Josh Krause

Josh Krause
Contributor since: 2012
Now you've got me looking into a second sodastream exclusively for Champagne making.
I would think it would gradually clog up the injection system, but for $60 it might be worth a try.
Ohhhh I already liked the SODA Cranberry Raspberry flavor. Cran-Grape is going to be a surefire buy for me.
You are missing a "yet" in your statement. Just like people were claiming 2 years ago that this product would never catch on as it was not in the big box retailers. The short arguments have been progressively taken down over time, with fad, Israel, European exposure, competition, etc. all providing buying opportunities as the company continued to execute.
The fact that I see comment after comment after comment going on with wrong numbers for the value proposition of the SODA machine itself is simple evidence that the product has yet to find its place in the US. Until it does, and I feel no major soda flavor partner is a major limiting factor, you will continue to see ignorant and uninformed shorts making wrong headed arguments against the stock.
Unlikely. Very little of their exchanges comes from households. They are trying to drive their exchanges into the stores to drive more syrup sales.
It is likely a non-issue as their business plan does not in anyway revolve around people being able to ship out their CO2 canisters from their own homes. It is all about the in-store exchange, which continues to grow.
I would agree with defaulting to the Jan pick.
Wow, it was touch and go there for my SODA, but it pulled ahead in the last 10 minutes. SPY + 3.16%, SODA +4.48%
Had me worried for a bit there, and said to see it fall apart so hard in the last two days. At least it worked off the overbought conditions.
I would like to change my call for Feb to long SODA.
Can our Jan picks be the default for Feb?
Also Jim Van Nauseum was SHORT FSLR (it's wrong in the listing) and would be green for Jan.
Feb pick: Short NFLX
NFLX is shaping up to be a great short but until Infinite QE is taken off the table, the MOMO will be strong in this name.
The gap at 100 will be filled at some point this year.
Hey, I bet AOL had a ton of search users at some point too.
They are needlessly limiting their product offerings and making business decisions that to this day seem short sighted and business negative.
Right, and what is a Netflix subscriber to do to get the same popular and desireable flicks?
Oh wait. Netflix doesn't really offer much unique movie content and has no capability to rent/buy the new releases.
Talk about value!
I still don't understand why we are using the Wednesday open. That was not stipulated in the original post and is not the typical way performance is measured.
I agree that it should be based on 12/31 closing price.
I especially liked the part where you completely ignored the fact that the spike in search for Netflix might be due to their world wide outage, instead attributing it completely to increased demand for the service.
Since they hide the technology costs for running their streaming service in their R&D budget, the domestic streaming service is likrly even lower margin than they claim.
They are middlemen and middlemen get squeezed into extremely low margin businesses.
Traffic.spike that nicely coincides with people gifting Netflix to others and people signing up for a free month with all of their new devices?
Sounds like a one time spike that will quickly deflate in Q1.
Much like the stock price after Q4 earnings are announced.
Ohh long XIV will be a winner. Short UVXY would almost always be a better pick though.
Dont forget that the CO2 canisters have a patent protected nozzle to prevent this exact problem. Protected for the next 7 years.
Long SODA for January at least.
Coke and/or Pepsi moving into the direct syrup sales would be a detriment to their current business model and a massive validation of the SODA model. The fad fears would disappear almost overnight.
Considering that they have a 30% margin on their carbonators and at least double that on their CO2 refills, the company would benefit even if the big boys decided to throw down.
Your analysis fails to address the impact that the decision to directly sell syrup would have on Coke and Pepsi's bottling companies. For all we know there may be clauses in their contracts that prevent direct sales of syrups to the consumer as it completely undercuts the bottling companies that actually do the dirty work that the big boys have been able to avoid.
I'm also bullish on SODA, especially into 2013 and wish I had a larger position. The fact that the chart has finally recovered most of the woes from the summer of 2011 are now well behind us, we can hopefully get to a PE ratio much closer to the actual growth rate of the company.
The US is a brand centric market and the name brand sodas have effectively marketed their flavors to make anything that tastes kinda similar as defacto inferior. As a user their colas are not their strong point, their diet cola especially as the different sweetener they use makes any comparison to diet coke/pepsi just not come out in their favor.
I find that the syrups that they offer that don't have dominant name brand equivalents are quite good. Root Beer, Grape, Orange, Cranberry Raspberry, Ginger Ale are all very tasty and their line of tea flavors are good as well.
How is it difficult to make enough soda for a party when you can just set it out and let them make it on demand? The CO2 would last for 60L, which is one heck of a party if you run through that in one go.
SODA colas have 1/3rd the calories of name brands and offer many zero calorie options. Combine that with the Stevia flavors that they are developing and the health options the product provide continues to grow.
Your cost numbers are inaccurate and like many you are stuck in a historically lower price point for your name brand sodas. Regular price name brand soda is breaking $5 per 12 pack and $2 per 2 Liter on a normal basis now.
They should run a disclaimer before anything he writes or any TV show he appears on.
My favorite would be some version of:
Kramer wants everyone to know that Bear Sterns & Lehamn Brothers are fine and there is nothing to worry about. Also NFLX at 300 is a bargain and you should be leveraged long in the name.
He should appear in a jester's cap whenever he gives "advice"
Bill: I don't know if you were responding to me but the streaming platform does allow for such time constraints to be neutralized to some degree.
Serialization of the content ensures maximum return from your investment in original content while releasing it in one glut allows the customer to view your content for free with relative ease.
Customer service is a balance. Since the company is having severe trouble maintaining profitability, I believe serialization is a necessary evil and doubt to an extreme degree that the customers would even notice if they moved to such a process for their original content.
Serialization builds anticipation for each episode and promotes further viewership. Since all old episodes are going to available any way, it still captures the latecomers to the new content if the first few episodes are not enough of a draw.
They could even change to serialization and add in rentals and digital purchases and the customers would see it as a net upgrade. But that is against "the vision" of Hastings and Co.
Maybe the Wells Notice will get him to change his prescription.
Agreed. The company has so much growth oppotunity in all of the markets it is expanding into, the money would be better spent making more money not a short term jolt in stock price.
The rewards to the patient will be overwhelming, especially if they can work off the fad concerns. As soon as the "fad" arguent goes away, this thing is a rocketship.
Maybe this time is a bit different as they were laundering money for the banks that funded the 9/11 terrorists, in essense enabling the attacks. But since the firm is systemically important I guess that excuses them from punishment.
We send suspected terrorist sympathizers to Guantanamo without due process and are assassinating our own citizens with drone strikes if they work with Al Qaeda but bankers, no bankers are immune from such tactics. They require kid gloves or they will take the system down with them. Financial terrorism combined with traditional terrorism for the banksters without any penalty.
Interesting Seth, why be careful? I would expect the run up to 4Q earnings would be quite substantial and likely breach the 2011 high fairly easily.
After earnings, well, that is another story. Before earnings I would expect a short squeeze as the shorts look to take it down again, as they always do without fail.
No, I don't think the gimmicks are why people are moving from cable. The flexibility of digital streaming is more than enough to justify keeping the service, I am a Prime subscriber after trying both out and finding that the extra benefits of Prime outweighed the somewhat increased selection on Netflix. Since I already have cable, the streaming was mainly a stopgap for when nothing else was on TV.
For those using Netflix as their primary content provider you must have a willingness to settle for outdated content but in large quantities at a relatively lower price. So, no I am not surprised that people are willing to adopt the new service offering.
But remember, I never agreed that the company is going to be going out of business like many of the bears out there, just that the earnings are likely to never return to their former glory as their secret is out and the technology is becoming commoditized. Netflix may get bought up as they are the front runner in the streaming sphere but knowing Hastings it will be far after the optimum time due to hubris and a lack of forethought. He is a visionary but apparently can't handle the mundane realities of business.
As far as offering the new content in one shot vs. serialization I will side with the business plan that has worked for hundreds of years now. From short stories to novels to radio shows to TV and movies, the simple fact is that providers of content benefit from the serialization of their content. Content is expensive to produce. Just because customers say they want everything at once doesn't mean that is the best business decision.
Customers would want everything for free as well if that was listed as an option, does that mean NFLX should lower their prices to $0?
Just think if one of their series was actually successful, with a one shot release you aren't guaranteed more than about a day from a new subscriber whereas with serialization you are getting at least 2.5 months worth of subscription fees. Serialization has been around for this many years because it works.
It was published on Thursday, yes, but easily could have been written on Tuesday or earlier, there is no time sensitive information that tells me when exactly the article was written. The information is fairly generic and for all I know could have been written in advance for publishing when the author believed the stock to be in a bullish mood.
I've seen the market cap used basically every time someone puts a valuation on a company because that is exactly what it is, the exact value of the company if you were to buy every share right now. Using the revenues can give an approximation of the size and scope of the company, but it does not actually tell you anything about what value the market is assigning to the company.
A company making $10B per year in revenues vs a company making $5B in revenues might actually have a lower market value (cap) if the profit margins of the $10B revs company were significantly lower than the $5B rev company.
Revenues do not tell you enough to assign a value to the company where as market cap IS the value of the company.
The irony of you getting on his case about not knowing how to value a company and then saying that just knowing the revenues is enough to determine the value is just delicious.
$730M is the market cap of the company. Current price of the stock times the number of shares. It may be a bit higher now that it rallied back to the top of the range.
The statement is roughly correct, while using revenues to state the value of the company is generally not the accepted method.
If that is where you lost it, you may want to keep reading.
You can't really compare SODA at full retail to name brand colas on sale.
With name brand 2L's now regularly retailing in excess of $2, the value propsition is large when comparing apples to apples.
I am completely unsurprised that Diet Coke and SODA's Diet Cola taste very different, they use completely different artificial sweeteners and therefore would likely always exhibit a reognition of difference in a taste test.
Since SODA uses sugar vs. corn syrup for Dr. Pepper, I could easily see how there would be much less of a difference. It doesn't necessarily say much about Coke since they use different sweeteners and Coke users are typcially extremely brand loyal, especially Diet Coke drinkers.
As an active user myself, I find that their flavors that don't really have dominant brands already in the market taste the best. The US consumer is extremely brand loyal and I definitely believe that the lack of brand named syrup offerings is limiting their uptake in the US market. If you grew up on a specific taste from a specific brand, you will likely except no substitutes and that will limit penetration in the US until SODA gets more licensing deals for branded flavors.
Kraft and Campbells are good starts but if they could get Monster, Red Bull or Dr. Pepper Snapple group licensed flavors, that greatly expands their potential for market penetration.
I'm sorry, did you miss the part where they were laundering money for Al Qaeda and Hammas? Your argument is just completely ridiculous on it's face. You speak about not being able to prosecute a company when it is in fact done all of the time and everyone is effected there as well.
You basically agreed that Too Big To Jail is right and justified.
Once a corporation gets to a certain size, in your eyes it can't be closed down, regardless of malfesceance or illegal activities. And you really believe that to be fair and equitable treatment under the law?
The reality of the situation aside, you truly believe that once you become systemically important, you are then immune from prosecution and should never be made to feel the full consequences of your actions?
If this had been a random individual that had been caught laundering money for Al Qaeda, it would have been fine as long as his business was incorporated?
Your argument is completely asinine and simply a symptom of the complete willingness to allow the systemic importance of any given company to determine the legality of their actions.
Didn't we implement Dodd Frank to allow for these TBTF zombies to be spun down safely without killing the financial world?