Member Info for bluerill

Truly, if brevity is the soul of wit, that previous warning demonstrates the opposite.

wow. Happened even faster than I imagined. Anyway, noch einmal for effect: short TAAT and its next 3-5 years (minimum) of limited product offerings, structural unprofitability and (very) healthy (over)valuation and go long CHLL with pretty much exactly the opposite.

no

never. funny is serious business.

Um. no it wasn't. It wasn't kind of clever, almost witty or funny-adjacent either. lol?? More like BBB, bring back billy, 'cause anything's got to be better than this guy trying to crack jokes.

oh brother. That trading update was for Q2 only. Q1 was 2m. Otherwise, the rest of your post is nonsense, so let's leave it

I realise this is the LIFE board, but you are way off mpd: first off, CHLL revenues are $2.5m for their very first 6 months of operations and they will annualise at well over twice that for certain. In the meantime, much more importantly, their cost base is a fraction LIFE's (total CEO comp for the co-CEOs is less than £200k; they've gained a foothold in over 2500 shops in US on the way to 10k by Q2 next year with almost no marketing spend, and production is contracted out) so that CHLL is already at or near cash flow positive and will probably be net profitable in Year1. And as I mentioned already, smoking cessation growth projections are a multiple of any other sub-sector within the CBD space.

sorry mozax, but that first sentence is, respectfully, gobbldygook. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I'm telling you that the cosmetic side of the business at CHLL is of little consequence right now in terms of upside potential in the share. The division has already been separated internally (likely in preparation for a sale in a year or 2, but I digress), while the massive growth on the smoking/chew side is fully addressed. (CBD-Tobacco free nicotine products alone are forecast to be a $50B market in 5 years, for instance). As a result, my simple conclusion is therefore that CHLL and LIFE are no longer comparable companies. That's it. Nothing controversial. You cannot possibly own both and not know that..

That's not even remotely true mozax, but what I'm trying to explain is that it is also largely irrelevant. The 2 companies are not competitors for intents and purposes, as CHLL is focused on the much faster growing, and far less crowded, smoking cessation market, within the CBD space. Comparing them is therefore a dangerous game and LIFE shareholders are better served looking at names like Voyager for guidance on valuation.

no faking the massive refinancing package at Eroton though, alaric, which is going to anchor this RTO and the creation of AIM's largest independent oil and gas company. And they said it couldn't be done......

Chill was not up on 275k of revenue. That was a number that winnifrith made up out of his rectum. The rollout they announced was a serious one and will be worth in the millions over time. In the meantime, forget the notion that Love Hemp and and Chill are in any way comparable. Chill is in a much higher growth area of the market in smoking cessation products while the cosmetic side is a relative sideshow (though there is one relevant overlap in gummies of course), and is thus a far, far bigger company in the making. It will always trade at a very substantial premium to LIFE. That doesn't mean LIFE isn't attractive at these levels, just don't try and justify it by comparing it to CHLL, they're in different universes. A much more appropriate name to follow for comparison would be Nick Tulloch's new venture, Voyager.

very

could someone please explain to me why the CHLL v TAAT thread - which contained a lot of important corrections to some very biased reasoning - was taken down? vascular, any guesses?

attaboy. You're halfway there. Allow me: '.....and CHLL's should be materially higher as well.....'

'.....to compare like-for-like....' Precisely. Thanks for backing us up, antha

As a final sum-up on this (unfortunately overlong, I know) exchange, let me make a final declaration (again): vascular - you continually assert that, in one form or another, that you NEVER bring up TAAT in order to draw a comparison between the 2 companies that should be allowed to extend to a fulsome analysis as I or HD have done today, but rather as a means of highlighting how a listed competitor of CHILL's manages some issue or other, such as covid-delays or general communications as you claim today. PLEASE NOTE: I completely reject that (boring) assertion as patently absurd on its face and, respectfully, you should never again attempt to use it as it is almost post-Trumpian in its rejection of the basics of logic.

Lord help me. I know I'm falling into the same trap again, but I'm weak: 'I just posted TAATs latest communications....' NO. YOU. DID. NOT. You posted those comms and THEN specifically and purposefully highlighted ONLY that which YOU thought reflected poorly on CHLL in comparison, when in fact there was far more to highlight - IF you had CHOSEN to do so - that made CHLL look good in comparison AND I'm not even so sure what you did point out made TAAT look all that great in the first place.

really? that's your response? You don't have a clue what I'm trying to say?!? Ok, how's this: 1. TAAT's release contained a number of concerning elements that are far more important than the positives, which furthermore reflects extremely well on CHLL in comparison. It highlights a massively overvalued company which is arguably STRUCTURALLY UNPROFITABLE, meaning never mind they may never achieve anything close to results that justify their current valuation, they may never be profitable at all, at least in the reasonably foreseeable future. In their most recent release, which you highlighted, they demonstrated just what a massive hill they have to climb, having had to spend 4m of money they don't have on marketing to support sales growth which trails CHILL's. And then, just for fun, they refer at the bottom of the release - apparently as 'evidence' of a healthy balance sheet - to 10m in 'working capital'. Um, last I looked high levels of working capital are a 'bad' thing as it refers to a timing delay in receivables which needs to be financed. If however, the company didn't mean 'working capital' but instead meant to say 'cash', well, that's kind of a rookie mistake to make, don't you think? 2. You're a disingenuous tool and don't ever ever ever ever ever again accuse anyone else of being 'boring'. The most egregious example of projection ever.

vascular - Do you think that excuses your behaviour? It doesn't. Your approach to highlighting information from TAAT is precisely like a swimmer who comes last in his 1500m race, but tells everyone back home that he was the 'winner' after 50m. Given their massive cost base, TAAT had bloody-well show even bigger revenue and shop growth numbers and get a move on if they want to show they can manage their bloated cost base, because the virtue of happy-chappy comms has a way of wearing very thin when you're doubling your losses year on year.

I have written often on TAAT, focusing on its outsized valuation relative to chill despite more modest successes on rollout, sales, etc., but yours and billy's latest round of selective analysis meant solely - no matter how much you protest otherwise - to compare CHLL unfavourably to TAAT is yet another self-own since, since more than ANTHING else, what the results link you've shared highlights is just how top-heavy TAAT's business model really is, and how therefore the prospect of achieving sufficient growth to get to positive net profits - let alone cash generation! - is a brutally distant proposition. If that's not the first thing out of your 'mouth' when viewing those numbers, then I have to doubt your intentions.