Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Supplement Companies to Avoid

Oh please just stop Woody

It was a valid question. Sure, you can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it won't be dismissed immediately.

Invalid Link Removed

If you disagree I would love to hear your reasoning. I do sue people and defend lawsuits everyday, so you might be surprised at how much I do know on this topic.

Law is always something that's fun to discuss.
 
To be frank, I have little to no knowledge about how/why Hi-Tech buys companies the way it does. I'm just not involved in that portion of the company. I have no insight into why they're doing it, how they're doing it, or the logistics behind it.

That being said, from my mostly uninformed position, I see the following happening in the near future:

Hi-Tech brings on 2+ more brands
Hi-Tech expands its distribution capabilities West to have a nationwide 2 day shipping reach
Hi-Tech begins to act as a distributor which offers it's house brands in addition to the brands it manufactures for

In effect, I believe Jared is attempting to control every single aspect of his products. From raw material production (with the dairy plant purchase in PA), to manufacturing (in both GA and PA), to distribution. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that they go down this route, and if/when they do, they then start their own retail infrastructure to sell product directly to the end user.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of Jared, he's done a hell of a job with HiTech. Damn good businessman.
 
To be frank, I have little to no knowledge about how/why Hi-Tech buys companies the way it does. I'm just not involved in that portion of the company. I have no insight into why they're doing it, how they're doing it, or the logistics behind it.

That being said, from my mostly uninformed position, I see the following happening in the near future:

Hi-Tech brings on 2+ more brands
Hi-Tech expands its distribution capabilities West to have a nationwide 2 day shipping reach
Hi-Tech begins to act as a distributor which offers it's house brands in addition to the brands it manufactures for

In effect, I believe Jared is attempting to control every single aspect of his products. From raw material production (with the dairy plant purchase in PA), to manufacturing (in both GA and PA), to distribution. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that they go down this route, and if/when they do, they then start their own retail infrastructure to sell product directly to the end user.

And I think that is the smart way to go here. If you want to take on more brands then you're best off investing in ways to not only grow your business horizontally, but also vertically. This is why I think a good corporate development team and proper utilization of assets are so important in this industry. But in reality, I am an outsider. I am involved in the investment banking world and can talk about mergers and acquisitions on here all I want, but I'm still not in the sports supplement industry, so I can't comment on anything with 100% certainty. However, I am just providing some of my thoughts.
 
It was a valid question. Sure, you can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it won't be dismissed immediately.



If you disagree I would love to hear your reasoning. I do sue people and defend lawsuits everyday, so you might be surprised at how much I do know on this topic.

Law is always something that's fun to discuss.

And it shows. You like to take the hypothetical outlier as something that would happen normally.
 
And it shows. You like to take the hypothetical outlier as something that would happen normally.

I wasn't using it as something that would normally happen but rather I used it as an example of how the manufacturer could actually be liable. There are a plethora of reasons. You also have no idea what discover will show. If you fail to sue them, chances are you fail to send a spoliation letter, which means if you need to sue them later on that evidence is gone and you committed malpractice.

Regardless, even if there is only one reason, isn't that enough to include them in a lawsuit. If they get dismissed immediately, what's the harm to you? It doesn't diminish the value of your case or other claims. By excluding them, however, it potentially limits your recovery.

A lot more goes into suing than people think. You don't get a JD and become an expert in every type of law. Not all law is interchangeable. You rarely see general practitioners anymore for a reason. Whether it's personal injury, product liability, family law, securities fraud, criminal defense.. the nuances of each type of law are unique to that practice.

Mike has a business perspective. I have a trial lawyers perspective. FWIW, most contract lawyers have never stepped foot in a court room to defend their contract.
 
I love hi tech. Best brand out there. Even their creatine phosphogen, I don't know what is in it or how it works, but that really adds size and strength and doesn't turn you into a bloated tick. Best creatine I ever tried and I use to be a "just buy cheap mono guy " beta alanine in it is a little much. But hi tech is so solid.
 
Except, if I'm a consumer, I sue everyone. Why limit my pool of recovery. You think a manufacturer wants the publicity that they produced a spiked or underdosed product? Sure, they may not have liability. Doesn't mean they don't confidentially settle.

How do you know it's not cross contamination or something on part of the manufacturer? If you find out later that it's actually the fault of the manufacturer, statute may have tolled and you screwed yourself.

Show me 1 case where this has happened.
 
What are you talking about?

I was reading this on the phone and misread one previous post - aka reading too fast,

please don't sue me lmao
 
Don't want to stir the pot but we pay credit where credit is due, right?

Invalid Link Removed

Marc has continually said on social media that scivation was his and his start up, then sold it.

Please link me to the actual spot where that was said. I'll happily comment. Someone can invite him here as well. I'm not shocked at all with what people say these days. Facts become pesky things.
 
Your company, Hi-Tech, is one of the ones that owns several brands, which I assume were all acquisitions? They are a good example of what I am trying to say when I talk about M&A in the supplement industry. If their acquisitions are proving to be successful investments, why aren't there more companies doing it? In a way, isn't there a need for consolidation from both the consumer and producer perspectives in this industry? My guess is that distribution is massive - MASSIVE in this industry if you want to scale. Consolidation would mean better control on prices, better distribution, and higher profit margins.

Hi-Tech isn't using equity to do deals. They buy distressed assets and turn them around. They become a mini distributor of sorts, which is a smart move. Big difference in what he's doing and investment capital being used to consolidate.
 
I wasn't using it as something that would normally happen but rather I used it as an example of how the manufacturer could actually be liable. There are a plethora of reasons. You also have no idea what discover will show. If you fail to sue them, chances are you fail to send a spoliation letter, which means if you need to sue them later on that evidence is gone and you committed malpractice.

Regardless, even if there is only one reason, isn't that enough to include them in a lawsuit. If they get dismissed immediately, what's the harm to you? It doesn't diminish the value of your case or other claims. By excluding them, however, it potentially limits your recovery.

A lot more goes into suing than people think. You don't get a JD and become an expert in every type of law. Not all law is interchangeable. You rarely see general practitioners anymore for a reason. Whether it's personal injury, product liability, family law, securities fraud, criminal defense.. the nuances of each type of law are unique to that practice.

Mike has a business perspective. I have a trial lawyers perspective. FWIW, most contract lawyers have never stepped foot in a court room to defend their contract.

You have trial lawyer experience, but not in this industry.
 
I wasn't using it as something that would normally happen but rather I used it as an example of how the manufacturer could actually be liable. There are a plethora of reasons. You also have no idea what discover will show. If you fail to sue them, chances are you fail to send a spoliation letter, which means if you need to sue them later on that evidence is gone and you committed malpractice.

Regardless, even if there is only one reason, isn't that enough to include them in a lawsuit. If they get dismissed immediately, what's the harm to you? It doesn't diminish the value of your case or other claims. By excluding them, however, it potentially limits your recovery.

A lot more goes into suing than people think. You don't get a JD and become an expert in every type of law. Not all law is interchangeable. You rarely see general practitioners anymore for a reason. Whether it's personal injury, product liability, family law, securities fraud, criminal defense.. the nuances of each type of law are unique to that practice.

Mike has a business perspective. I have a trial lawyers perspective. FWIW, most contract lawyers have never stepped foot in a court room to defend their contract.

I love the lecture from the guy who "doesn't buy it" only to be proven completely wrong. You argue the hypothetical while telling those who have been involved you "don't buy it". Please.
 
I was reading this on the phone and misread one previous post - aka reading too fast,

please don't sue me lmao

I was just confused as to where you were going with your point. aka a head scratcher.

I don't sue. I get threatened with lawsuits over other's peoples opinions. I hope you buy that. :lol:
 
Hi-Tech isn't using equity to do deals. They buy distressed assets and turn them around. They become a mini distributor of sorts, which is a smart move. Big difference in what he's doing and investment capital being used to consolidate.

I don't think we're on the same page. Companies are in distress because they can't breakeven, often times due to high fixed costs. Consolidation is what lowers those costs. I am not talking about bringing in investors, selling equity, or anything like that. I am simply talking about a full purchase by way of debt. The assets of both companies could suffice as collateral. That way it's clean and simple.
 
I was just confused as to where you were going with your point. aka a head scratcher.

I don't sue. I get threatened with lawsuits over other's peoples opinions. I hope you buy that. :lol:

:cheers:
 
I don't think we're on the same page. Companies are in distress because they can't breakeven, often times due to high fixed costs. Consolidation is what lowers those costs. I am not talking about bringing in investors, selling equity, or anything like that. I am simply talking about a full purchase by way of debt. The assets of both companies could suffice as collateral. That way it's clean and simple.

I've sold companies in this space, I've bought companies in this space and I've consulted on dozens of deals that may or may not have gone to transaction. When it comes to transactional issues within this space, few have been through as many as I have. If your model applied to our industry, you would see it happening. It doesn't happen, because there are HUGE issues with companies in this space. Money finds potential and money rarely comes into this space because of liability. There is a huge lie that volume creates discounts in our space. The cost of raw materials is similar for most companies, just a volume difference on the supplement company side. Being one of the largest buyers of BCAA's in the world, my price isn't that different than someone that does 1/100th my volume. Granted their material is likely 93-95% vs our 99.
 
I am talking about supermarket with private label products (e.g. Walmart branded ketchup made by a contract manufacturer).

This is the same as a small supplement company outsourcing production to a contract manufacturer in the supplement industry. In both situations it it would be the contract manufacturers task to ensure product quality.

Ignore the fact that Walmart is a retailer as well the point is this would be an instance of a very large public company who would not be employing people to assess the quality of the ketchup under their own brand.

The idea every brand needs its own QA people is a fallacy not supported by evidence from the wider economy where you'll often get a single brand making its own product and then private labelling for third parties while being the one responsible for QA.

Btw, to 1fast400, good luck with an exit plan, your future plans sounds like jumping from the frying pan into the fire but you sir sound an honourable man.
It's not at all the same, considering the vast differences in regulation for food companies and supplement companies and the degree of enforcement. Moreoever, it is not uncommon for major supermarket brands to pay money to rebrand other company product and sell as their own, therefore the onus is still on those brands to conduct testing.

In the cases where supermarkets do indeed produce their own items in a shared facility, you can be sure those in house brands are tested by QC teams at third party locations. The food space is very tightly controlled, but recalls do still happen if something slips by.

As a matter of interest, who found the horsemeat in the burgers? A consumer, or the brand?
 
I've sold companies in this space, I've bought companies in this space and I've consulted on dozens of deals that may or may not have gone to transaction. When it comes to transactional issues within this space, few have been through as many as I have. If your model applied to our industry, you would see it happening. It doesn't happen, because there are HUGE issues with companies in this space. Money finds potential and money rarely comes into this space because of liability. There is a huge lie that volume creates discounts in our space. The cost of raw materials is similar for most companies, just a volume difference on the supplement company side. Being one of the largest buyers of BCAA's in the world, my price isn't that different than someone that does 1/100th my volume. Granted their material is likely 93-95% vs our 99.

I am sure you have significant experience in this industry (definitely more than I do). But I have facilitated some M&A deals myself, but not in this industry and typically over $100 million. But even if you're saying the economies of scale don't apply to raws and the synergies won't improve your gross profit, they should still improve your operating margin if done correctly. It just doesn't make sense to me. If the sports supplement industry is low concentration and high growth then it is basically screaming (from a bankers perspective) for M&A. The biggest problem I see, which I think is your point, is that the barrier for entry is just too low. That would be the main issue I see here. Otherwise I just don't see it. And I'm not trying to come off as an a-hole or anything. I think we both have different backgrounds that together make this discussion interesting.
 
I am sure you have significant experience in this industry (definitely more than I do). But I have facilitated some M&A deals myself, but not in this industry and typically over $100 million market cap. But even if you're saying the economies of scale don't apply to raws and the synergies won't improve your gross profit, they should still improve your operating margin if done correctly. It just doesn't make sense to me. If the sports supplement industry is low concentration and high growth then it is basically screaming (from a bankers perspective) for M&A. The biggest problem I see, which I think is your point, is that the barrier for entry is just too low. That would be the main issue I see here. Otherwise I just don't see it. And I'm not trying to come off as an a-hole or anything. I think we both have different backgrounds that together make this discussion interesting.

My writing comes off as an *******, but anyone that has met me knows it's far from the truth. I'm one of the most laid back people you'll ever meet. Victim of time, I get straight to the point and don't fluff things.

Supplement companies have very few employee's. Fixed overhead is rarely the issue. Companies have no clue how to build a product and lose all their margin whoring stuff out to try and get attention. When the whoring stops, so do sales. Their demand isn't true product demand, it's deal demand. Take the deal away and the product dies. Your premise is off because you're assuming a much higher overhead than what really exists. When scaled, it's a bit different. A transaction in our space of 50m+, you could shave off some overhead for sure. At 100m+ absolutely. Wipe out executives, combine logistics and some raw material efficiencies and you're likely looking at an ebitda increase of 2-3m per 50m of revenue. Lots of exceptions but that's a ballpark. The only companies being acquired at this point, not just equity deals, are those being bolted on for a larger transaction down the road. You'll occasionally have deals via hormel for giant deals, glanbia if you're huge and don't want top dollar and then outliers like vega one that nobody understands. Sports Nutrition just has a huge black eye, but some are willing to dabble. Sheridan group doing their deal by combining the two biggest distributors was a big step. Once there is a "safe" tag on the space, money will come pouring in by people who don't want missed opportunity.

I could write for days on this topic lol
 
No. Why would the manufacture take on that liability if you have no qc/qa team in place? Your argument is that a small brand, with little volume, is going to go to a big manufacture and get them to sign off and take liability, no. That's not how the real world works. They'll simply say no and you don't get your product made. This is the problem with be underfunded. Go find a single legal case where a supplement company sued it's manufacture over a manufacturing issue. What do you think happened when muscle tech lost their suit for amino spiking?

I guess if someone on here writes to glanbia to see if they would guarantee their proteins if they made it for a brand that would clear it up (note I am UK based, maybe the laws differ in the US).
 
My writing comes off as an *******, but anyone that has met me knows it's far from the truth. I'm one of the most laid back people you'll ever meet. Victim of time, I get straight to the point and don't fluff things.

Supplement companies have very few employee's. Fixed overhead is rarely the issue. Companies have no clue how to build a product and lose all their margin whoring stuff out to try and get attention. When the whoring stops, so do sales. Their demand isn't true product demand, it's deal demand. Take the deal away and the product dies. Your premise is off because you're assuming a much higher overhead than what really exists. When scaled, it's a bit different. A transaction in our space of 50m+, you could shave off some overhead for sure. At 100m+ absolutely. Wipe out executives, combine logistics and some raw material efficiencies and you're likely looking at an ebitda increase of 2-3m per 50m of revenue. Lots of exceptions but that's a ballpark. The only companies being acquired at this point, not just equity deals, are those being bolted on for a larger transaction down the road. You'll occasionally have deals via hormel for giant deals, glanbia if you're huge and don't want top dollar and then outliers like vega one that nobody understands. Sports Nutrition just has a huge black eye, but some are willing to dabble. Sheridan group doing their deal by combining the two biggest distributors was a big step. Once there is a "safe" tag on the space, money will come pouring in by people who don't want missed opportunity.

I could write for days on this topic lol

I understand what you are saying. And you're right I have no idea what the fixed costs are... I was simply making an assumption. I understand about companies that whore off products, lose margin, and then become distressed and likely end up out of business. What I am getting at though, is that those companies will drown regardless. But there has to still be a strategic approach for supplement company A to acquire either supplement company B, C, or D, and part of that is weeding out those companies. Obviously if you are going to consolidate you don't want to have to rely on push marketing tactics forever. However, consolidation (if done right) can build stronger brand loyalty and not leave them forced to whore out products. But yes, of course it has to be done strategically. I am not talking about acquiring a company at $250k because it wouldn't be worth the headache. But I would imagine there are players that can effectively acquire companies in the $2-20 million range with success. But yes, I don't really know much about the industry. However, from a bankers perspective, you see growth and low concentration, and that makes it interesting.

What do these smaller supplement companies value at anyway? What do you see as the typical multiple of sales, net, EBITDA, etc.?
 
It's not at all the same, considering the vast differences in regulation for food companies and supplement companies and the degree of enforcement. Moreoever, it is not uncommon for major supermarket brands to pay money to rebrand other company product and sell as their own, therefore the onus is still on those brands to conduct testing.

In the cases where supermarkets do indeed produce their own items in a shared facility, you can be sure those in house brands are tested by QC teams at third party locations. The food space is very tightly controlled, but recalls do still happen if something slips by.

As a matter of interest, who found the horsemeat in the burgers? A consumer, or the brand?

Agree that if they make it they will do extensive QA but not when they outsource it. I can't post links but google horsemeat scandal and you can find a lot of stuff on it, it was uncovered by a regulator in Ireland I believe.

The thing is you would expect that QA on meat is held to a much higher standard due to the risk of disease but this scandal is one of many which have afflicted the grocery industry over the years and it all boils down to the simple fact that regardless of what the law does or does not say the quality of controls is weak and I think it incredibly unlikely that if a grocery store lets diseased or contaminated meat onto the aisle that they will be subjecting their contract manufactured vitamin c to a much higher standard.

In both cases, they would outsource their controls to a packer and follow up with only fairly basic QA afterwards - not enough to catch the horsemeat in burgers in this case, the salmonella in eggs in other cases etc.

If anything, you would say that if the worst case anyone can think of is amino spiking (like Mike said in ref to Muscletech where no doubt muscletech colluded in the practice) then the level of QA in this industry can't be that bad.
 
I understand what you are saying. And you're right I have no idea what the fixed costs are... I was simply making an assumption. I understand about companies that whore off products, lose margin, and then become distressed and likely end up out of business. What I am getting at though, is that those companies will drown regardless. But there has to still be a strategic approach for supplement company A to acquire either supplement company B, C, or D, and part of that is weeding out those companies. Obviously if you are going to consolidate you don't want to have to rely on push marketing tactics forever. However, consolidation (if done right) can build stronger brand loyalty and not leave them forced to whore out products. But yes, of course it has to be done strategically. I am not talking about acquiring a company at $250k because it wouldn't be worth the headache. But I would imagine there are players that can effectively acquire companies in the $2-20 million range with success. But yes, I don't really know much about the industry. However, from a bankers perspective, you see growth and low concentration, and that makes it interesting.

What do these smaller supplement companies value at anyway? What do you see as the typical multiple of sales, net, EBITDA, etc.?

Remember, 2-20 is under 5m in ebitda which means the risk factor in most spaces is high. Put that into this space, higher risk. Look at my example of USP labs. Went from a huge company to a fraction of that in 90 days. Like I said, you don't see your scenario happening and there is a reason for that. If there was money to be made, I assure you, it would be happening.

Nothing in this space is being valued on sales multiples. You'd need a real brand, combined with significant growth to get that here. The 3 tiers would be 3-6 for non high growth and under 7m in ebitda, 6-8 for 7+ and possibly 9-11 if you were over 10, growing significantly with real strategy. TONS of variables, but from my experience this is pretty close. There are FEW buyouts that exist here, more equity plays taking on debt for now.
 
Remember, 2-20 is under 5m in ebitda which means the risk factor in most spaces is high. Put that into this space, higher risk. Look at my example of USP labs. Went from a huge company to a fraction of that in 90 days. Like I said, you don't see your scenario happening and there is a reason for that. If there was money to be made, I assure you, it would be happening.

Nothing in this space is being valued on sales multiples. You'd need a real brand, combined with significant growth to get that here. The 3 tiers would be 3-6 for non high growth and under 7m in ebitda, 6-8 for 7+ and possibly 9-11 if you were over 10, growing significantly with real strategy. TONS of variables, but from my experience this is pretty close. There are FEW buyouts that exist here, more equity plays taking on debt for now.

So, you're saying a company with over $10 mil EBITDA who has significant growth and strong strategy will only have their equity valued at 9-11X EBITDA? Damn, this is a weird industry.
 
So, you're saying a company with over $10 mil EBITDA who has significant growth and strong strategy will only have their equity valued at 9-11X EBITDA? Damn, this is a weird industry.

That would run you around 2x revenue, that's not a bad amount. You have insane outliers like Vega who went for big money, but that was because the costco deal was signed during negotiations. Clorox backed away from deal near the end, other side didn't know that.
 
That would run you around 2x revenue, that's not a bad amount. You have insane outliers like Vega who went for big money, but that was because the costco deal was signed during negotiations. Clorox backed away from deal near the end, other side didn't know that.

That was WhiteWave's acquisition right? Perfect example of the M&A activity we've seen in the packaged foods industry. WhiteWave went on a buying spree and focused on acquisitions rather than organic growth. And then Danone comes along and offers to overpay for WhiteWave. But still, I don't consider 2X sales that good of an amount if a company has serious organic growth... say 3-year CAGR of 25%. But, you know, it's hard to say. There are always a lot more factors that go into it rather than just past numbers. It is still interesting though to learn this stuff about the industry. I have wondered why there wasn't more M&A activity in this industry over the last few years with such low interest rates. I do enjoy this conversation.
 
That was WhiteWave's acquisition right? Perfect example of the M&A activity we've seen in the packaged foods industry. WhiteWave went on a buying spree and focused on acquisitions rather than organic growth. And then Danone comes along and offers to overpay for WhiteWave. But still, I don't consider 2X sales that good of an amount if a company has serious organic growth... say 3-year CAGR of 25%. But, you know, it's hard to say. There are always a lot more factors that go into it rather than just past numbers. It is still interesting though to learn this stuff about the industry. I have wondered why there wasn't more M&A activity in this industry over the last few years with such low interest rates. I do enjoy this conversation.

Keep in my mind, top line max revenue for most supplement companies is around 500m and it takes a mega **** ton to do that. Most cap at 300 and few go over 100.
 
Keep in my mind, top line max revenue for most supplement companies is around 500m and it takes a mega **** ton to do that. Most cap at 300 and few go over 100.

Well if anyone reading this thread was considering starting or investing in a supplement company, I think you did a good job of changing their minds.
 
Invalid Link Removed

This is why QC matters. When manufactures know testing isn't being done, the incentive to grow their margins can become strong. Something like this happens for 1 of 2 reasons. It was cost cutting on the manufacture side to boost margin and knew they wouldn't get caught because of no testing or blending issues not creating uniformity in the mix. Possibly a combo of both.
 
Invalid Link Removed

This is why QC matters. When manufactures know testing isn't being done, the incentive to grow their margins can become strong. Something like this happens for 1 of 2 reasons. It was cost cutting on the manufacture side to boost margin and knew they wouldn't get caught because of no testing or blending issues not creating uniformity in the mix. Possibly a combo of both.

Eek. Protein content listed was hard enough to justify for the price or cals, but 4-9g...woof.
 
Keep in my mind, top line max revenue for most supplement companies is around 500m and it takes a mega **** ton to do that. Most cap at 300 and few go over 100.

Though there are a few giants that own multiple companies under different names, sneakily.

I now visit a stretch of factories for my job (employing thousands) that include some better known brands, all under an unexpected umbrella.

Secrecy, smoke & mirrors
 
Though there are a few giants that own multiple companies under different names, sneakily.

I now visit a stretch of factories for my job (employing thousands) that include some better known brands, all under an unexpected umbrella.

Secrecy, smoke & mirrors
Are the same factories just producing for different companies though?
 
Back
Top