Why I'm Finally Selling SodaStream

SodaStream's (NASDAQ: SODA  ) business has had myriad issues for months now. Some are purely financial: Last quarter, it reported anemic sales growth and plummeting profit. The stock has repeatedly tanked as bad news added to the mix. Plenty of investors have already sold, and many who are holding have experienced major losses. In keeping with my dedication to the long-term view, I hardly ever advocate selling a stock, and don't do so lightly, but one straw has proven the final one for me.

Plus there's a bigger reason I'm selling the SodaStream stake in the Prosocial Portfolio I manage for Fool.com right now. This decision is about severe geopolitical risk -- and a nagging conscience.

Getting out of town
SodaStream, which makes at-home soda machines, is headquartered in Israel. Most Americans know the region's difficulties, but the situation has tragically escalated in recent days. With rockets hitting both sides, as of this writing Hamas turned down a cease-fire agreement, so Israel has resumed its own. Citizens on both sides are besieged with the worst violence in the area since 2012. Deaths and injury counts have been increasing.

Companies often do face geopolitical risk, but current events underline just how badly SodaStream's burdened with that problem -- simply being in the neighborhood is a dangerous thing.

There's no doubt about it: This particular angle has been a legitimate bone of contention ever since I included the company in the Prosocial Portfolio, which I've been building with socially responsible tenets in mind. Of all the stocks in the portfolio, SodaStream is one I've wrestled with regularly, because of this aspect.

It's not just me. Lots of socially responsible investors have been wondering how this situation fits into the ethical aspect of their investments.

The call for Israel stock divestment isn't new. In fact, last month, the Presbyterian Church pulled $21 million out of major companies like Hewlett-Packard and Caterpillar that they say are tied to the Palestinian occupation.

Protests and boycotts have escalated all over the world, too. Several weeks ago, U.K. retailer John Lewis pulled SodaStream products out of its stores altogether. On Sunday, Boston protesters reacted to the current troubles by gathering at Macy's, hoping to push the machines out of that store as well.

Some speculate that the reason PepsiCo hasn't taken a stake in SodaStream is its reluctance to be involved in the controversy.

Regardless of moral stance, public opinion regarding this high-profile issue is a significant risk.

Is the environment enough of a reason to sell?
You might ask why SodaStream showed up in my portfolio in the first place (and some people have). On a pure investment level, until recently it looked like an incredibly undervalued stock in a growth industry, particularly because it was a first mover in the space. Now, many wonder if the current challenges actually constitute a poor investment.

SodaStream boasts an environmentally friendly mission. Right now it claims it's saving the world from about 4 billion bottles. From my point of view, the environmental responsibility struck me as a particularly sharp extra-competitive edge beyond simply convenience and saving money at the register.

The soda-at-home device reduces waste. Not only does the practice reduce the amount of containers, it also cuts out pollution that results from transporting heavy products. SodaStream's environmentally friendly mission is one of the reasons spokeswoman Scarlett Johansson has stayed aboard despite the heated controversy.

There's an economic reason that SodaStream could be a force for positive outcomes in a difficult region. I had hoped maybe the presence of companies like SodaStream could bring some degree of peace.

The company employs many Palestinians, and working together can often bring people together. Some Palestinians have gone on the record saying that they need their job at SodaStream in order to support their family -- in other words, boycotts and divestitures could hurt them despite all our good intentions. (This article includes a short film about the complex situation in SodaStream factories.)

Yesterday, I hoped to find an updated management response to the current situation. I hoped I'd see a message on its website, an SEC filing, or some kind of public statement, revealing what's going on and if it's impacting SodaStream at all, even in the pure financial sense.

At the very least, shouldn't investors should be notified if it's impacting business in any way?

But how could it not be? This is a scary situation right now. It's easy for me to believe that both Palestinians and Israelis are not only afraid, but also worried about friends and family, as well as thinking about the situation in a sharper way than ever. Even in our own peaceful society, employees who are worried or stressed about a variety of situations hardly have an easy time being productive.

Moving on, but hoping for better times
I rarely sell stocks or recommend anyone to do so rashly. SodaStream has been under tons of pressure for a long time, and I was holding as I generally do.

From my point of view, the scale has now dipped precipitously in the wrong direction. I don't take a personal stand on who's right or who's wrong in Israel's conflict, although an inability to come to a cease-fire agreement certainly doesn't win much sympathy at the moment, as injuries and body counts grow. I have always thought the situation was intensely complicated and sad, and I simply wish for peace there.

I dearly hope we will someday see a better future in the region, when all parties will be able to resolve their conflicts. I had hoped that SodaStream could be part of that. As much as I believe in waiting for quality companies to turn around their financial fortunes even through times when other investors abandon them, I've decided I can't wait through this. It's time to walk away -- yes, unfortunately, at a loss. Sadly, that's a mild form of loss in the grand scheme of things.

More positive, healthy areas to focus on
The best biotech investors consistently reap gigantic profits by recognizing true potential earlier and more accurately than anyone else. One development will revolutionize not just how we treat a common chronic illness, but potentially the entire health industry. Analysts are already attracted to the sales potential. In order to outsmart Wall Street and realize multibagger returns you will need The Motley Fool's new free report on the dream-team responsible for this game-changing blockbuster. CLICK HERE NOW.


Read/Post Comments (44) | Recommend This Article (29)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 5:04 PM, C237 wrote:

    So, because Sodastream is headquartered in Israel with plants all around the world, and because Israel is being attacked by a terrorist government targeting Israeli citizens on their own land to which they respond (but first warning civilians), you are going to sell the stock?

    Why would you wrestle with the socially conscience aspect of investing in a company because of what "neighborhood" headquarters is in? Are you against companies that operate in chicago because of all the violence there?

    Why are there ethical questions with the investment? What is "palestinian occupation"... there is no country called palestine and never has been, so how do you occupy it?

    Who cares what the Presbyterian Church does? Boycotting companies doesn't solve anything, it only hurts workers, residents, investors around the world, etc.

    You note Sodastream hasn't spoken out for peace or filed something with the SEC, and they should? Is this article from The Onion?

    SodaStream did not attack anyone, and even the company is made up of people from both sides of the conflict.

    The moral issue here isn't one for sodastream to take on or that people should have any question about. Israel is simply defending itself. In fact, earlier today it held it's own cease fire while Hamas (the terrorist palestinian govt) shot over 40 rockets into residential areas.

    If you have a question of which side is acting within the laws of the geneva convention, and which isnt, or which side you feel is morally wrong, and if you feel compelled to sell the stock of a company that happens to operate from that country, then you have much larger issues and challenges than locking in a capital loss.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 5:49 PM, an0n1m0us wrote:

    I still remember when peace in Israle was little more than a handshake away and Arafat chose to start the Intifada. It is all so sad for all concerned.

    On the other hand, the fool invests in oil companies in the Arab countries that through out the Jews and continue to annihilate each other.

    Thank goodness, there was an Israel to take the Jewish people in. Where are the Arab and Palestinian countries (Jordan and Kuwait) to take in their brethren?

    I also, don't get it.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 5:52 PM, HectorLemans wrote:

    The last two months have been excruciating for Sodastream investors as the stock has constantly slid down the drain. The above article is all well and good but tell it like it is - you sold Sodastream because you can't have a stock in your portfolio that loses 30% in two months and 50% in the last year.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 6:17 PM, jschwarzbart wrote:

    I don't know what's in your portfolio, but I wonder if you're applying the same logic to Intel, Microsoft, Google, Ceaserstone, and the many, many others that significant operations in Israel? As other fool analysts have noted in the past (you should read some of them), the Israeli-based operations of those organizations were never in jeopardy. If anything, this is probably an opportunity to buy more Sodastream, depending on your analysis of their long-term business prospects. If you think management's failure to post a warning to investors on their website is part of a larger communication, so be it. But I really don't think any analysts ever justified selling Intel because Intel failed to post a notice on the company website during the 1st or 2nd intifada.

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 6:17 PM, TMFLomax wrote:

    c237,

    I appreciate your points but I addressed many of them in my article.

    HectorLemans,

    No, that isn't the reason. I have several stocks that have suffered significant losses in the Prosocial Portfolio.

    martinitony,

    Absolutely not, and that is a terrible accusation.

    Alyce

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 9:26 PM, jschwarzbart wrote:

    I noticed Apple didn't have any news on their website about the current tensions in Israel. They have 3 R&D centers in Israel. I think your reason for selling Sodastream is either (a) you're throwing in the towel because of the share price decline or (b) you think having an Israeli company in your portfolio doesn't look prosocial anymore. Why not be up front about it?

  • Report this Comment On July 15, 2014, at 9:58 PM, DoctorLewis4 wrote:

    Alyce. I've always enjoyed your articles and your belief system. However, ethical investors such as yourself also have a moral responsibility to learn. If one is divesting in Israel then the reasons behind this political action must be based on facts, not feelings and emotions. The truth is what makes action ethical. Here is the truth. If one wants to divest in Israel, then one is “morally” obligated to do the following:

    1. Stop using their cell phones.

    2. Stop using their computers.

    3. Don’t get an MRI.

    4. Don’t take generic drugs.

    5. Don’t ever get on a commercial airline

    Don’t ever have anything to do with the following companies.

    1. Apple

    2. Google

    3. Cisco

    4. Oracle

    5. IBM

    6. Intel

    7. Qualcomm

    8. Amazon

    9. Facebook

    10. Microsoft

    Doing anything less then boycotting the above is not committing to your so called cause.

    We could debate the politics of this conflict endlessly. It’s an emotional issue. But for goodness sakes, if you are going to dive into the divesting pool, do so for good reason, not for some vague “ethical” concerns. And go all the way – divest completely. That kind of commitment is worthy of respect, even if we don’t agree with it. If you are going to talk the ethical talk, you’d better also walk the walk.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Chai613 wrote:

    Alyce, if you recommend selling SODA because of economic reasons, fine. Its the reason so many of us invested in the first place. Instead, I see divestiture behind your gossamer threads.

    Want to know how to stand strong on a purely moral basis? Take a lesson from the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. Its tough to stand on one's principles, especially when one stands quite alone. Here are the words of one extraordinary man...

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUfFdhIOoQM

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Risky88 wrote:

    How ANTI Fool of you!!!

    The Fool bases buy and sell recommendations based on the companies fundamentals and future growth opportunities.

    In fact your original article states that Sodastream is now 32$ a share off from its 52 week high of 80$ I balked at the high PE of 72. Now its got a reasonable 20PE and forward PE of 12 and PEG of .48.

    Sodastream today has much wider distribution, sales, partners etc etc etc.

    In fact its even CHEAPER than when you bought it on every single metric!!!

    You didn't sell on fundamentals! You sold on emotions! The TMF bases their picks off of the philosophy of Buffett. But you don't show you care about that at all.

    Yeah this stock is down on 1 bad earnings report. But guess what, its also blown it out of the park countless times and still fallen on earnings day.

    Let me predict to you what this stock will do next year along with every other one out there. FLUCTUATE!

    Just like Warren has said countless times. It's not about what will happen with your company but when!

    Its so funny that your basing your sell recommendation off only one metric of a reason that you would sell. Where in your original article you only give 1 whole sentence to but your others have 4 full paragraphs.

    You have TMF in front of your name.

    What a joke.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 7:25 AM, tripoley1966 wrote:

    Congratulations Alyce, I think you just marked the bottom. Thank you!

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 8:17 AM, KBecks wrote:

    Some of those shares of SODA are under 1 year old, that's not a very long holding period.

    Alyce, I wonder, of the stocks in the port, which ones are your "core stocks"? Maybe a future article on which ones you feel are the cornerstones of pro social investing?

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 8:26 AM, KBecks wrote:

    Note, I have passed on both SODA or CSTE, I actually prefer "American" companies (as Buffet prefers), but the other reason for rejecting both companies is because they are so focused -- luxury countertops and kitchen gadgets are both very specialized, and I see that narrowness as a risk for each.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 8:33 AM, TMFLomax wrote:

    KBecks,

    That holding period is an anomaly among the stocks. It's very rare I sell any, and yes, under a year is not something I like to do at all.

    I think that's a very good article idea as for the cornerstone stocks. I'll try to get something like that out there!

    Alyce

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 8:47 AM, DSPexpert wrote:

    Alyce,

    Have you ever been to Israel, or Lebanon....not sure where you are getting your information...but if it's only buzzfeed and seeking alpha...you need to expand you information gathering database silos....Sodastream because its HQd is Isreal is not a reason to sell the stock....I agree Israel and Gaza/Hamas is a bad situation, but they will be able to resolve ....Sodastream is one of the shining lights over there...and a great product

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 8:57 AM, jimmymason wrote:

    No matter how you slice it the author is still employing a buy high/sell low strategy. I will buy your shares from you :)

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 9:55 AM, murph83 wrote:

    You can debate the merits of selling sodastream all you want. As for me, I am surprised Sodastream was ever in a prosocial fund in the first place. The prosocial fund, it seems, looks for companies that are good for humans and the planet they live on. While I have high respect for Alice, soda is one of the worst things human beings can put into their bodies.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, KombatKarl wrote:

    SodaStream doesn't make soda that is like your typical Pepsi or Coke. It doesn't have the sugar and calories, and it doesn't have the dreaded aspartame that diet sodas have.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 11:15 AM, ScottmFool wrote:

    Wow.

    Sodastream's business in Israel is no different now than it was a year ago, when (it's my understanding) shares were purchased for the Prosocial Portfolio. While there are legitimate financial arguments for selling shares, nothing about Sodastream *the company* has changed since the author purchased shares.

    If this is an example of the management of the Prosocial Portfolio, I think I'll stay far away.

    ScottmFool (who usually supports Israel, but not this time)

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Chai613 wrote:

    I'm extremely concerned that TMF and/or its agents is taking a pro BDS position in investing. While evaluating a particular investment consideration of the impact BDS activity may exert on a company's performance is understandable, though regrettable. However, I am reading that Alyce goes further, indicating her own pro BDS sentiments are now guiding her Prosocial Fund choices.

    Regretfully, I have to reconsider my own association with TMF.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 11:33 AM, benjaminbn wrote:

    In your attempt to be all things to all people you wrote a piece of such muddled thinking that it is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you have a political position about investing in Israel then say so. If you want to make a case about business fundamentals then make it. But this whole business about the conflict is nonsense. This current round has little economic impact. In fact the Israeli stock market went up this week. There is no reason for a company (any company) to make political announcement. Did you check is there have been delays in deliveries or slowdowns in production. Your article contributes nothing to understanding is the company remains a good investment or not.

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 11:56 AM, michaelkm88 wrote:

    I'm buying your stock in SODA today under $30.00. Please write an article when my position in SODA kills your entire portfolio gains for the past ten years, in the coming months. Or are you too socially responsible to write facts?

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 3:29 PM, GuidedByFools wrote:

    Alyce,

    I think that sick feeling in your stomach should be considered a buy signal, not a sell signal. Some harsh comments here, but it does sound like your capitulating just like the average Jane.

    Like most things in life, this too shall pass.

    Jason

    long SODA and about to be longer when my puts are assigned this week

  • Report this Comment On July 16, 2014, at 4:03 PM, jimmymason wrote:

    Yes, the author is being influenced mostly by the drop in price if he was to be honest. If the price would have gone up during this time I doubt he would have cited the same reasons for selling and more probably he would have bought more because he would have felt vindicated about the investment. Human psychology as it is interprets a drop in price as a signal that something is horribly wrong when just the opposite may be true. Typical fear and greed story at it's best. The author is letting his fear get the best of him.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 2:17 AM, SuntanIronMan wrote:

    You say that the author wouldn't have sited the same reasons for selling if the price had gone up instead. But Ms. Lomax has done just that in the not too distant past -- selling a company for mostly prosocial reasons. Take Google for example. She had a double-digit percentage gain and acknowledged that it was still a good stock based on its valuation, but she chose to divest the stock anyway for prosocial reasons.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/18/why-im-sell...

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 2:17 AM, SuntanIronMan wrote:

    (My above reply was directed @jimmymason.)

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 2:19 AM, SuntanIronMan wrote:

    Typo: "You said that the author wouldn't have cited..."

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Landsman55 wrote:

    "I don't take a personal stand on who's right or who's wrong in Israel's conflict, although an inability to come to a cease-fire agreement certainly doesn't win much sympathy at the moment, as injuries and body counts grow. I have always thought the situation was intensely complicated and sad, and I simply wish for peace there."

    I wouldn't mind if you did take a personal stand, I mind your disingenuousness. You note the divestment movement against Israel, you note the Presbyterian Church is part of that movement. You report that the lack of a cease fire does not invite sympathy--for whom? Why wouldn't it invite sympathy for Israel since the cease fire plan was proposed by Egypt and Israel unilaterally accepted the terms and Hamas responded by further rocket attacks?

    I am pro-Israel and you are anti-Israel. OK, but have the guts to say so instead of hiding behind innuendo.

    BTW, I always thought soda stream was a dog investment (but I felt htat way about Netflix). I love Israel, I am Jewish but I don't own Soda Stream and I don't own any other Israeli companies because my allegiances both political and religious don't play into my investing.

    This article was shameful and unworthy of The Motley Fool.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 11:25 AM, jschwarzbart wrote:

    Well said, Landsman55. Thank you

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Ingridmiriam wrote:

    In part to counterbalance all of the negative comments above, I want to thank you both for the article and the decision. I have recently finished up four years working for a humanitarian organization in Palestine and Israel. The fact is that SodaStream's factory is on land that Israel continues to occupy and financially exploit, contrary to international law, 47 years on. The workers in the factory may have jobs, but they do not have the right to vote for the government that controls their borders and are not allowed to travel on the same routes that their Israeli bosses can, back and forth between Israel and the West Bank. Denial of such fundamental rights is no recipe for social responsibility, and it is unfortunate that the company won't simply take the step of moving its factory inside the he internationally recognized borders of Israel and manufacture it's environmentally friendly product there.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 12:29 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    I have never liked SodaStream as an investment.

    I disagree that they are a "first mover". These home carbonation machines were widely used and somewhat ubiquitous in South Africa in the 1980s. The only thing missing was the expensive syrups - we would substitute Kool-aid packs and invent our own flavors - SodaStream has no barrier when it comes to flavor and concentrates. Their revenue model is flawed and I see SodaStream as a adequately marketed fad. Get out while you can (the politics aside).

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 2:32 PM, AkaThePerfessor wrote:

    Well, you know the old saying, "sell when there's blood in the streets".

    Also, "sell when others are selling, buy when others are buying".

    Wait a minute....hmmm....

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Aquest wrote:

    To suggest perhaps a 'practical' way of deciding on whether or not to invest in SodaStream. Peter Lynch advocated knowing the company's product. To do this, go to retail stores that sell SodaStream, such as Walmart. Look at the display, its size, location. Watch for awhile and see if anyone is looking at the display and/or buying the product. Talk to a couple of clerks and see how often they need to restock the SodaStream display.

    If you find what I did (that the displays are small and often not in the best locations) and that clerks say they hardly ever have to restock the display, you may conclude that the product is not selling well.

    There are certainly moral issues one can apply to investing but to avoid those arguments (at least in this case) all one has to do look at local sales to realize this is a company whose sales are on the decline.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 4:01 PM, kw6238b wrote:

    Thank you for this. It would have been easy to avoid the topic and the pro-Zionist propaganda it has predictably drawn.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, thekid307 wrote:

    "This decision is about severe geopolitical risk -- and a nagging conscience."

    Of what? You're waffling the entire article. If you're selling SODA on 'moral' grounds state why.

    BTW: http://bit.ly/1qLyVfS

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 5:50 PM, thekid307 wrote:

    So Alyce. Any companies dealing with human rights violator China in your 'ProSocial' portfolio?

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Chai613 wrote:

    Nasty word, that "occupy" IngridMiriam. International law holds that when a country is defends itself in an attack by its neighbor and succeeds, land it acquires is held legitimately, not "occupied". The buying and selling of stock shares is actually a pretty good parallel. When you buy low and sell high, did you sell shares you "occupied"?

    Of course not. No one likes a sore loser.

  • Report this Comment On July 17, 2014, at 10:44 PM, somethingnew wrote:

    I had to read through this article twice and it's fairly convoluted...I'm not interested in prosocial stocks and I don't own Sodastream shares anymore. I sold them at a decent profit after I realized that it was not the company I hoped/thought it was. I can totally see selling this company because of severe geo-political risks though especially since the company has focused so much on the North American market and the kind of people that buy Sodastreams here are probably also the kind of people that would boycott them for all the wrong reasons. This could cause an even bigger decline in US sales than they've already got. When I had shares in this company I was looking at their domination of some markets overseas and saw the US market as sortof a small bonus that might or might not work out. The US market now looks like a huge liability. If they didn't have so much invested in the US market the shares would be an absolute bargain and I would consider owning stock in them again.

  • Report this Comment On July 18, 2014, at 1:21 PM, arn3426 wrote:

    I appreciate you putting your morals into your investing. I too am uncomfortable with investing in anything Israeli because of the government squeezing the indigenous population into smaller and smaller parcels of land. The wall is built on Palestinian land, the settlements are built on Palestinian land and so many of the native people are being killed with no consequences to the killers. After seeing the terrible damage done to Gaza and the deaths of a people with nowhere to escape to, I am boycotting anything and everything from Israel. As a people who have been the victims of an attempted genocide, the Israelis should not be trying to eradicate another group of people.

  • Report this Comment On July 18, 2014, at 3:26 PM, kinuvas wrote:

    To ARN3426,

    Genocide really? Can you prove this is Genocide in Gaza? Genocide is what is happening in Syria. Between 115,000 to 170,000 has been killed. How many Palestinians living in Syria has been killed in Syria by other Syrians? I heard quite a few.

    I have an idea. How about Hamas stop shooting missiles into Israel and then Israel will stop with their military response. Will you also be boycotting Chinese and Russian products as well? China has a horrible human rights record. Let see Tibet, Religious persecutions, torture. And how about Russia?

  • Report this Comment On July 20, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Sgmoish wrote:

    Either you are an ignorant peasant and you should not be writing articles or you are a down low anti Semite!!! I hope you never use waze, intel, and a million other Israeli inventions. Are you aware that soda stream produced a beautiful video ( not that they had to) showing happy palistinians making more than double what they would normally earn?

    Are you aware of any Palestinian companies that hire jewish workers?? Shame on you for bringing you hateful rhetoric into this discussion! What's more you quote the despicable and hateful Presbyterian Church??? Go find some Palestinian company to invest in or for that matter any other of the dozens Arab countries. You won't find any except of you're interested in rockets which are constantly crashing and burning.

  • Report this Comment On July 21, 2014, at 12:46 PM, NadiaAndJulia wrote:

    +1 for Alyce.

    You could've sold and never tell anyone why, but you chose to do so. You knew this will make you a lot of enemies, but you did what you feel is right.

    Congratulations.

    People who don't understand (read, who are mad at you) are the same people who always blame the other side (be it in this or any other conflict).

    One can clearly see you had no issue with SODA being based in Israel when you took your position in SODA. Now you do. Nothing wrong with that.

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2014, at 6:28 AM, quark4 wrote:

    Alyce,

    Way to go with this divestment! I think even more highly of fool.com after learning about this.

    Now it's time for David to recommend a sell of Caesarstone and INTC too. Dollars dipped in the blood of little children will smell of just that: blood.

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 12:25 PM, michaelkm88 wrote:

    You did it!!! There you went and called the absolute bottom!!! Sodastream getting bought out at 40.00 a share and I bought yours for 29.00!! I knew this site was good for something!

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 12:26 PM, michaelkm88 wrote:

    Maybe a followup article about your bad advice is due soon?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 3030177, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/17/2014 6:01:13 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement