Seeking Alpha

Reel Ken

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Reel Ken's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......".....No, it's assumptive......"

    Sorry, wrong again. Any question that requires the respondent to acknowledge a condition that they have not agreed to is PRESUMPTIVE.

    It is a wile.....It matters not how you qualify it....

    "Assuming Sasquatch was pregnant, is the gestation period 6 months or nine months?" Still presumes the respondent accept the fact that Sasquatch exists. It is a logical fallacy and the question belongs in the garbage pail

    ......".........We're talking about a distributor making a retail sale to customer who is paying 70%......"

    Oh, sure, it's possible that's what you meant. There are many possible meanings. If you can say it now, you could have said it earlier. I gave you ample warning to look at it. We're dealing with precision ... that's also what you're after. You want precision, then be precise. I'm not a mind reader. Especially since you keep changing everything as we go along.

    Everyone, at times, wishes they would have said what they really meant and avoided mis-understanding. But you have to own what you said and take responsibility for it. The fault is never with the person taking it for face value.

    ......."........"commi... is a term introduced by you in your "proof"..."

    Absolutely. It referred to the difference between SRP and COGS, not discounted SRP. That's why your question was unanswerable. You want to use my definitions, stick to my definitions. You want to introduce new definitions, then define them.

    Willy, the game is over. OVER. OVER.
    Jul 25, 2014. 07:20 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife And The Inefficient Market Hypothesis [View article]
    Hi Rogier,

    If, as you say .... Ackman, et al...

    ......"........It all has nothing to do with the price of beans. These are the distractions along the way...."

    Then why do you bother with.....

    "What happened on Tuesday?"

    If it doesn't matter...it doesn't matter. Why do we need an explanation of something that doesn't matter?
    Jul 25, 2014. 07:20 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    It’s time to wrap this up. I gave you more than ample time to examine your statement and correct the errors. You either refuse to or are not capable of doing this. As I promised, I will expose the answer to your query.

    You asked the following question ….

    ……..”……….Assume a transaction is occurring at 70% SRP with the distributor able to purchase product at a 42% discount to SRP. What is the "commission"?............

    Your “question” is fallacious.

    First, it is presumptive. That, alone renders it as a fallacy. However, it does not automatically mean that no math can be illustrated. So we must look even further.

    Second: SRP is simply a monetary number. 70% SRP is a fraction of that monetary number. So, if SRP=$100, 70% SRP =$70.

    Now, you ask …”… assume a transaction occurs at 70% SRP… “the transaction is unspecified. You do not delineate the nature of the transaction nor the parties involved in the transaction. For instance it could refer to me going to Home Depot and buying a garden hose for $70. It could also refer to a consumer that bought F1 from the distributor for full SRP, reselling it to another consumer for 70% SRP.

    Contrast your statement with … “assume a consumer buys product from the distributor for 70% SRP”.

    No math can be applied until the particular transaction and the parties involved are properly identified.

    Third: Now, as if all the above was not enough, you make a horrible and bush-league error, rendering your entire question both invalid and computationally impossible.

    You ask .....“What is the “commission””.

    A “commission” is a payment by a third party to a salesperson. You have not identified the payer of the “commission” or the basis for calculating the “commission”.

    Now, “commission” need not always involve a “third party”. It can also refer to an agreement between the buyer and salesperson, whereby the buyer agrees to make some form of payment in order to compensate the seller. Once again, you have not specified how this is structured or the basis for paying the “commission”.

    Contrast this with … What is the gross profit margin of the distributor.

    So, your statement is invalid because it is 1) Presumptive 2) Uses undefined terms and 3) Uses undefined conditions.

    Your statement is not capable of a mathematical solution because it 1) Fails to identify the variables involved and 2) Introduces component variables that lack sufficient basis of computation.

    Now, if I was asking the question I would have said ….”If you can agree that product could be sold by a distributor and purchased by a consumer for 70% SRP, what would the gross profit margin be?”

    But, then again, I’m schooled in these matters and don’t just “shoot from the hip”

    Q.E.D.
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:13 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......."..........where, going back to the 42%,......"

    Oh, so now, you go back to Kristina's proof. What, exactly, are the "rules". You're permitted to change anything/everything .... before, during and after... and I'm restricted to your "pick-n-choose"?

    Maybe, I should change all your assumptions and only keep those parts I like. That's your style. Just keep moving the goal-posts.

    Maybe it's time for me to do to you, what you did to Kristina .. change the parameters.... Let me re-run it as follows:

    F= 0% discount G=2% Discount H=5% Discount J=1/2 giveaways.

    Much better.

    Next: There are many different math illustrations. They just affirm how preposterous your Assertion was. The formula I presented can be simplified or expanded. Making the change you suggest would change the meaning of the Log(e)(7.5) insertion. You really need to hit a math book and find out what it's all about. Until you understand its implications you will not understand the beauty of the proof.

    The formula represents exactly what it was asked to represent. Just parlay it into the original proof.

    In Closing : It's over. You're clasping at straws. You had your one big shot .. you had free rein for any Assertion you wanted. You made it... now you have to live with it.

    Maybe someone else will take over and change your Assertion as you did Kristina's in a vain attempt to prove that it's impossible for anyone to make $16,000 as a distributor. But your battle is over.

    You made a bush-league error ... just like Kristina. She said no-one .. you said impossible. When you deal with absolutes, you'll usually end up needing Absolut. Cheers. Just don't get behind the wheel, it may turn out really bad for you.
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:09 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    The illustration was designed to show the following...

    1) That it is possible for Reel Ken to show a math solution using precisely your criteria. This was all that was necessary to defeat your assertion.

    2) I did, it does and your assertion is rendered defeated.

    You question why I didn't index. If you wanted to index volume, you should have included it. I could have easily adjusted for any criteria you put forth. Just substitute V for V(fi..ji)

    I used 50% instead of 42% because it was simpler. I mentioned in my Kristina illustration that both were valid. In her illustration I used the lower rate as a concession. Since your assertion included such things as "giveaways" I didn't think it was necessary for me to make that concession.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, it doesn't matter if I add an index or go back to 42%... you said it was impossible to do the math...and I have done the math. It works with every conceivable value you want to input.

    It's too late to for you close the barn door.

    You stood up ... dared me to shoot you... and I did ... right smack between the eyes. It's too late to start wishing you did something else.

    Every path you followed has just turned into your own little version of perdition.

    You played your hand, you were beaten by a better hand, it's time to pay up and give up.


    p.s. The Log(e)(7.5) is a standard component in specific math proofs. It's use/purpose is taught in entry level college mathematics (though I learned it in HS advanced math).
    Jul 24, 2014. 06:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    Your question is invalid.

    I have every intention of explaining why. I could have done so right off the bat. It would be unconscionable to make that statement and not be willing to explain it.

    I've delayed explaining to give you the opportunity to go back and find and repair it yourself. Actually, I'm doing my best to encourage you to self-examine. I've always thought that it is better to let one find their errors than expose them to public ridicule and embarrassment.

    If you aren't willing to examine your own statements for error or admit you lack the resources to understand then you open yourself up to ridicule and embarrassment at the hands of others.

    Just tell me what you want to do. Do you insist on standing behind your "question"? ... or can you admit you don't have a clue?
    Jul 24, 2014. 06:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    I can't make sense of why NYSE keeps getting inserted. You'll just have to ignore it.

    Weird, very weird.
    Jul 24, 2014. 03:42 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Is The Most Hated Bull Market Of All Time - Understanding The Folly Of Financial Engineering [View article]
    Hi Joseph Stuber,

    I'm glad to see that you said what was needed to be said.

    I don't think disaster is lurking any time soon, that is before year end, but the Emperor Has No Clothes. It isn't far off.
    Jul 24, 2014. 03:42 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Somehow, when I posted the formula, NYSE was inserted. Don't ask me why. Just strange.

    Formula line should be...A=(R(NYSE:F)xV + R(NYSE:G)xV + R(NYSE:H)xV + R(J)xV) / ((V9F)+V(G)+V(H)+V(J))
    Jul 24, 2014. 02:59 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Solution follows...wrong again.

    ..."........Assertion: It is impossible for Reel Ken to provide the math showing what is required for an HLF distributor to make $16,000/yr in gross margins only retailing HLF products (Note: This assumes no down-line and no enrollee income after 12 months) based on the actual average selling price of HLF products, which is a combination of product sold at 0% discount, product sold at 15% discount through an HLF distributor on their website, product sold at 35% discount in places like eBay and Amazon, product sold at 100% discount when given away as samples, and so forth.

    Math provided as follows .......

    S=SRP
    R= Actual retail selling price
    V=Inventory Available
    F= zero discount G=15% discount H=35% discount J= given away
    A=(R(NYSE:F)xV + R(NYSE:G)xV + R(NYSE:H)xV + R(J)xV) / ((V9F)+V(G)+V(H)+V(J))
    B=Log(e)(7.5)x(A – S/2)

    Solution= 4401/B .... rounded to nearest integer.


    Q.E.D.
    Jul 24, 2014. 02:47 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    You say...

    .....".....What are you suggesting, that ........"

    How many times does it take, I'm not suggesting anything I am STATING A FACT.... your question ......

    ......"......what is the "commission" for a transaction occurring at 70% SRP with the distributor able to purchase product at a 42% discount to SRP?..."

    Is an invalid question and no math solution exists.

    Now, we're getting closer .......

    ......"...........Please explain why it is invalid and there is no math solution possible........."

    I'll be most happy to, once you acknowledge my conditions of explanation .... I'll repeat........

    "So I give you the same choice....

    Do you want to admit defeat and have me to show you why your question is invalid and no math solution is possible? or ...

    Do you want to figure it out yourself?

    Your choice. "

    Just admit defeat and the inability to figure out why your question is invalid and we can move on to other subjects. Of course, as I stated, once you admit defeat, then it ends any further discussion along these lines and you need to come up with a different thesis.
    Jul 24, 2014. 02:42 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    You say...

    ......"..........suggest that the math for an average selling price of anything other than 100% SRP is not possible when you said "Your question is invalid and no math solution is possible"..........."

    This is not what I said or suggested ... however.....

    This new "question" is totally different than your original question .....

    ...........".........what is the "commission" for a transaction occurring at 70% SRP with the distributor able to purchase product at a 42% discount to SRP?........"

    That is the question that I said is invalid and you seem to be moving away from it.

    Is this "re-write" of yours an admission that the original "question" was invalid?

    So, why don't we just stick to the original question, as you initially posed it. Are you in need of an explanation why it is invalid, or have you figured it out yourself?

    I'll take any attempt to alter the question as an admission that it was invalid and not possible to offer a math solution.


    Jul 24, 2014. 12:06 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    I remember a Professor I had when I was working on my masters thesis in Applied Math.

    Whenever a submission was made for review, he would just say whether I was on the right track or not. If I was not on the right track, I had to go back, find my error and re-submit.

    The prof had a "rule". If I hit a complete "dead end" ... couldn't figure out where I went wrong.... I could ask him to explain. However, I would be admitting defeat ... admitting I didn't have the requisite ability and that my entire thesis was mute. I would have to start over with a new thesis from ground zero.

    So it came down to two choices...

    1) Do I think I'm capable of figuring out where I went wrong, or....

    2) Do I want to admit defeat, admit that I couldn't see what he saw, and throw away my thesis and start a completely new one from scratch.

    So I give you the same choice....

    Do you want to admit defeat and have me to show you why your question is invalid and no math solution is possible? or ...

    Do you want to figure it out yourself?

    Your choice.
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:50 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    HI WillyTSA,

    You continue to make mistakes.

    In the 70% at Full SRP and 30% at zero, I was illustrating that NO Profit was false on an aggregate basis. I lowered the SRP to a level that met that criteria. I never suggested it sold at that level, just that's the level to assert the premise.

    I gave you the numbers at 90%-95% SRP. If you're too lazy to do the math, I can't help you. You had no trouble when you wanted to assert 70%.

    ...."......am seeking for you to "give information" in the form of presenting your revised math at a discount to SRP you believe reflects HLF's actual gross margins......."

    I know what you're asking. I gave you numbers at 90%-95%, which is the number you supplied. It was your query, your facts.

    Notwithstanding, I've said, over and over, the illustration was for a generic MLM as per Kristina's request. You keep trying to move the goal-posts. I'm tired of it.

    Here's what I suggest ... why don't you make an assertion .. like the one Kristina made ... just say what you want and I'll decide if I think the assertion worthy of my effort.

    Maybe one that says something like this ... " It's impossible for anyone to make $16000 selling HLF products" .. or whatever else you think you want.
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:42 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Dave,

    I agree that cold calling is not a very effective method. Practically every marketing method in todays society, discourages it. It has been supplanted with other more sophisticated methods such as referrals and seminar selling.

    HLF also stresses referral and seminar selling.

    However, the difficulty in any outside sales, is not the inadequacy of 10-3-1. It is the difficulty in ability to implement. It has nothing to do with "territory" or anything even close to that.

    There are plenty of hugely successful sales people that have much greater limitations than that. You conclude that success or failure has to do with some factor external to the sales person, themselves. Just not so.

    Even 10-3-1 ... means a sales person must approach 10 people and accept 9 "rejections" for one sale. It requires the ability to overcome "fear of rejection". Most people are not "wired" for this. Most people also have "approach anxiety". That's why, after picking the low-hanging fruit .. friends and family ... sales sputters.

    Most people completely shy away from sales jobs because of these two fears. It is not that 10-3-1 doesn't work. There is significant proof in many fields, that it does work. No one doubts that a persistent sales person can succeed selling just about anything, anywhere.

    The one quality all successful sales people have in common, is that they have found ways to overcome the fear of rejection and approach anxiety. It is also true that the biggest reason for people failing in sales is their inability to overcome fear of rejection and approach anxiety.

    Just ask people if they would be interested in sales and most shudder.

    I have been personally involved in exhaustive statistical studies of outside sales in varied industries. All the studies were able to get past all the "standard excuses" ... product was no good, too much effort, too much time, too little rewards, not enough prospects, inadequate training.... etc..

    Amazingly, what we discovered, is that these factors did not influence success/failure rates. They only influenced the level of success of those that succeeded.

    Once the "excuses" ere peeled back, it always came down to fear of rejection and approach anxiety.

    I think I have a pretty good handle of what sales people go through, what makes them successful and what leads them to quit. It is this quality and this quality only ... overcoming "fear of rejection" and "approach anxiety".

    You'll get a much better handle on things by surveying successes and asking them how they made it than surveying failures and asking them why they didn't. People, in general, will gladly tell you how they succeeded, failures usually find fault outside themselves.
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:20 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,870 Comments
7,103 Likes