That's not at all how I see it, with respect. ... The synergies are / were made known, 800 k, and are a result of in-house manufacturing; meaning the profit that the previous manufacturer of THM products used to have are now HLF's. That's why they are added on, and that's correct in my view. I think the word is vertical integration. Anyway, that's my understanding. I thought, though, they could be somewhat higher.
... In the end, I believe, HLF is "chasing" the sales channel and profitability mix that THM offers at an opportunistic price and the synergies are nice as part and parcel.
As for the "underlying costs of HLF", I believe HLF is quite good at cost controlling, their problem is more that they can't push the prices they really want. They are what's called a "price-taker" (and unfortunately not a price-maker); and in thread is usually couched in the words like ''low margin business"
As for marketing costs and flatlining future sales: I have no idea ... and no crystal ball for that. I do know though, that HLF has not a track record of flatlining sales.
I didn't like Bergen selling out, and I have no idea where those shares ended up. Perhaps someone has. I don't believe they went straight back onto the open market, coz why would someone buy at 10c in order to drive the SP to 8.2? I would venture that the investment committee of Bergen simply changed investment policy and strategy, since this investment would not have made their fund look good.
And the decline of the SP, I did not see or imagine that one coming, since 15 Feb. ... and I don't think any one posted something like that beforehand, at least not on HC. But I stand corrected, if you would like to to reference it. ...
In my view, to say "Anyone could have seen this dump coming from a mile away", well, I think, that's a bit Johnny Hindsight. I didn't and I wish I would have.
Expand
(20min delay)