Maybe Milford et al have been buying for another reason.
Printable View
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10911794
"Ross said the distributor did not have "skill set" required to drive Moa's sales in New Zealand."
I guess that must apply to the Ecoya candles as well? I mean, the distributors have no idea how to sell $50 scented candles?
It's all good, folks - it's all the distributor's fault. They do not know how to sell Moa beers!
In NBR " A new distribution model is being negotiated " lol read this as we are going to discount the hell out of it to do the volume through the supermarket .......( no profit margin then )
This one is going to go down further over the next few weeks I think. I have done no research but to me such a big miss on your first major target is not going to sit well with investors. Revenues static or as predicted with a fall in profit I can live with. But revenues down by 30% from target in a growth company does not bode well. I sincerely hope Farmer Hamilton sold his stake sometime yesterday.
Milford said they sold some yesterday....still at 0.2% of their fund overall....
This will drive their shareholders to drink thus increasing sales - all good me thinks! (shame their beer doesn't actually taste that great IMHO)
Rubbish...not enough liquidity with MOA..12M available is miles too low for traders under normal conditions...TA indicators don't function well under low liquidity so the TA analysts don't bother investing in low cap type stocks.
Only during rare opportunities with an extreme situation (high enough liquidity) would the risk is lowered enough to have a quick dabble in these small cap shares .... This rare opportunity presented itself yesterday.
Will this extreme situation happen again with MOA?...maybe but I normally don't touch low liquid stocks because TA analysis is far too unreliable....adding to this is the high risk of having to take a big haircut to sell out if the stock when there are no buyers around.
I would assume most traders and TA would've had their radar focusing in a different direction and would've missed this action yesterday...It was just pure chance I spotted it online in the NZ herald before opening and took advantage of it....
Still in there Blackcap ... ( less than 3% of stake I have in SML so not really that serious ). I've been looking at getting into Moa for a while and had a lazy order in GTC at 115 ... didn't even see the downgrade until after 10.00am yesterday so I got filled on my order at 89c . There may be a lesson in there.
Did see the bad result from SKC this a.m. and bought some at $3.89 ( must be something about .89 for me eh ? ) I like buying good stocks on bad news and holding ... Moa is more of a punt but at 89c and with only $5k at stake I will give the company a chance to turn things round and the benefit of the doubt ... for now.
A better bet for boutique beer fans:
http://www.nzbizbuysell.co.nz/29353/...e-christchurch
Sorry guys/gals.. A Boutique Brewery ???.. And all on here really wish to make a killing in the market if they are being honest with themselves....
Boutique brewers come and go.. This one has gone in my opinion unless it can increase it's customers..
Nothing to do with distribution.. Nothing to do with " Management "..
CUSTOMERS.......
Far to expensive for my taste..
There are so many tasty BEERs out there ... Cheaper..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10912970
70% of sales in NZ - so the 30% downgrade means that sales in NZ is actually 43% down on forecast.
Moa blaming the distributor is not a good thing - it will now have to develop its own channel, and that is an expensive proposition.
Holy moly - that's nearly 60,000 cases short ... how many bottles in a case?
So is the moral of this never believe numbers in a prospectus .... esp one with cool looking women in them and slick looking guys in it ..... least they left the naked woman on the horse out
Disappointing result all round for MOA, I think you will find that the Brand has a very loyal shareholder base that initially has meant the price hasn't dropped to what it could of/should of.
MOA itself is a fine tasting brew, very much a beer from what I have discovered through months of drinking and recommending is most appreciated by big beer drinkers. It is a very strong taste that doesn't appeal to the standard, casual NZ lager drinker.
In regards to the alcohol beverage market, in all honesty I personally dont think taste has little to do with sales, more or less it is 80% down to marketing. Tui is by no way a fine tasting beer however has been brilliantly marketed over the years resulting in the increase of brand recognition and then sales. Shareholders generally put faith in the golden touch of Geoff Ross and his marketing ability which unfortuantely hasn't come to fruition yet. Is this because they have spent too much time marketing the beer overseas and taking the NZ market for granted a tad. I can't remember ever seeing much MOA advertising via the various marketing mediums here in NZ yet I here of numerous large events overseas - i.e. The Pirate Bar in San Francisco for the America's Cup. Have they taken a gamble on making their name overseas at the expense of NZ and thus far hasn't paid off?? Time will tell.....
Good tasting beer at a fair price that isn't executing marketing plans well here in NZ. Not the end of the line yet, but should have been a signal earlier in the year when their marketing manager resigned.....
My thoughts anyway.
Call me a philistine if you like, but I'll stick to Heineken or Stella - and the odd Guinness
For some unexplained reason, I happen to really enjoy TUI. Maybe the marketing has worked its magic on me at some subtle unconscious level. But I would rather drink a Tui than any one of these "craft" beers. A Heineken or a Grolsh goes down well too.
I wonder how much of it they try to put through the Koru clubs and places like that. Funny thing is I've never seen anyone in the Koru club touch one, and yet they are the target audience that can afford to pay for it..
www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/.../Is-Moa-heading-for-extinction
How much do they charge for this stuff?
When did Milford get in? Interesting. What do they know that we don't?
and the guy who wrote that won an award for being the best beer commentator .... so probably reasonable influential
Maybe Mr Ross didn't give him any free samples and invite him to his launches and he getting his own back.
Whatever this is a pretty powerful message to Ross Moa put itself above the rest. It behaved like a 1980s-style corporate full of brand puffery and put out marketing that was flippant, sexist and arrogant. Then it did silly things like appointing itself some kind of arbiter for what defined craft beer.
Investors don't fret - Ian Botham will save the day. Wonder what his deal was - a dollar amount converted to shares (he get more now) or just a set %age of the company
No sympathy for those that invested in the IPO - you had to be stupid. All you need to do is compare Moa to Tuatara:
Tuatara (~$14mil value):
- 1 million litres per year
- Very good product
- Extremely good following, particularly in Wellington
- Respected by craft beer community
- Small marketing budget, company is growing by reputation
Moa (~$45mil value at IPO price):
- 1 million litres per year
- Product is generally mediocre. Some of their beers are very good however.
- No brand following
- Generally hated by the craft beer community
- Huge marketing budget driving growth
Despite Moa's big marketing budget, they didn't even have their own stall and had only one tap on at Beervana. It would appear that they don't even care about the NZ market.
Get out while you can.
Last time in Auckland Koru Lounge they had it on tap and a fridge full of the stuff. Bet they aren't paying top dollar for it!
Prob free stuff for marketing purposes .... and still 60,000 cases short
Milford get in to all these small IPOs. They take a "portfolio" approach - hoping some are real winners offsetting the inevitable duds
Prob know a bit more than the plebs but initially not much more methinks
Just petty cash to them ...more fun than keeping an eye on their large holdings like FBU
What more do they know there?
I see the breakdown of Milford's portfolio here
http://www.milfordasset.com/wp-conte...august2013.pdf
MOA obviously comes in to the other 25%. Is there any way to see that breakdown without being a client?
They obviously believe the overseas growth has a chance.
Disc don't own MOA but do hold FBU :)
Why do us retail investors put so much faith in the instos. Ie if Milford et al are in it must be good, or if its so bad why did JP Morgan get in. At the end of the day (to use a cliche) some retail investors are a lot smarter than your average insto. Plenty of "mug instos" out there as well. Just look at the returns that fund managers tend to achieve overall.
Exactly - Vanguard Group (over US$2 trillion of funds under management) did research which conclusively showed that individual fund managers may outperform the index from time to time, but over the long haul (5 to 10 years), their returns always trend back to index.
Anyone have or know of what happened to 42 below in its first few years?
"42 Below undertook an IPO in September 2003 issuing 31 million shares at $0.50 raising $15.5 million (every 3 shares purchased in the IPO was accompanied by 1 warrant with an exercise price of $0.50 available for exercise during October 2005). The issue price of $0.50 implied a post-money valuation of $60.5 million. At the time of listing 42 Below had negative earnings.
Post the IPO 42 Below traded significantly below the IPO price of $0.50 and remained below $0.50 for the majority of the first year it was listed. In the year ending 31 March 2004 42 Below had operating revenues of $4.41 million and an operating deficit of $1.125 million. This is to be expected from a company such as 42 Below that is developing products, expanding into new markets and building a brand.
42 Below continued to grow sales and in the 2005 financial year had operating revenues of $12.58 million producing an operating deficit of $5.22 million. A key driver of revenue growth in the 2005 year was increased sales in the U.S.. During the 2005 calendar year 42 Below consistently traded above $0.50 and at times over $0.80. In 2005 42 Below engaged Macquarie to advise on strategic issues surrounding development of international opportunities, the Bacardi offer arose as a result of this process.
In the 2006 financial year 42 Below continued to exhibit strong revenue growth increasing operating revenue to $17.0 million and improving the operating deficit to $2.8 million. A key contributor to these improved results was a foreign exchange gain of approximately $1.2 million.
After being listed for 2 1/2 years and nearly 4 full years of financial reporting 42 Below had grown revenues to approximately $17 million, established a strong brand in the New Zealand market for premium spirits and had grown sales in the U.S. to over $6 million in 2006. Despite this 42 Below was still not profitable. Although 42 Below were growing revenues, these revenues were spread across geographical segments (primarily New Zealand and the United States). Based on management forecasts for the 2007 financial year 42 Below was expecting trading revenues to grow to $18.2 and EBIT of ($4.9) million [compared to ($3.7) million in 2006].
On 27 September 2006 Bacardi made a full takeover offer for 42 Below at a price of $0.77. The day prior to the offer 42 Below closed at $0.57 and had traded at a volume weighted average price of $0.55 in the 6 months prior to the offer. Valuecruncher has discussed the framework required to evaluate the Bacardi offer in a previous post."
Think they only need to disclose the actual sale that took them below the 5%
But then again you would think that they would then say they only had that reduced number eh
Maybe they did sell 315k The others at a lower price than the 45k and were trying to hide that loss
That doesn't accord with my early memories of Steinlager. As I recall, it was a big hit with the yuppies of that era who had been brought up on 6 o'clock closing, draught beer by the jug and the likes of Lion Red (and Brown), DB, Champion, Wards, Speights etc - in big bottles. Not a huge selection there and very little, expensive, imported brews available. But then, I might just be looking at those times through rose coloured taste buds!
MOA was always a gamble on the reputation of the Geoff Ross though wasn't it?
If he could do it with vodka then why not with beer?
Unfortunately they are two different products in very different markets with completely different consumers.
why do ppl seem to think that FTB was such a great success. IT was average at best and if it wasnt Bacardi that came and bailed them out for far too much that would have been a pile of poo as well.
The return on 42B didn't really justify the risk. XRO has a similar strategy (growth at the expense of profit) so look at the returns those shareholders got to see what I am talking about.
I also think Craft beer is a harder sell. Beer traditionally isn't a premium product. Those who treat it as a premium product (crafties) like to try different varieties, not stay loyal to one brand.
$8.00 per bottle thanks moosie - its only beer!. Sounds like a bit of a fad to me, I know 42 Below had premium priced products but not to that extent!
http://www.moabeer.com/2013/08/buy-m...-of-a-brewery/
Giving them away:cool:
Big loss of face for Brian Gaynor as Milford invested into Ecoya and Moa, seemingly on the back of 42 Below.
But was 42 Below really such a huge success?
For Geoff Ross and Grant Baker, of course - turned them into legends as they made tens of millions of dollars from bugger all.
For investors who put in 50c in Oct 2003 to be taken out in Nov 2006 at 77c, it represented a return of 15.5% pa. Hardly worth that it was start up private equity type risk and when you further consider Ross and Baker put in 5% of the $$$ to get 60% of the company.
Anyway, let's wish them well as NZ needs new companies which harness the creative juices of Kiwis.
Me thinkth Ross and Baker days of raising funds for IPOs on the back of 42 Below are now over - Ecoya was not good but Moa is just plain bad.
And of course, just for you STC, Milford thought that Diligent was simply too risky for their clients to be invested in now! Meanwhile, they lost sight of the Moa while breathing in the scented vapors from one of the Ecoya candles? :D
So consensus is that MOA will not do a Little World Breweries (Little Creatures) trick and make shareholders rich.
Had my LWB cash at the time but MOA didn't excite me on little bit
Maybe back to Gage Rd then
MOA CONFIRMS IT IS ON TRACK FOR THIS YEAR'S SALES NUMBER they said in March
OK managed that .... well only a few months to go wasn't it
Forecast 2014 is 130,000 cases .... hey that's almost as much as 2013 .... growth ZERO
Maybe the story unfolds 2015
We have a craft beer industry here in Nelson and several pubs that sell only craft beer. They are popular by quite a significant section of the population here, mainly being young and middle aged trendy people. I visit some of those pubs on occasion and have been looking out for Moa. Yes you see their beers in some of the pubs but they are very low profile and don't appear to be big sellers. So I think Gaynor is absolutely right that just bringing the marketing in-house will not on its own solve their problems.
Heading down to 60 cents by the time Milford finishes their selling ....
Oh to be able to short this stock and beat Milford to it ;) :P
75 cents today and still no bottom in sight.
Likewise, Ross's other creation, Ecoya, is trying to hang on to 73 cents.
Looks like Milford wants out of both?
Don't want those ugly red negatives in their investment portfolio next reporting date?
Looks like it Balance. Its quite sad really to see the demise of this company but I know if I had some I would be selling out before the price reaches 60 or dare I say it 50 cents if the status quo re sales and profitability remain. Its so easy to spot Milford drip feeding their shares but having to go lower and lower to get the volume they want out. I hope Farmer Hamilton has cut his losses because I only see one direction for this firm.
Agree with janner here. Its not intersting at all. It's pretty much the only option they have left to try and instill some confidence in the company and keep the shareprice at near respectable levels. Hoping to get more punters to buy this way is the strategy I think but I do not think it will work.
50,000 shares a piece - will need them to buy 500,000 shares each to convince anyone with any perspective - considering they got their original shares at bugger all compared to the 'new' investors.
And certainly not after their other invention, Ecoya or whatever it is called these days, has dropped below 70 cents.
Looks like Milford is on the way out of all of their involvement with the Bakery boys?
Their buns have been charred?
There is no way IMHO they would buy 500,000.... that would be throwing good money after bad surely?
I can see a steady decline for this stock. But having founders purchase shares may make some ppl think that they still have faith in the company. Those more experienced with markets may take a different view and see between the lines.
In their shoes, none of us would realistically do any different?
If the punters out there, including 'highly regarded' investors like Milford, are prepared to shell out cash for the Bakery boys' ideas, then all power to them.
Trouble is that it's all based upon one success - 42 Below - and that was not such a great return really for original shareholders.
Let's hope they deliver on Ecoya and Moa - we need people in NZ who can turn ideas into jobs etc.
No we wouldnt do any different. Agreed. Balance, you forgot DPC, that is a success story for them, the company seems to be thriving. I did not like its valuation at the 30 cent mark but any lower and they will be worth a punt. So its not all doom and gloom. Moa is probably a good enough business... just not at those share prices. The fact a stock is "overvalued" does not change the nature of the business.
The business bakery owns over 20% so I can see how they can increase their holdings significantly anyway without making a takeover offer.
Shane Warne to be the next ambassador shareholder after Botham
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11118738
I'd prefer Liz myself
And for Moa would David Boon be better
just had 2 decide at foodstuff outlet between 4 MOA for 15 or 6 founders for 15.
Founders won hands down on packaging and IMO --> taste...
Long way to go before this puppy recovers
Should have ago at this if you time to waste
http://foundersbrewery.co.nz/Family/Join
Even such an optimist as Topol had to give up in the end with his limping horse.. Oye vey !!..
Brewery upgrade probably delayed
The boody French operated vineyard down that way taking it to the environment court .....can't have craft brewers denigrating a wine growing region
Even Environment Court hearings can drag out a while ...ESP if one party has plenty of dosh
Shame you don.t like 'finally something drinkable out of Marlborouh' as Josh tells us
Agree with your 'taster notes' ....prob the after taste ruined the cider as well
I thought this was an interesting comment from Ross : "It reeks of French wine snobbery. I don't have problem with foreign ownership but I do with foreign control."
I thought he sold 42 Below to full foreign ownership and control (Bacardi) but I suppose the buyers spoke Spanish, not French, so probably OK in his books.
BTW, I think Ross did great with selling 42 Below but find the above comment from him somewhat ridiculous !
Anyone see the interesting full page add in the morning paper. Can't remember the exact heading. Something like "DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO OWNS TUI?"
They have also posted it on their facebook page (hopefully its legible) http://www.facebook.com/MOABEER
Attachment 4792
The Frogs are just Kit Flying... Should the E/court agree with them, then:-
God Help The Future.... No hen farms in sheep country, No Deer farms in Cow Land.
Sheep must leave Southland, And worse still !!! Gone are the "Home Brewers" from Northland,
Coz thats "Happy Cabbage Land"
Geeeeez Wayne
BB
Medium-term lurker, first-time poster.
There's been a few comments on this thread about the quality/taste of Moa's beer. The issue, IMO, is that it is produced with a "craft-beer" type of flavour, which is much more intense than most beer drinkers are used to drinking. The IPA that Sparky tried is probably far more heavily hopped than he's used to. To my taste, Moa produces a far nicer beer than a generic NZ draught like Tui. Unfortunately for Moa, most NZ beer drinkers prefer a more easily gluggable brew.
The difficulties in making it work as a business are, as others have said:
1. Limited market of beer drinkers who both like craft-style beers and are prepared to pay a premium for them
2. This limited number of craft beer drinkers are pretty educated about what they drink. They like the notion of a genuinely small brewery producing a quality product. They're not going to be fooled that Moa is a micro-brewery run by 3 bearded beer nerds fooling around in a shed. It has less appeal as a concept. Craft beer enthusiasts are unlikely to jump on board the Moa train precisely because it is a bigger-scale, highly marketed business - witness the silliness when Lion bought the highly-regarded Emersons brewery.
So it's rather stuck with a flavour that doesn't appeal to the masses, and a brand that won't appeal to the beer geeks. Add to that the apparently poor execution of the basics like distribution and there are a few issues here.
Disc: Mild beer geek, not a holder. Learning a lot on this board - thanks.
Extremely well put.
I think Moa have conflated 'craft' with 'luxury'. Geoff Ross pulled it off with vodka (vodka being a marketers dream: a flavourless commodity), but beer drinkers have broad tastes and/or are too price sensitive. I don't go for the cheapest swill, but I do tend to go for whatever craft IPA is on special.
Luxury wines exist, but they all tend to have centuries of history going for them (and no one celebrates with a nice doz over a bottle of champagne).
Disc: Don't own, never been tempted to buy, the fundamentals have always looked so off.
Looks like the turd-polishers at Moa have agreed to donate a small part of their float gains to propping up the share price - Baker Ross and Styris all bought small parcels on September 5th.
Tell me that's a coincidence.
They obviously think their investors are pretty naive.
Maybe they're right.
The contrarian investor in me tells me that this stock is SO HATED that it is probably a screaming buy and I should double down from my purchase at 89c ...
Stock looks well supported with the sell-side looking a little thin up to 95c and little selling pressure recently.:cool: