Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Apparently Jessica Alba's company Honest... wasn't   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Awkward  
•       •       •

3685 clicks; posted to Business » and Entertainment » on 17 Sep 2021 at 1:41 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



50 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-09-16 8:56:50 PM  
Haven't read the claims, but I don't believe companies are required to report those sorts of things.

"Gosh, you think Charmin's sales of toilet paper during the early months of the pandemic might have been inflated?  The numbers might not be sustained?  Let's sue for fraud because they reported their prior quarters' sales."

Also, because I love you guys:

Jessica Alba - Idle Hands 1080p
Youtube p5dwiia2LKU
 
2021-09-16 9:02:46 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Oh FFS not again Jessica. Let me at least drink some fluids.
 
2021-09-16 9:15:00 PM  
Why should a company have to disclose why customers are buying their products?
 
2021-09-16 11:07:46 PM  

AlgaeRancher: Why should a company have to disclose why customers are buying their products?


Not so much why customers are buying, but if they know damn well it's a fluke and sales are going to tank, it's dishonest not to say something along the lines of, "this quarter is unusual and we don't expect the numbers to look like this forever".
 
2021-09-16 11:11:07 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: AlgaeRancher: Why should a company have to disclose why customers are buying their products?

Not so much why customers are buying, but if they know damn well it's a fluke and sales are going to tank, it's dishonest not to say something along the lines of, "this quarter is unusual and we don't expect the numbers to look like this forever".


And investor with a C+ in microeconomics ought to know panic hoarding will drop off.

Unless it's ammo.

That ain't ever going to be cheap again
 
2021-09-17 12:31:59 AM  
sounds like the stockholders want to blame someone for a pandemic making them lose money
 
2021-09-17 12:38:34 AM  

kkinnison: making them lose loose money


/pet peeve
 
2021-09-17 1:22:12 AM  
Dr.Fey: kkinnison: making them lose loose Lou's money

/pet peeve



/peete pev
 
2021-09-17 1:45:39 AM  
Isn't it incumbent upon the investor to investigate and understand market conditions?
 
2021-09-17 1:49:14 AM  
I was hoping this was about inflated assets

/giggity
 
2021-09-17 1:50:33 AM  
So, not so much "dishonest" as "didn't do investors' homework for them." Got it.
 
2021-09-17 2:19:46 AM  

vudukungfu: And investor with a C+ in microeconomics ought to know panic hoarding will drop off.

Unless it's ammo.

That ain't ever going to be cheap again


A friendly smile is free and easy, a lead sap is a one time purchase.
 
2021-09-17 3:46:43 AM  

Dr.Fey: Also, because I love you guys:

Jessica Alba - Idle Hands 1080p


So cheesy.. and yet so hot.
 
2021-09-17 3:55:55 AM  
 If you had the stock for the long term, you aren't bothered because knew that 1 quarter bump would have a dip after everyone had what they needed but would get back to buying at their regular levels so you're still doing well in the big picture. The only people suing are the pandemic profiteers who made ridiculous money off of human panic by buying the stock when the panic was happening for that exact reason.

This is the equivalent of the lawsuits when the Berlin wall came down from all the weapons manufacturers shareholders because they honestly thought they were owed that money forever.  Those lawsuits had 2 results. #1 - the courts told them to pound sand and everything was tossed out or #2 the real company owners cashed out, declared bankruptcy, and took their ball home.  The Sacklers just successfully pulled off #2 with Oxycontin. I'm pretty sure if Ms. Alba's lawyers think #1 won't happen, she'll just pull a #2.
 
2021-09-17 4:55:16 AM  

FormlessOne: So, not so much "dishonest" as "didn't do investors' homework for them." Got it.


Generally speaking there are three types of disclosure requirements:

1: required by law, we know it's not this because it's a lawsuit

2: required by "soft" law / fiduciary duty -- it might be this but probably not, serious violations of actual recognized duty to investors are taken seriously and result in firings and personal lawsuits, not this kind of soft-handed dicking around in court.

3: Required by contract-- probably it's this one. Demanding future predictions from a company in a binding way is kinda stupid, but you can technically put almost anything into a contract or promise anything to an investor in exchange for their investment (whicj also falls under contracts).

While technically you can also sue for stupid shiat, my money is on alba / the company making a promise in writing to make and disclose these kinds of analyses at some point. Or actually making a disclosure that positively claims the spike is something other than what it was, which sorta hovers between the third point and the second.
 
2021-09-17 5:00:32 AM  

FormlessOne: So, not so much "dishonest" as "didn't do investors' homework for them." Got it.


That's the vibe that I got. This isn't about dishonesty in earnings reporting it's about lost money and hurt feelings by an investor class at that doesn't know what it's doing anymore and can't accept his own blame for its own mistakes.
 
2021-09-17 6:48:00 AM  
thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size


/now to read the article...maybe
 
2021-09-17 6:53:09 AM  
.... but I lied when I said that honesty was dead.
 
2021-09-17 7:33:32 AM  
So institutional investors bought what they thought was low, but it turned out to be high... and are now willing to spend $1 to earn $0.25. It's not that the company failed to disclose, it's that the investment firms need to justify a bad decision to the people whose money was lost.

This happens way more often than the layman is aware of.
 
2021-09-17 7:40:31 AM  
These lawsuits are all fake, and "initiated" by the ambulance chasers of the financial markets. They have screens set for adverse media and price drops, and when either or both happen, they fire off a press release stating they are "Investigating [such and such] for [such and such] reasons on behalf of investors, if you want to be included in the big retribution (that is never going to happen) please contact us"

It's a data grab.
 
2021-09-17 7:50:37 AM  

Snapper Carr: Isn't it incumbent upon the investor to investigate and understand market conditions?


It's also up to the company to be honest about their financial situation.
 
2021-09-17 8:15:25 AM  

Bread314: If you had the stock for the long term, you aren't bothered because knew that 1 quarter bump would have a dip after everyone had what they needed but would get back to buying at their regular levels so you're still doing well in the big picture. The only people suing are the pandemic profiteers who made ridiculous money off of human panic by buying the stock when the panic was happening for that exact reason.


Yeah, looking at the timeline it feels like a stock shorting move that flopped and now someone is mad they couldn't make some quick money.
 
2021-09-17 8:16:04 AM  
That's the final straw. She's hot but I will NOT be sleeping with Jessica Alba.
 
2021-09-17 8:18:25 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 8:27:22 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: AlgaeRancher: Why should a company have to disclose why customers are buying their products?

Not so much why customers are buying, but if they know damn well it's a fluke and sales are going to tank, it's dishonest not to say something along the lines of, "this quarter is unusual and we don't expect the numbers to look like this forever".


Even if they had said that in their quarterly reports, the investors still would have seen the line going up and would have bought it anyway.
 
2021-09-17 8:29:23 AM  

H31N0US: These lawsuits are all fake, and "initiated" by the ambulance chasers of the financial markets. They have screens set for adverse media and price drops, and when either or both happen, they fire off a press release stating they are "Investigating [such and such] for [such and such] reasons on behalf of investors, if you want to be included in the big retribution (that is never going to happen) please contact us"

It's a data grab.


This, this, and this. All this talk about institutional investors and should have known and whatever is all crap. Whenever a company's stock falls, at least a few law firms find a shareholder or two and file a purported class action lawsuit.  Almost all of them go nowhere.

The company is having troubles, no doubt about it -- they aren't growing into their infrastructure as quickly as they hoped.  But there's not a whiff of fraud here. The biggest cause of their sales decline was something they talked about on their first-quarter conference call.  A very large digital sales customer that they didn't name but probably rhymes with Glamazon was reducing inventory of basic goods in advance of a big promotion that they didn't name but probably rhymes with Mime Slay.

And there's this nugget from their registration statement with the SEC: "There may also be significant reductions or volatility in consumer demand for our products due to ... pantry-loading activity, any of which may negatively impact our results, including as a result of an increased difficulty in planning for operations."
 
2021-09-17 8:31:16 AM  
cefm:  Even if they had said that in their quarterly reports, the investors still would have seen the line going up and would have bought it anyway.

The poor bastards at HNST have never seen the line going up. 
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 8:43:48 AM  

snowybunting: [Fark user image 350x190] [View Full Size image _x_]


The sexiest stripper to never get naked
 
2021-09-17 8:49:42 AM  

jimjays: That's the final straw. She's hot but I will NOT be sleeping with Jessica Alba.


It ain't nothing a firm spanking can't fix.

/spank
 
2021-09-17 8:52:10 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: cefm:  Even if they had said that in their quarterly reports, the investors still would have seen the line going up and would have bought it anyway.

The poor bastards at HNST have never seen the line going up. [Fark user image 850x589]


RTFA.
This was about revenue reported in the IPO filings.

Which is exactly why the chart you posted has always trended down.
 
2021-09-17 8:52:42 AM  

OldRod: snowybunting: [Fark user image 350x190] [View Full Size image _x_]

The sexiest stripper to never get naked


Um.... no.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 8:58:55 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 9:22:45 AM  

Random Celebrity Insult Generator: [Fark user image image 500x385]


frinkiac.comView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 9:29:15 AM  

WhippingBoi: OldRod: snowybunting: [Fark user image 350x190] [View Full Size image _x_]

The sexiest stripper to never get naked

Um.... no.

[Fark user image 300x172]


I believe that a tie for first place is appropriate.
 
2021-09-17 9:39:34 AM  

meanmutton: WhippingBoi: OldRod: snowybunting: [Fark user image 350x190] [View Full Size image _x_]

The sexiest stripper to never get naked

Um.... no.

[Fark user image 300x172]

I believe that a tie for first place is appropriate.


Yeah, they are close... but I'm gonna have to agree with WhippingBoi, Salma wins this round
 
2021-09-17 9:39:50 AM  
Honest Company is a fairytale for first time parents.

$14 baby wash and $1/diaper is only sustainable for about 6 months, and then one day the store hasn't restocked and you buy some Johnson and Johnson or Dove, your baby's skin doesn't turn to leather and you never go back.
 
2021-09-17 9:42:35 AM  
FrancoFile:  RTFA.

TFA from the Daily Mail?  Sourced from TMZ?

Here's what they said on their first-quarter conference call:

"And while there is typically - is going to be volatility in our business from quarter-to-quarter, this quarter we've seen benefits. But what we're currently seeing in our business right now really is consumption outpacing shipments. So we do want to highlight kind of if you think about business right now, this could have a potentially material impact on the quarter but it's happening real time. We're in the middle of our quarter, and it's something that we're monitoring."
 
2021-09-17 9:54:03 AM  

baorao: Honest Company is a fairytale for first time parents.

$14 baby wash and $1/diaper is only sustainable for about 6 months, and then one day the store hasn't restocked and you buy some Johnson and Johnson or Dove, your baby's skin doesn't turn to leather and you never go back.


THIS

Also, organic products are often worse for the environment and not as effective as traditional products. Keeping perfumes and the like out of the products is a very good thing, but making sunscreen, diapers, and soaps that don't work as well (which means you have to use a lot more of them, at the very least) kills any supposed benefit they might have had.

/Pampers 360 saved us epic amounts of time and money from when we were suckered into using cloth diapers.
//Wife bought into the propaganda
 
2021-09-17 10:04:25 AM  

meanmutton: WhippingBoi: OldRod: snowybunting: [Fark user image 350x190] [View Full Size image _x_]

The sexiest stripper to never get naked

Um.... no.

[Fark user image 300x172]

I believe that a tie for first place is appropriate.


STRIP OFF!!!
 
2021-09-17 12:03:33 PM  
I believe this company has been a shiatshow since they started if I remember correctly. They were hit with lawsuits for lying about their products when they first launched and it seems like it's been a grift from the get-go. Seems like the only time they get attention is when some more shiat hits the fan, other than the "totally worth billions" bullshiat.
 
2021-09-17 2:10:33 PM  

OhioUGrad: I believe this company has been a shiatshow since they started if I remember correctly. They were hit with lawsuits for lying about their products when they first launched and it seems like it's been a grift from the get-go. Seems like the only time they get attention is when some more shiat hits the fan, other than the "totally worth billions" bullshiat.



I don't know if that is a good metric. You are likely to only hear about that company when something bad happens. It's like a utility in the sense that when I walk into my office and turn on the lights I don't send out a celebratory news release about how amazing the electric company is. On the other hand, if those lights don't go on, I'm on the phone trying to find out what incompetent bastard needs to be fired.

The two ends of the continuum aren't "Good" and "Bad" they are "Neutral" and "Bad"

It's the Representativeness Heuristic. You need to know the underlying distribution of what you are measuring to tell if it is skewed or not. Humans are not good at this kind of thing.

For example, you are on the street and see a skinny guy with glasses. Is that person more likely a farmer or a librarian?

If there are 10,000 librarians in the country and 50% of them look like that then there are 5,000 librarians in the target population.

If there are 1,000,000 farmers and only 5% look like that then there are 50,000 farmers in the target population.

That means it's 5-1 odds you are looking at a farmer and not a librarian.

Makes it difficult, as in your statement about this company, to know if you are really seeing the underlying reality or just reacting to a selective spotlight.

You can build bridges for 40 years, but you fark one sheep and ...
 
2021-09-17 2:11:43 PM  
"Clean Conscious" diapers? Come on, man...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-17 2:35:08 PM  

Rock Krenn: OhioUGrad: I believe this company has been a shiatshow since they started if I remember correctly. They were hit with lawsuits for lying about their products when they first launched and it seems like it's been a grift from the get-go. Seems like the only time they get attention is when some more shiat hits the fan, other than the "totally worth billions" bullshiat.


I don't know if that is a good metric. You are likely to only hear about that company when something bad happens. It's like a utility in the sense that when I walk into my office and turn on the lights I don't send out a celebratory news release about how amazing the electric company is. On the other hand, if those lights don't go on, I'm on the phone trying to find out what incompetent bastard needs to be fired.

The two ends of the continuum aren't "Good" and "Bad" they are "Neutral" and "Bad"

It's the Representativeness Heuristic. You need to know the underlying distribution of what you are measuring to tell if it is skewed or not. Humans are not good at this kind of thing.

For example, you are on the street and see a skinny guy with glasses. Is that person more likely a farmer or a librarian?

If there are 10,000 librarians in the country and 50% of them look like that then there are 5,000 librarians in the target population.

If there are 1,000,000 farmers and only 5% look like that then there are 50,000 farmers in the target population.

That means it's 5-1 odds you are looking at a farmer and not a librarian.

Makes it difficult, as in your statement about this company, to know if you are really seeing the underlying reality or just reacting to a selective spotlight.

You can build bridges for 40 years, but you fark one sheep and ...


True. That's why I go out of my way to always compliment good service instead of bad.
 
2021-09-17 4:19:02 PM  
I'm pretty sure the whole concept of that company is to trade on her name recognition to sell sham products at premium prices to people who think "organic" is a synonym for "healthy."

I remember reading Consumer Reports ratings of sunscreens a while ago.  The Alba Botanicals sunscreen was pretty much the equivalent of spraying cooking oil onto your skin.  There was essentially zero sun blocking effect.  I was done with her products (other than videos and pictures, of course) at that point.
 
2021-09-17 4:26:19 PM  

Dr.Fey: Haven't read the claims, but I don't believe companies are required to report those sorts of things.

"Gosh, you think Charmin's sales of toilet paper during the early months of the pandemic might have been inflated?  The numbers might not be sustained?  Let's sue for fraud because they reported their prior quarters' sales."

Also, because I love you guys:

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/p5dwiia2​LKU?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


Charmin sales just increased.
 
2021-09-17 4:32:47 PM  

jimjays: That's the final straw. She's hot but I will NOT be sleeping with Jessica Alba.


"The surest way to remain poor is to be an honest man."  - Abraham Lincoln.
 
2021-09-17 4:33:55 PM  

Jim_Callahan: FormlessOne: So, not so much "dishonest" as "didn't do investors' homework for them." Got it.

Generally speaking there are three types of disclosure requirements:

1: required by law, we know it's not this because it's a lawsuit

2: required by "soft" law / fiduciary duty -- it might be this but probably not, serious violations of actual recognized duty to investors are taken seriously and result in firings and personal lawsuits, not this kind of soft-handed dicking around in court.

3: Required by contract-- probably it's this one. Demanding future predictions from a company in a binding way is kinda stupid, but you can technically put almost anything into a contract or promise anything to an investor in exchange for their investment (whicj also falls under contracts).

While technically you can also sue for stupid shiat, my money is on alba / the company making a promise in writing to make and disclose these kinds of analyses at some point. Or actually making a disclosure that positively claims the spike is something other than what it was, which sorta hovers between the third point and the second.


I'm not a law-talkin' guy, but it seems that whenever I look at a company's 10-Q or 10-K, they tend to be pretty maximal in terms of the risk factors section. My impression is that they often include things like, theoretically a natural disaster can interrupt operations in their distribution center, or a global financial crisis might strike and interrupt their available funding, or there might be a war and one of their suppliers might get bombed. I Googled a couple just now and the ones from this year have an extensive discussion of COVID risks. I assume this is because there's some obligation to cover foreseeable angles. Is that not the case?
 
2021-09-17 4:51:22 PM  

Dr.Fey: Haven't read the claims, but I don't believe companies are required to report those sorts of things.

"Gosh, you think Charmin's sales of toilet paper during the early months of the pandemic might have been inflated?  The numbers might not be sustained?  Let's sue for fraud because they reported their prior quarters' sales."

Also, because I love you guys:

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/p5dwiia2​LKU?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


My wife hates me for it but Jessica is one of my all-time favs.  Thanks fellow farkers.
 
2021-09-17 6:35:05 PM  

Arkanaut: I assume this is because there's some obligation to cover foreseeable angles. Is that not the case?


There's not a legal obligation, as such.

Or, rather, the legal obligation is the extremely broad ethical requirements of fiduciary duty, most universally the duty of care, aka "don't be shiat at your job, at some point it becomes legally actionable".  But there's not a legal obligation to make predictions specifically.  Depending on what state you're incorporated in and operating in there's usually some duty of record-keeping and disclosure of the required records either regularly or on request, but future-planning is usually a matter of the contract and the internal rules of the company.

That said, I'd say that trying to account for various possible cases of the COVID pandemic is pretty minimal "do your farking job" level stuff, so it's very required in the sense that if you're a ditch-digger you're required to keep track of your shovel even if that's not explicitly in the job description.  Very much a necessary thing in the practical sense.

The thing I'm most uncertain of here is whether Honest actually... is minimally competent, y'know?  It sort of reeks of "scam", though nowhere near on the level of some other celebrity cash-in projects like Goop.  Them just not doing things you'd basically consider automatic or required by a normal corporation following actual best practices wouldn't be super surprising from a company that appears to be trying to tell people that products can be organic and sustainable at the same time (something that is essentially false by definition).
 
2021-09-18 4:09:14 AM  
Inside Jessica Alba's $10M Los Angeles Home | Open Door | Architectural Digest
Youtube l2mtebeR3rA
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.