On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:28:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when
to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over
the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations
you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might move
7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have 10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for
reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers) give
a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

So it's basically taking a product and turning it into a commodity?

Yes. Not much different than arbitrage, in the stock market. Chain "A" is
paying $12.00 for soap. Chain "B" is paying the "normal" price, $18.00. If
we can buy it from A for $12.75 and sell it to B for $14.00 or whatever, it
works.

So to stretch the analogy a little, would it be possible to purchase
that soap for, say August delivery at $12.50, then sell that delivery
contract to whomever at $15?

Later,

Tom