons, LOL!
No, it will not.
PM's do not drive global economies, banks do. Although most large banks do hold some metal, it's used primarily for hedging purposes. There's not enough gold & silver above ground to even come close to supporting the daily transactions of today's global economic network.
Re. the 3,000 yrs. of history: Western economies began drifting away from gold & silver coin as the only monetary trading instrument back when the Amsterdam Exchange Bank first opened for business in 1609. Physical assets like gold (or any other commodity) became impracticable for executing monetary exchanges between large merchants and international banks.
These "big" banks became the backbone of a modern economic and monetary system based on currency exchange, credit, loans, notes and bills. Our concept of fiat paper money and check-writing evolved from the notes that banks, major merchants and governments initially issued to each other to facilitate major monetary transactions.
The foundations of big banking has roots going all the way back to the Medici empire; they found that by making their banking larger, more diversified and engaging in currency trading as well as lending, they could withstand major economic slumps that would have wiped out lesser banks at that time. This became known as the Italian Model of banking; within a century virtually every major city in Europe and Sweden had banks operating in this fashion.
The one holdout was the global super-power, Spain. Spain was a world super-power stuck with a gold-based economy; they had to borrow short-term cash from the Dutch to keep the government running even though it was drowning in metal. Spain defaulted on its loans over a dozen times between 1550 and 1700 and became a huge credit risk, all that gold was useless and their once-mighty navy fell into ruin.
No modern first-world economy relies on gold & silver.
Buy out what? The company has no marketable assets other than inventory and some office furniture. There's nothing special about their beverage formulations except possibly for the functional drinks. Someone might buy the alleged intellectual property rights to the functionals but most of those proceeds will go to pay off creditors -- shareholders most likely will receive squat, IMO.
Sorry dude, learn how to play blackjack, at least you'll have a statistical chance at winning something! PLSB will be in the single digits come next spring. Predict they'll fold by this time next year. OBTW: I used to be a strong supporter until I finally saw the handwriting on the wall with poor sales numbers and a major product-launch failure.
This company is dead meat with their failure to roll out their much-touted functional drinks. The lemonades & c-water ain't bringing in nearly enough sales to support production costs let alone any kind of marketing campaign. They can't even afford to pay someone to pump their stock, LOL !!!!!!!!
They're underfunded, can't survive. Might limp along for a while with direct-sales, but without advertising or brand-recognition even that will dry up. The lemonades are too pricey for the highly-competitive beverage market, people will go for lower prices on brands they recognize.
As always, JMHO
Forgot to add: big pump in USD yesterday is what pushed gold off the 1200 cliff, but longer-term, PM's are going to be down in the mud for quite some time. The lack of bargain hunters providing some price support at this level doesn't bode well either.
Gold broke down through 1200 "barrier", automated technical selling. To be expected in a weak PM market where no one is buying, money is going elsewhere, no need for flight-to-safety. Risk & hedging trade has been priced out of PM's & most commodities like oil for example. Add to that the likelihood of a horrible earnings report coming up along with possibly drastically-reduced guidance --- well, you get the picture.
Thanks, found it. In terms of total rig counts, I'm seeing a 10.3% increase in U.S. rigs since last October. The biggest increase was in land-based rigs.
UPDATE: Latest statement from CEO on this subject:
"Revenue from our Contract Drilling Services and Completion and Production Services segments both increased over the comparative prior year period by 22% and 7%, respectively."
Sounds good to me.