Originally Posted by optical maven
Everytime they need cash they have to convince investors to put more money, the day those won't believe anymore in the bussiness case .. end of the story (selling to another corp. or closing .. more chance for a sell since they have a volume of sales).
A $60M loss. I'm literally laughing on the basement floor. Oh wait, what's underneath me?
Ahh, it's just CC's latest record setting loss.
Ok, back to work everyone, nothing to see here (snicker).
Maybe deep pockets of E & L sustain them, so they can gradually reduce competition from independent B & M's (OD's an Opticians). Meanwhile trying to sell their wares to us at the same time! Of course I no longer buy E or L products.
I see oversupply of us OD's, opticians and ophthos. The market is over-served. Already opticians are mainly employees of chain opticals, big box stores or independents. The opticians' program is not longer a stepping-stone to small business ownership.
Soon most OD's will be in same boat. New grads will be waking up to a job in optometry, not as a business owner. Stay tuned
You have an interesting viewpoint, but in July the stock price was around $ 4.60; in December it was around $ 7.00 and it just kissed $ 9.00
I seem to recall that GM lost a SL of money, went bankrupt and then restarted again with a clean Balance Sheet and continued on as if nothing ever happened and now after unloading the debt and liabilities GM is paying dividends.
Why are you so sure there is nothing to see here ? They don't have issues raising money or selling stock or taking market share or changing the perception of value of eyewear. They are a game changer, not something to snicker at.
Last edited by idispense; 01-22-2014 at 07:36 AM.
The obvious difference here is CC has never been profitable and never will be. Their business trajectory is absolutely backwards - businesses usually improve their bottom line with increased volume and market share.
Stock value means zip when a company enters bankruptcy, however I'm sure EviL will gobble it up before that happens. There's already been rumblings of that.
Is it possible your definition of profitable is skewed ?
Last edited by idispense; 01-22-2014 at 07:56 AM.
If all of the employee wages were paid then the employees are not disgruntled or unhappy.
If the share prices rise then the long investors are happy, if the share prices fall then the shorts are happy.
I think, with no disrespect, no one (including me) who has responded understands a financial statement. CC is definitely a darling for some analysts. Their stock took a little tumble after they reported their most recent earnings (loss). I suspect the investing world sees their business as having great potential and once their initial growing pains subside they will be a very profitable company.
In the world of international economies and multinational business can one financial statement explain everything ?
In terms of black and white a loss is a loss, but is that the big picture ?
Look ok at GM. The loss is reflected in share prices falling but many made or lost fortunes still in the fluctuations.
Still the bailout transferred the debt to the shareholder, yet from public funds emerged a debt free, clean balance sheet company that is now profitable and pays dividends, then the public funds are replenished by the timely selling off of Government Motors back to the same public. Sure there were huge black and white losses but they were nothing more than hiccups to be resold to the public a second time. The public is gullible, opticians are too.
Profit is profit.....it's black & white.
A business can either be profitable, post a loss or break even.
CC is not profitable period.
Now I'm going to sit back and wait for you to tell me why I'm wrong in my definition which is just wacked.
Regards,
Golfnorth
+1. He must read his P&L's in Klingon.
The losses are absorbed by shareholders equity, but shareholders equity is driven by the high number of consecutive quarters of revenue growth, so as long as new issues of stock can be floated based on revenue growth then the business will continue.
The issuance of new stock is nothing more than a fancy term for refinancing. When a business continues to bleed red ink in consecutive record losses, stock value is eventually diminished then devalued to be worthless. They are growing their losses instead of their profit, certainly not the formula for success!
The only reason they are gaining additional stock holders is because of market share - no other reason. Anybody investing in them at this point deserves to lose their investment.
You could be right, however their revenue growth has continued unchallenged since about 2000 and the refinancing still works and the employees and management must be happy with their wages.
Speaking of losing your investment, I am glad you brought that up because many people do **** their money against the wall every December with a zero return. So let's take an annual "investment" of say $ 800.00 and hypothetically "invest" that same $800.00 into this stock. Historical monthly stock prices are available back to 2004 so if we look at December closing prices then a ten year investment of 800.00 at the beginning of each December since 2004 would mean that we would have a total investment of $ 8000.00 and presently own 5590 shares which had a closing price of approximately 48968.00 or a return of $ 40,968.00.
This is is hypothetical of course but does use historical data, so which would you rather do with 800.00 that you were going to **** away and lose each year anyhow ?
For what it is worth......I watch the cl pricing on cc......i notice a bump in prices, in particular for acuvue oasys 6 pk and 24 pk.....
they are considerably MORE expensive than other onliners in Canada, and easy to price match for any optical shop....
I guess they figure people won't notice, or maybe they just can't afford to be giving everything away for much longer...
There is no magical mystery to it. There is no Wizard of Chartered Accountants needed to understand it. Just do your own research and read the SEC filing information paying attention to the full version (approx 100 pages ) of the 40 - F and SC- 13s. Research and Google and Wikpedia whats in front of you.
Yes they've spent so much on building their brand that the consumer uses their pricing as their benchmark for what CL's should cost. Most don't look for other online CL vendors to find that they could be had for even less!
That's the beauty of the net...you can always find it for less! But that destroys a brand's reputation with me the seller and the consumer.
Check out www.contactsexpress.ca
Who are these guys?
Seem to be tied to http://www.postalcontacts.com/index.html I googled some of the wording used in their FAQ and this site uses some of the same word for word.
They are about two blocks from the COO offices in downtown Toronto and their web site offers Rx eyeglasses as well.
Perhaps all of the COO staff, Registrar and Execs could pop over there together during tomorrow's meeting and report back?
Last edited by idispense; 01-28-2014 at 07:25 AM.
What's their address. I'll pay them a visit and let you know the results.
ContactsExpress.ca
120 Adelaide St. W.
Suite 2500
Toronto, ON M5H 1T1
They are nothing more than another online optical ...................................
They are nothing more than another online optical, but another Candian set up in the middle of Toronto. I am only waiting for one in French out of Montreal..................so far "ZIP"
it is not illegal for opticians or optometrists in quebec to sell online to quebec residents.....there are professional rules which need to be respected, but it can be done. it might just not be profitable......I suspect this is basically the case in every state or province. Not everyone can get $500,000 or more in start up capital to get a real online site going in an already crowded web-space....there are only so many links on the first page of a google search.
I doubt if any pure on-line optical is actually profitable - but one company which is for sure making boatloads of profits off of on-line optical is..............GOOGLE!!!
They have received fines in the hundreds of millions of dollars before when it could be proven they were profiting from their technologies at the expense of local applicable laws.
Are our local applicable laws being broken ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks