Seeking Alpha

Reel Ken

View as an RSS Feed
View Reel Ken's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    ..."...You haven't provided any data, from HLF or anyone else, indicating distributors are making money retailing...."

    Gee, I thought I did. There are 30,000 distributors that have no down line and are sales leaders. These S/Vs are either the stupidest people on the earth and they enjoy throwing money down the toilet or they are making money retailing. Some of them are on SA and have talked about the money they make.

    This is further reinforced as retail sales. Unlike the 43,000 S/Vs that have a downline, and sell some product at wholesale prices, the no-downline-S/Vs haven't chosen this path. Since the path to offer 25% discounts to end-users is through phantom distributorships and they aren't taking this path, it is not only fair to assume they get full retail, but you can just about bet the farm on it.
    Jul 4 07:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    A lot of questions... I'll do my best..

    1) Your original quote ... "....Vander Nat assumes distributors can earn business income by retailing products at some mark-up from wholesale cost. There is no evidence this is happening with HLF..."

    My response ..."...The fact that ALL retailing doesn't occur at SRP doesn't translate to NO retailing occurs at SRP, which is what you imply."

    You respond with ..."...This is what you inferred..." It isn't an inference, it is what you said ... look more closely, you say there is no evidence ... at some mark-up. SRP is a mark-up as well as many other versions. In fact, you imply much more. You imply no sales at any mark-up. Being as polite as I can be ... hogwash.

    2) Me =" Furthermore, for purposes of Vander Nat's formula, this is not a disqualifying factor."

    You = "It is. If retailing can't be done profitably, an assumption of the model hasn't been met."

    Wrong, the formula allows for this input. It does not disqualify the formula. In fact, according to Vander Nat, it is one of the few times that the formula is dead-on accurate.

    3) me= ""It also exceeds any amount that could possibly provide economic benefit by "inventory loading"."

    you= "Does John Tartol make more money from personal retailing or from downline purchases?".

    Totally irrelevant to the conversation. How Tartol makes money does not address whether or not S/V's are retailing product. In fact, the more S/V retail sales, the more Tartol makes.

    4) me= "The only explanation can be that the inventory purchases, above personal consumption are being resold. This is validated by their own assertions."

    you= '" Resold at what price? 35% discount to SRP in order to be competitive with eBay, which still gives you credit toward qualifying for supervisor? 100% discount to SRP in the hope your aunt who lives on the other side of the state will become a distributor?"

    Again, totally irrelevant to the conversation. The issue is whether or not they are engage in retailing activity. Price effects profit not activity.

    5) me= "The 70% ... these are self-consumers"" ... if 40% have an expectation of monthly income does not change the fact that they use the product."

    you="Don't 100% of distributors use the product? It's part of the Use, Wear, Talk path to success. "

    Again, totally irrelevant and incorrect. I think you need to read some Court cases, specifically BL and learn what the end-user issue is all about.

    6) me="" ... if 40% have an expectation of monthly income does not change the fact that they use the product."

    you="It does however change the price they expect they will be paying for the product, and in the absence of the expected earnings, whether they would be consuming as much of the product or any product at all."

    Again, totally irrelevant. the Formula inputs numbers and activity. You are trying to ascribe motive and intent. Sorry, that's not a quantifiable or verifiable factor.

    7) me= "If they sell product and earn money, then it reinforces the "mark-up". If they don't then it doesn't change the fact that they are self-consumers and deemed end-users. You are confusing the concept of "end-user" and "biz-opp wanabees"."

    you ="John Tartol is an end user, is he not?"

    Getting repetitive, but, again, not relevant. We were discussing the end-line-distributers, not the up-line. How Tartol fits in is beyond me.

    8) you= "These 40% of your "self consumers" expected to be EARNING as much as $500 per month. A true retail customer for HLF powder has no expectations of earnings from selling HLF powder. A GNC member has no expectations of earnings from selling GNC powder. "

    Whew, glad we're finally at the end. This is not relevant to the topic.

    Summary: I'm discussing Vander Nat's Formula and its application and utility. You are just throwing up topics that address completely different issues. Every single mention is nothing more than a red-herring.

    Hopefully, you can see that you are not addressing any of the issues pertinent to this thread. Now, if you want to discuss the extent of Marketing fraud, deceptive "biz-opps" or Tartol, that's fine. But they belong in another thread.
    Jul 4 07:29 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Yteeld,

    Thanks for reading and offering additional content.

    I think your point is well taken and is reinforced by his failure to adequately define "f" in a way that it can be applied or understood.

    He had something in mind, but didn't quite know what it was. That is why Fusion ran afoul ... they assumed it had an established, rather than theoretical, meaning. It is also why Ackman has difficulties because someone, somewhere, sometime needs to define AND accept "primarily" before any conclusion can be extracted.

    In Vander Nat's defense, he does say that the formula is narrow in its utility and applicable in only the more obvious cases.
    Jul 4 05:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Kristina,

    For sure, the "BIG MONEY" is paid to a very few top-o-the-chain members.

    There are obviously a number of Distributors, not getting "Big Money Royalties" that are making DECENT money on the retail and wholesale spreads. Many more making SOME money, with retail sales.

    My problem with the structure is that the marketing material overemphasizes the Royalty opportunity relative to the wholesale/retail opportunity.
    Jul 4 05:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    The fact that ALL retailing doesn't occur at SRP doesn't translate to NO retailing occurs at SRP, which is what you imply. Furthermore, for purposes of Vander Nat's formula, this is not a disqualifying factor. How much is sold at what price matters, but it is factored into the Formula, the Formula isn't thrown away on account of these differentials.

    Regarding the 30,000 S/V that are sales leaders. The qualifications for sales leadership indicates purchases that significantly exceed any amount that could be for their own personal consumption. It also exceeds any amount that could possibly provide economic benefit by "inventory loading". 30,000 S/V's couldn't be that stupid. The only explanation can be that the inventory purchases, above personal consumption are being resold. This is validated by their own assertions.

    The 70% ... these are self-consumers ... if 40% have an expectation of monthly income does not change the fact that they use the product. If they sell product and earn money, then it reinforces the "mark-up". If they don't then it doesn't change the fact that they are self-consumers and deemed end-users. You are confusing the concept of "end-user" and "biz-opp wanabees".
    Jul 4 04:07 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment and add info.

    I'm a little confused by your comment. The S/V's sell product at Retail profit of 25%-50%, or at wholesale for 25% profit. That relates to a "mark-up" of 50% to 100%..

    You say there is no evidence this is happening and I can find no evidence it is NOT happening. In fact, there are 30,000 S/V's with no down-line and meeting the "sales-leader" criteria, which alone would indicate significant sales at mark-up.

    Are you referring to inventory loading? .... which is a completely different concept vs. wholesale/retail mark-up.

    Or, are you referring to just the last-in-line-Distributor .... of which some 70+% are self-consumers and technically deemed end-users not distributors?

    Or, do you see something I'm not seeing?

    thanks for helping out.
    Jul 4 03:06 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Michael Sacerdote,

    Thanks for taking the time to voice your opinion. There are many people that just don't like the structure ... period.

    There are so many abusive activities that various enterprises engage in, its hard to pick MLMs as a starting place. They would certainly make the list, but I can think of at least 10 marketing fraud/abuses that should be knocked out on the way down the list before reaching MLMs.
    Jul 4 02:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi DrP79,

    I certainly took them as appropriate. I like to view my articles as a forum, not a grandstand and all additional info, such as you provided is not only welcome, it is appreciated.
    Jul 4 02:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Jeffjacobjames,

    Since you ask, I feel it gives a unique opportunity to answer. So here goes.....

    1) I think that HLF's marketing controls are insufficient and will be targeted. HLF has tried to position itself as a supplier of goods/services to independent dealers. They put in "rules of conduct" but policing them is lax. I think the FTC will treat the distributer/HLF relationship as one of AGENCY. Fines and some "clean-up" procedures to address at least these issues...

    a) Health related claims. The FDA gives them a legislative pass, and it may be inter-agency "foot-stepping" for the FTC to even address, but it is bothersome.

    b) Down-play the 'Biz-opp". I mean REALLY down play, not lip-service downplay, as they have been doing now.

    c) De-emphasize "royalty income" in the "biz-opp". The "biz-opp" is wholesale/retail pricing, not "royalty" income.

    d) Elimination of phantom distributorships as a way to get a discount. Just call them "preferred customers" or something.

    2) HLF is NOT a Pyramid. HLF seems to be walking a tight-rope, but it has an effective balancing act. Just enough of everything else to validate the outrageous distribution of royalty income. I think the FTC will use the "close call" as leverage to get concessions such as the ones above rather than roll the dice. It is my sense, after reviewing everything I can find, that the FTC takes a stand on OBVIOUS Pyramids.

    These are my thoughts and there can be many more facts uncovered that could lead me to change my assessment.
    Jul 4 02:04 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? The Vander Nat Paradox [View article]
    Hi Drp79,

    Thank you for all the additional information.

    It was not my intention to make an exhaustive explanation of all aspects of the paper or the Formula. That's why I included a link.

    One purpose of this article was simply to illustrate how some people can take a particular piece of information, and bend it to serve the purpose they want.

    Under the concept of "Can We Talk", please feel free to bring in any and all aspects that are of interest.
    Jul 4 01:33 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? Part Two [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    "... I can claim anything I want,...."

    Sure you can, and sure you have. You can claim the world is flat and earth is the center of the universe. That doesn't make it so. You can claim a 1.000 batting average and that doesn't make it so either.

    You are not innocent of the crimes you committed ... you are merely "not guilty". There's a difference. Your protestations are meaningless. Hey, O.J. Simpson was "not guilty" too, and he claims, just as you do, that he was innocent.

    Well, sorry, O.J. and you are just "not-guilty".

    See, the problem is the only time someone is presumed innocent is before the verdict is read. Thereafter, the best they can hope for is "not guilty".

    Maybe, just maybe, you can see the consequences of accusations being made against people. You will never be able to remove doubt from everyone. The mere fact that you were accused breeds guilt in some peoples eyes, regardless of the verdict. Unfortunately, you will carry this stigma with you for the rest of your life ... even if you are actually innocent.

    And there will always be people claiming you were guilty, just that you "got off" in the same way you continue your accusation against Amway, even though they were "not-guilty".

    People will always assess some guilt on those that are accused of a crime (or in your case, actually jailed for it) regardless of the verdict. It's human nature.

    So, if you don't like the fact that you will never be "innocent", in a legal sense, just "not-guilty" that's tough luck.

    You have no problem doing your best to damage other peoples reputations with your accusations, so let's see if you can take it as well as dish it out.

    p.s. I don't need to see the transcript of your trial anymore than I need to try on OJ's glove. Just tell me that there were no witnesses against you, that no prosecution took place and the case was dismissed. For, certainly, if the case was prosecuted, at least someone thought you were guilty of a crime.
    Jul 3 08:08 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? Part Two [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    ...."..............My batting average is based on games "played." ..."

    Oh, very interesting ... a completely new definition of batting average ... very clever of you.

    It seems that every ball player that ever lived has a "CBN Batting Average" of 1.000. After all they played in every game they played in.

    Pity those poor suckers that thought that if they played in a game and went 1-for-4 they have incorrectly thought they batted .250.

    p.s. HLF is an accusation. So, that means it really isn't games played ... it is accusations made. Your accusation of Amway represents a loss. Sorry, but maybe you can find a new definition to fit your claim.
    Jul 3 05:44 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? Part Two [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    It's nice to see you've finally come around.

    We have shared at least 100 comments on other threads were I have laboriously repeated, over and over again, that HLF is presumed innocent, a stance you have continuously denied. Your memory must be failing you as you've forgot all my charges against you as the "guilty until proven innocent man". The record is there, I need go no further.

    But just so we can get this all right ... guilty or not guilty only means that the necessary burden has/has-not been met. It does not address whether the "perp" did/did-not commit the crime.

    You inadvertently acknowledge this in your claim about Amway. In your mind , they're guilty, regardless of the verdict. Well, two can play that same game... you were arrested for criminal wrongdoing and found not guilty. That doesn't mean you're innocent, just "not-guilty". So, if you want to keep playing the "Amway" game ... YOU become fair game. Can't have it both ways.

    Now, going back to legal process, we never can be 100% sure that any verdict has it right. The only thing we can be 100% sure of is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And even then, they may still be innocent, because the burden of proof does not require 100% certainty.

    The fact is that you can never claim yourself innocent of the charges brought against you ... only that you were found "not-guilty" ..... and, as you have said, that does not mean you're innocent.

    So, I'd be very careful of who you accuse of criminal wrongdoing and how often you say verdicts get it wrong .... "glass houses, and all that..."
    Jul 3 12:35 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? Part Two [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    Wow.

    You, the "accuser in chief" finally acknowledging that the accused is presumed innocent.

    Thank you.... HLF is presumed innocent of Pyramid Fraud.

    Take that !!!!!
    Jul 3 03:31 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: Can We Talk? Part Two [View article]
    Hi Kristina,

    Not to worry ... I'm still trying to figure out how Corporations are people.

    I always thought they were separate legal entities .. now it appears they take on their master's voice.

    I guess the next big decision will be if Corporations have the right to bear arms followed by whether or not a hostile takeover violates the Corporations 13th Amendment right to be free of involuntary servitude.
    Jul 2 05:05 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,577 Comments
5,635 Likes