-
Originally Posted by Balance
Directors having to pick up the majority of the placement shares do not equate sign of confidence = institutions are not buying the story.
As for the over-subscription, yet another spin from the masters-of-spin.
Good on them though. NZ needs people like them.
YEA Balance.......like a hole in the head! Masters of Spin are NOT required in this country or any country for that matter. They are deluding themselves and many unsuspecting folk out there that they have a viable business story to sell.........I very much doubt it. Their one and only interest I suspect is to do another "pump-and-dump" to line their own pockets.........and the best they cud manage is a candle making business.....OH PLEASE! OH DEAR GOD SPARE ME>>>wot an embarrasment to our market.
-
Originally Posted by GR8DAY
YEA Balance.......like a hole in the head! Masters of Spin are NOT required in this country or any country for that matter. They are deluding themselves and many unsuspecting folk out there that they have a viable business story to sell.........I very much doubt it. Their one and only interest I suspect is to do another "pump-and-dump" to line their own pockets.........and the best they cud manage is a candle making business.....OH PLEASE! OH DEAR GOD SPARE ME>>>wot an embarrasment to our market.
These guys created over $100m of value from 42 Below - all said and done.
Much better than ever more speculative real estate coastal properties, don't you agree?
-
Member
Originally Posted by Balance
Directors having to pick up the majority of the placement shares do not equate sign of confidence = institutions are not buying the story.
Institutions know best do they?
-
Originally Posted by Balance
These guys created over $100m of value from 42 Below - all said and done.
Much better than ever more speculative real estate coastal properties, don't you agree?
The question is can they do it again?
42 Below have still not made a profit, even with the synergies of Bacardi.
-
..........that's right UU.........Masters of Spin indeed, even the big boys can be fooled if your'e good enough........well maybe some of them some of the time..........but not all of us.......
-
Originally Posted by upside_umop
The question is can they do it again?
42 Below have still not made a profit, even with the synergies of Bacardi.
1. How do you know 42 Below is not profitable now?
2. Irrelevant in any case as FTB's strategy all along was to build a brand and sell for a profit.
-
Originally Posted by mr.needs
Institutions know best do they?
LOL - they certainly get better access to infor than the average punter out there.
And like everything else in life,, there are good institutions just as there are mostly bad ones.
-
Originally Posted by Balance
1. How do you know 42 Below is not profitable now?
2. Irrelevant in any case as FTB's strategy all along was to build a brand and sell for a profit.
Was stated in an article just this year. I think I posted it somewhere on here at the time.
-
Promoting themselves across the Tasman ..... with the suggestion that this will be a $100m plus takeover by some cosmetic ginat one day
Product increasing its global presence by the looks of it as well
This year, Ecoya made a loss of $NZ2.3m and has forecast to make another loss of $NZ5.2m next year. But the brand has come a long way and is now stocked in David Jones in Australia, Bloomingdales in the US, Lane Crawford in Hong Kong and Takashimaya in Singapore.
Last week, Schweighoffer signed a deal with a distributor to sell its products in Dubai.[/QUOTE]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225978217283
-
Member
Hey guys, just wrote a first round blog post (http://gregnz.wordpress.com) of my 2011 'battle of the startups', a comparison between Xero and Ecoya. Would love to know what you think, since I've only just started looking at Ecoya.
Quick excerpt:
"So how much is Xero’s cash and celebrity valued at? In a startup, cash is worth much more than the face value. Cash in startup land = ability to survive another few months = not having to go back to market or raise debt = much less risk. If we do a quick market cap comparison, Xeros cash and celebrity are valued at approximately… $235 million! (thats the difference in market caps between Xero (270million) and Ecoya (33million).
Which… is quite a lot. Justified? Hmm. Ecoya will have to raise debt or go back to the market for more cash (unless Trilogy is an undisclosed cash machine)."
Will also post this on the Xero board...
cheers
Greg
Last edited by gregrday; 04-01-2011 at 10:52 AM.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks