Member Info for bluerill

Forget the bloody 'packs/day' metric. It's a red herring right now. I explained how you should be looking at this: A very reasonable estimate for 'pre-orders' to the distributor for 3k stores is around $800k by now. If we have $2m in sales already therefore, then something very special is happening. That's it.

then, you didn't read what I wrote properly. We are already running $1m+ ahead of what we would expect at this stage. If you don't like sales 'growth,' try sales 'far exceeding expectations'

yes, but it's the massive growth already experienced in SALES that bears notice. That's why this is not next year's or even next quarter's story. It is now.

I won't do this you, billy. If you don't acknowledge reality and address what I've written honourably, then we're done. I have demonstrated how the early numbers are massively encouraging as there is an EXCESS of sales relative to expectation of well over $1m. And here's the key which you clearly refuse to recognise: that's in THE VERY FIRST MONTHS of the rollout. You write about the company, in this flaccid, been-there-done-that , ho-hum 2.5 packets manner as if this were a post-growth, mature company having a so-so early summer. This massive uptake and sales are at the very beginning of an enormous sales rollout which has gotten off to a massive start, which you are completely ignoring. That is so horribly dishonest.

Well yes, there is also that, Bob, of course. But generally, the point to take away is that shareholders have got to do better to get their heads around the sheer magnitude of what is being undertaken - and now been achieved - here, by a very small, devoted group. We're talking $1m+ in 'excess' sales already achieved, on 50% margins, achieving early profitability and the world still to conquer. With that backdrop, no shareholder should be fretting over getting regional sales breakdowns by product or some such. Clearly, that's not where our human or financial capital should be remotely focused on right now.

So here's the 2nd half of the 'hidden in plain sight' analysis, MC. News flash: they don't have that information, nor should anyone expect them to at this stage! This is a massive rollout of a brand new brand with multiple products. Of course they won't be able to 'know' the kind of granular data you're looking for for many, many months when they will finally have enough data over enough time to parse it and see what is selling best, where and why. It's crazy for anyone to expect otherwise and then to be disappointed - or worse! - they're not getting that kind of info after just a couple of months. Never mind the fact that, in any case, we want every swinging d*ck on deck and filling orders to continue the surge towards 10k store rollout and beyond first and foremost!

As the share price drifts on no volume, let me simplify an earlier analysis for any and all who want to understand just how seriously impressive the quarterly sales numbers already released truly are, based SOLEY on official, sanctioned information ( ie., no phoney 'research' like calling individual stores in the hope of getting some 18 year old clerk to provide 'sales' numbers, etc.) Ok - again - here goes: We know the early part of the rollout in this Q is for roughly 3000 stores. Those 3k stores will take an average 0f $200/250 worth of stock from the distributor to start with. We know this bc that's the long-time experience average for a product like this. That's around $750k in 'pre-order' sales to Ox. The very, very, very simple conclusion therefore, is the balance of some $1 1/4m is some kind of follow-on or well-above expectations pre-orders ALREADY (the only alternative is that Ox is stockpiling millions in inventory and that ain't how it works either). That's it. Clean and simple: the $2m announced sales number for the first full quarter of the rollout is, on any reasonable basis, a blow-out result and must necessarily be exceeding management's best expectations. The share price will take care of itself I'm sure.

yeah, I don't agree with anything else you wrote. If anything, this share has been under-hyped. Just on current disclosed numbers and the earliest RNSs concerning the sell-through data from the beta testing, I think a share price many multiples of where we are is more than justifiable. Right now. Today. But that's what makes a market.......

Billy - I don't overly abuse or filter you. When I occasionally post and you're in my direct line of fire, I can be a bit fruity in my language, but to date I have treated you and vascular as at least legitimate-adjacent (even though I almost burned this entire board down a few weeks ago when one of you tried to insist that the current share price might be justified if you used a PE of 10x!). So I think I'm entitled to at least a nod from you - seeing as you are so committed to your research - that, in endorsing carly's original post so quickly and without really understanding it - perhaps you did demonstrate betray just a teeny tendency to support any crackpot theory that comes down the pike so long as it is bearish, and in the process - seeing as you are so committed to getting things right - acknowledge my correction. After all, you're a shareholder too, right?

The F is a weak tape for all things small(er) cap. Lots more good news to come which should easily overcome the market malaise.

weather - I agree, and I know the name you're referring to. And you're right. It was likely much more of a trading position than zoe, where john story has been an integral part of literally mid-wifing the company. However, as I've discussed already, the key here should not have to be professional investors coming on an anonymous chat board to provide informed speculation about what a major investor like John Story is or isn't doing. The key issue to focus on is the dissemination of mis-information in the first place. Carly did precisely what tom winnifrith does: he wildly extrapolated from very limited public information to come to an utterly inappropriate and baseless conclusion in order - at least in winny's case - to corruptly advance his agenda. This is what needs to be countered most directly. Are you listening billy???

um....the 'voting rights numbers' were likewise an example of phoney scholarship. Frankly, I couldn't follow his logic at all. The first thing we know is that if someone owns shares for cash, they generally 'own' the voting rights on those shares. However, someone with the same economic interest in the same number of shares, but represented in a spread bet, does not. The 'voting' rights on that person's spread bet holding would - sometimes - be retained by the firm that provides the spread bet (in this case spreadex) but ONLY if the spread betting firm decides to 'hedge' its entire exposure by buying in the market the same number of shares as per the client's position. However, we all know that spread betting firms do not always do this as they run massive books and often choose not to 'cover' their exposure, often allowing one open position on their books to offset another. Anyway, in this theoretical case, a john story would be moving some of his physical position already purchased (along with its voting rights!) to the spread bet firm as essentially direct collateral for spreadex to provide him margin and thus free up capital for him to do whatever he chooses, perhaps even BUYING MORE ZOE. Spreadex would then retain the entire physical position and then soon after - if the position is large enough to warrant it - make a declaration as to their voting rights' holding. simples

yes fred, my last 2 were aimed at your presumed troll. however, perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic, but you haven't responded to my main suggestion that car3y may be likewise rather than someone who has made a 'valid' point. I don't fancy it was valid in the least.

see billy, if you are legit, that is why no one believes it. If you were a genuine shareholder who is just more circumspect in his views on the company, you would never have read my posts as in any way equivalent to the phoney scholarship/outrageous conclusion contained in carly's. You would have either thanked me for clearing up misinformation or, far more preferably, you would have chosen to write absolutely nothing and therefore prevent the maintenance of the view that your primary goal here is to simply to sow doubt and division.

I would suggest you didn't read what I wrote, which allows you - conveniently - to respond with a ****y comment that suggests my post is somehow equivalent to carly's. It is not. My post REFUTES his and seriously questions his motives in that he, at once, claims financial experience and then draws a baseless conclusion based on his misunderstanding of public information. PART of my pushback includes my PROPOSITION that in fact, it would have been more accurate - though FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE - that john story had INCREASED, not decreased his position, though I DO NOT MAKE THAT CLAIM. Clear now?

and furthermore fred, throw in his nonsense comment about an 'iceberg' seller on a pure market maker share while simultaneously mocking other posters' trading ignorance, and his general lack of scholarship in leaping to such a provocative conclusion from circumstantial 'evidence' that as I demonstrated can more readily suggest the exact opposite, I think you might consider carly's motives here more carefully.

and no fred, carly has not made a 'valid' point. If someone like John Story transfers some of a position to a spread bet firm like spreadex, its outrageous to speculate that he has done so to 'hide his selling'. It's far more likely in fact that he's done so in order to get some leverage on his position so he can BUY MORE. I would never proffer that theory since I have no direct evidence (and I would never idly speculate on an anonymous message board on such a thing!), but as I say, given his advocacy and no TR1s suggesting his position has reduced, my proposition is more likely.

what a baseless load of nonsense.

You're still making rookie mistakes, carly. If john story were a forced seller, we wouldn't have been down 7% on 300k shares. We'd be down 20% on a couple million. And the only way the man would sell any shares at these levels would be with a gun to his head. Meantime, there was no 'iceberg' seller in zoe today (or any day for that matter). There was some small sellers and no buyers and we had an exaggerated move lower. in fact, since this a pure market maker name, a trader of your vast experience should know that as a result, no one is actually able to leave an 'iceberg' sell order in the first place. Don't sweat it though. I used to say lots of similar bone-headed nonsense when I started trading too.

apologies, arsenal. I missed the 'not' in your post. Back down to one troll tony