Member Info for bluerill

Tell you what, vas. On the 'let it go' request, so genuinely, so sincerely, so maturely proffered: um, nah. As for your gobbledygook 'aside': why don't you stfu with your ham-fisted attempts to distract me from my goal here which is to highlight a new, bull avenue for readers to research while I wipe my *ss with what's left of your ego, you bloody amateur? That ok with your totally sane self?

go to the devil you dissembling, projecting piece of garbage. I'm the one who is lowering himself to engage with you in the first place which by definition, proves my 'willingness' to let you have your say. What an amateurish attempt to distract from my arguments, by trying to accuse ME of trying to silence you when I'm the only one here willing to show you even a modicum of respect. As for the rest of your 'post', I think if you sift through it like the trash, you will find the kind of emotional responses that are genuinely troubling hidden in plain sight. Issues such as a deep-seated inferiority complex, thinly-disguised, but totally unaddressed bitterness, and a degree of sociopathy where you show no evidence of concern for the consequences of your own bad behaviour or your willingness to look someone straight in the eye, as it were, and just flat-out lie.

And Fred, before you swoop in to say I told you so, let me say that I am aware that ending up having to 'scream' at this creature in all caps is precisely why you are constantly imploring posters not to engage with him/it/them, for now, I am mentally up to the task. For now anyway

No no no no no. That isn't what you did and certainly not what you intending in doing it. You are deeply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as evidenced by the fact, ironically enough, that you continue to litigate as to your INTENTIONS in posting it in the first place, and not acknowledge the exciting results that were subsequently uncovered. In other words, Who gives a hoot why you posted it anymore anyway? You're never going to convince me or 90% of the readers here that it was anything other for malicious purposes, given your well documented history of phoney, head-fake 'research'. You maintain that it was for whatever oh-so-innocent, milquetoast reason(s) you've blathered about a half dozen times already. But, I cannot definitively know your intentions, what's in your heart if you will, despite all the historic, circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that you're a bad agent. Fine, so stipulated. Now, How about how acknowledging for say, a nanonsecond, how you have (unwittingly) uncovered how smart US private equity have backed the 'tobacco cessation' theme through TAAT to the point where that company trades at twice Zoe's enterprise value despite its well-documented inferior strategic and product positioning, thus providing a fresh, two-pronged addition to the bull case in favour of Zoe and its current share price? You know, seeing as you are so into 'research' and all.....

I might return the message, fred. I would suggest you stop your somewhat obsessive need to discourage engagement and note that, in this case, it has produced a particularly bullish argument in favour of Zoe's immediate re-rating that some more sophisticated holders may be able to exploit. It has also demonstrated vas's poisoned intentions, especially to new and some existing skeptical shareholders who aren't so certain, in a way that your constant declarations cannot.

Drivel?? Approval?? Why would give a damn what you do or don't approve of? What are you babbling about generally??? Did you actually read what i wrote? Obviously not, so here's the gist: you posted something about a potential competitive company (by the way, I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say 'Thank you so very much going the extra mile and actually giving us the link - WOW. THE LINK! - on top of your already above-and-beyond efforts in your selfless pursuit of knowledge'. Truly, is there no end to your selfless efforts?) with malign intent, hoping to both puff up your fragile ego and frighten zoetic shareholders (yet again) while SIMULTANEOUSLY IGNORING the most basic, fundamental information about that company, which then would have led to an obvious, positive conclusion on your part. But since you are incapable of such honest work, you chose to ignore that information and then when it was shoved in your face, chose to try and ridicule the person - me - that pointed it out. Epic fail. Cancel your account.

And at the risk of over-egging the omelette, vascular, as ethically-challenged a poster as he may be has, consciously or not, provided one of the simplest, most undiluted bullish arguments for Zoetic shareholders in some time, maybe ever, on this board. I admit I had never heard of TAAT, but after just a bit of reading, it does indeed seem to offer an elegant comp for Chill in its cigarette-alternative product offering and the overall strategy of bringing their product to market. The fact that Chill is ahead of TAAT in every relevant sales, marketing and product development channel, and yet has already accrued an enterprise value 2x+ Zoetic's should be anywhere from profoundly reassuring for some here about our current valuation, to wildly bullish for others. In fact, some of Zoe's more sophisticated shareholders may, starting tomorrow, start looking for ways to exploit this undeserved and therefore unsustainable valuation gap. Anything from checking on whether TAAT shares are borrowable so that some can be shorted against a long Zoe position, to alerting the Reddit crowd of how cheap TAAT makes Zoe look and the fact that Zoe have a US listing, as illiquid as it may be presently, that can be bought versus a short in TAAT. Thanks for the heads-up, vas. Now, I have some calls to make.

No you weren't, you shameless dissembler. You posted the link and chat about this company specifically to frighten shareholders that there was some kind of big, bad competitor out there of which they knew nothing, but you, as the hero 'researcher', were magnanimously bringing to their attention. And you did it in precisely the ostensibly bland, flaccid style meant to try and cover for the implicitly negative message ultimately conveyed, that you are constantly - and rightly - accused. Otherwise, you would have LED with the fact that this 'new' company, despite being objectively behind Zoe in every possible way is, despite that, already valued at a multiple of Zoe's current market cap. Whatever? Whatever?!?!? What could possibly be a more relevant observation to make for readers here? And more importantly, what could better single you out as an ethics-free interlocutor than first your likely conscious decision to ignore it altogether and then your subsequent effort to downplay it after I called you on it. It's profoundly intellectually dishonest. Double shame on you.

TAAT are a year or 2 behind Chill, recently reported quarterly revenues less than a third of Zoe's Apr-June quarter, has no chew competitor, and of course don't possess anything to match the massive potential of the other half of the Zoetic product suite outside smokes. TAAT also happens to be LISTED in both Canada and the US, where it has seen its share price triple in the past year and, best of all......ready for it?......it has a market cap of over $C300m, or £175m. That's right. Just about 2x the Zoe market cap that vas/billy love to constantly return to as 'evidence' that somehow Zoe's valuation has run ahead of 'reality'. It simply astounds me that such a fair and balanced, thorough 'researcher' as vascular, in sharing this information about a potential competitor, in his self-proclaimed un-biased/no agenda way, as he battles all these evil rampers, would have neglected to include such important and easily attained information. Surely it couldn't be that pointing it out may in fact make Zoe's current share price look positively miserly and that wouldn't have supported vas's true purpose in posting it in the first place, could it?? Nah......

stop! I don't care if he offered it to jesus christ himself. it is MEANINGLESS information used to set up a phoney trolling about the warning label. that's it. Regardless, anecdotal stories from anonymous sources on bulletin boards IS NOT RESEARCH and therefore is NOT to be shared in the first place (except for fun asides between posters that trust each other) bc PEOPLE LIE AND/OR HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO CONDUCT RELEVANT TESTS ON THEIR OWN. OR BOTH. yes, that means you too. PERIOD. END OF

1. read and understand, bc this one is crucial: 'z-cars' bought a packet of something and proffered it to a 'non-smoker'. THIS IS NOT RESEARCH. It is, at best, a useless exercise, at worst an entirely made-up scenario in order to be trolly; 2. the health warning has never been in dispute in the UK, and as I have already pointed out, added from an abundance of caution and thus likely not permanent; 3. therefore, having this likely phoney poster 'wondering' how to 'market' it to someone with the health label is so ridiculously redundant to anyone with any legitimate interest that I shouldn't even have to point it out. As for your other 2 questions, I believe I do know the answers but am checking to make sure

God, you disingenuous little so-and-so. Explain to me exactly what this 'genuine poster's' proposal was exactly and then kindly explain further how it wasn't patently ludicrous on its face and therefore the most logical conclusion is that he is in fact anything BUT genuine and only suddenly appeared here in order to engage in a vacuous debate aimed only at trolling.

I still can't remember which of the 2 insisted that using a 10x earnings multiple to conveniently justify the current share price was a reasonable assumption while conveniently ignoring that companies like this don't have any 'E' for years and therefore the market uses far, far, far less demanding multiples of far, far simpler metrics like EBITDA or even revenues (!) for early-stage growth companies like this one. Not to mention that the last company to trade on a 10x PE in these stock markets was in 1955. But when this is pointed out, no matter how impolitely, ....... crickets.

Actually Vas, while my comment was indeed directed at this 'new' investor as you describe 'z-car', it could just as easily been referring to the ongoing, ridiculous cluster w*nk you have going on with billy where you treat his 'research' - which basically involves his reporting to an anonymous message board the 'results' of his alleged calls to shops in Montana and talking to 18 year old clerks who likely think he's a fecking Martian - as if it were the crop report in Trading Places. Speaking of 80s classics, billy basically thinks he's Bud Fox in Wall Street following Gordon Gekko's arch nemesis to the local airport so he can find out where he's flying to and figure out for which company he's going to launch his next hostile bid - and you pretend to indulge his fantasies because I reckon you know exactly how meaningless his 'data' is and therefore how annoying everyone finds it.

Oh for heaven's sake, enough with the pretending to be conducting some kind of relevant market test. I don't mind if some long-term posters share some personal experiences with the new (in the UK) product as they have a decent history of balanced contributions here. But let's be clear: 1. none of this is the least bit relevant as it is completely anecdotal and much more importantly - and I really shouldn't have to write this - anonymous posters on message boards LIE (say it ain't so!); and therefore 2. trying to start a debate (!) over the proper way to conduct a market test that is irrelevant anyway - like whether its better to had a single ciggy or a pack for instance - is just the worst kind of phoney scholarship conducted by a transparently time-wasting troll.

Like trying to have a reasoned conversation with a thinly-disguised troll?

In addition to the healthier aspects of the Chill products already mentioned (to them I would add that Chill are the only known CBD smokes products that can currently claim to be entirely TCH-free, which is one of the primary reasons for the company's massive distribution success to date, PARTICULARLY in the US), the current warning label on the UK product is there out of an abundance of caution. In other words, it is far from a given that it will need to remain after the FSA - finally - releases its rules of the road for CBD, but for now the company is not taking any chances. Please note in fact that the US products do not currently carry any such warning label.

Before you get all shirty, 'stfu' was just too elegant an ending to pass up. I'm not generally profane.

billy - your numbers are ridiculously understated. 'Questions will be asked...'??? They already are. Like, even on your 'numbers', do you have any idea where you are placing Chill in the hierarchy of new consumer product launches in the US this year? Furthermore, can you even begin to imagine where the market will price the shares even if your first 2 quarter 'numbers' emerge? Even the tiniest inkling? Ask the lady who runs the Ark fund how she would value a company coming from nowhere in a hot consumer space with highly desired new brands in a newish retail sub-category, 4/5k stores into a 10k store GUARANTEED rollout, on the way to 100k. Go ahead, ask her. And then sit down and respectfully, just for 5 blissful minutes, stfu....

Craig/LK - I don't want this to turn into a cluster-f*ck of lecturing, so let me put it simply: I know what I'm doing and 'filtering' is contraindicated here. Billy responded to MY analysis and I'm responding to him. I think he is a lot of things, but Analyst-level villain is not one of them. He does indeed over-post here relative to his avowed level of exposure and, much more importantly, his work is facile and ridiculously, inappropriately conservative for looking at a brand new branded consumer products company, but so far I reckon he paints just inside the lines and since the share price can't seem to catch a bid at the moment, I don't think its such a bad time to use him as a springboard to remind others here of the huge spread between that share price and events on the ground.