<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UBS Speculates on Lorillard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/</link>
	<description>Information on the Tobacco industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:33:02 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Larry Waters</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1784</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Waters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 17:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1784</guid>
		<description>I agree.  The longer RJR waits, the cheaper the price for Lorillard will be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  The longer RJR waits, the cheaper the price for Lorillard will be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walter Raleigh</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1781</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter Raleigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 16:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1781</guid>
		<description>My bet still would be that RJR is not talking to Lorillard! I think to many folks are speculating as to what they&#039;d like to see rather than what is practical at this time!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My bet still would be that RJR is not talking to Lorillard! I think to many folks are speculating as to what they&#8217;d like to see rather than what is practical at this time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. UNZ</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1627</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. UNZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1627</guid>
		<description>I hope Walter Raleigh will enlighten us as to his sources in proclaiming Triumph Snus&#039;s performance.  Unless he works for Lorillard and has inside information, no credible information seems available on Triumph Snus at all.  

Lorillard point-blank refuses to answer any questions concerning Triumph.  Triumph has no dedicated page, let alone section on the aging lorillard.com.  

There is no Triumph Snus website.  Lorillard&#039;s last press release on Triumph was to announce its introduction.  Nothing since.  

The only mention of snus by Lorillard is in a presentation stored on their site which labels snus as a &quot;long term project&quot; which is still under investigation and generally not under serious consideration at this time.

Lorillard doesn&#039;t have &quot;the brand&quot;.  According to the before mentioned presentation, Lorillard has one brand:  Newport menthol cigarettes.  The whole company rises or falls on Newport.

When Kennedy/Waxman becomes law this year and FDA takes over control of all tobacco products, what is Lorillard going to do if, as widely expected, FDA bans menthol?  Goodbye Newport; goodbye Lorillard.

Triumph Snus?  It&#039;s not even a blip on the radar.  Swedish Match AB, which manufacturers Triumph for Lorillard, has publicly stated on SnusCENTRAL.org that their General Snus brand (the most popular snus in the world) will be as &quot;common as Marlboro cigarettes in the United States&quot;.  Not 10 years from now...this year.

And Swedish Match, which also manufacturers and markets a number of American Chewing tobaccos, has the convenience/grocery/gas station/tobacco store distribution network already in place to accomplish that.

Enjoy your stock dividends while you can.  I&#039;m sure the Lorillard Executives will enjoy their new very nice Bonus and Compensation Plan (for which the majority of the May Annual Meeting is dedicated to).

Lorillard is living on past glory.  The shareholders, and you apparently, are lemmings following them over the cliff.  Let&#039;s chat again around Christmas 2010.  Odds are, Lorillard won&#039;t even exist by then.

Sincerely,

Mr. UNZ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope Walter Raleigh will enlighten us as to his sources in proclaiming Triumph Snus&#8217;s performance.  Unless he works for Lorillard and has inside information, no credible information seems available on Triumph Snus at all.  </p>
<p>Lorillard point-blank refuses to answer any questions concerning Triumph.  Triumph has no dedicated page, let alone section on the aging lorillard.com.  </p>
<p>There is no Triumph Snus website.  Lorillard&#8217;s last press release on Triumph was to announce its introduction.  Nothing since.  </p>
<p>The only mention of snus by Lorillard is in a presentation stored on their site which labels snus as a &#8220;long term project&#8221; which is still under investigation and generally not under serious consideration at this time.</p>
<p>Lorillard doesn&#8217;t have &#8220;the brand&#8221;.  According to the before mentioned presentation, Lorillard has one brand:  Newport menthol cigarettes.  The whole company rises or falls on Newport.</p>
<p>When Kennedy/Waxman becomes law this year and FDA takes over control of all tobacco products, what is Lorillard going to do if, as widely expected, FDA bans menthol?  Goodbye Newport; goodbye Lorillard.</p>
<p>Triumph Snus?  It&#8217;s not even a blip on the radar.  Swedish Match AB, which manufacturers Triumph for Lorillard, has publicly stated on SnusCENTRAL.org that their General Snus brand (the most popular snus in the world) will be as &#8220;common as Marlboro cigarettes in the United States&#8221;.  Not 10 years from now&#8230;this year.</p>
<p>And Swedish Match, which also manufacturers and markets a number of American Chewing tobaccos, has the convenience/grocery/gas station/tobacco store distribution network already in place to accomplish that.</p>
<p>Enjoy your stock dividends while you can.  I&#8217;m sure the Lorillard Executives will enjoy their new very nice Bonus and Compensation Plan (for which the majority of the May Annual Meeting is dedicated to).</p>
<p>Lorillard is living on past glory.  The shareholders, and you apparently, are lemmings following them over the cliff.  Let&#8217;s chat again around Christmas 2010.  Odds are, Lorillard won&#8217;t even exist by then.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Mr. UNZ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Walter Raleigh</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1625</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter Raleigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1625</guid>
		<description>In spite of the comments made by previous bloggers I would tell you they are one sharp company! Not sure if Mr Unz really has a clue as the Snus product is actually performing much better than he may suggest. And I bet you they have another strong performance in the first quarter! They just have the brand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In spite of the comments made by previous bloggers I would tell you they are one sharp company! Not sure if Mr Unz really has a clue as the Snus product is actually performing much better than he may suggest. And I bet you they have another strong performance in the first quarter! They just have the brand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OTP Kid</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1494</link>
		<dc:creator>OTP Kid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1494</guid>
		<description>What company in their right mind would buy a company that was basically 100% vested in menthol with FDA and Waxman looming.  UBS just cut salaries in half for key employees, I would think they ought to worry about other things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What company in their right mind would buy a company that was basically 100% vested in menthol with FDA and Waxman looming.  UBS just cut salaries in half for key employees, I would think they ought to worry about other things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1470</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1470</guid>
		<description>Chris,

I believe you are incorrect in the assumption RAI would have the top 3 menthol brands if RAI purchased Lorillard. The number two menthol is called Marlboro Menthol. RAI would be better of ditching or selling the Salem brand off. I belief their menthol growth is in the Camel brand!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>I believe you are incorrect in the assumption RAI would have the top 3 menthol brands if RAI purchased Lorillard. The number two menthol is called Marlboro Menthol. RAI would be better of ditching or selling the Salem brand off. I belief their menthol growth is in the Camel brand!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. UNZ</title>
		<link>http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/03/12/ubs-speculates-on-lorillard/comment-page-1/#comment-1465</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. UNZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=269#comment-1465</guid>
		<description>None of the scenarios seem likely:  Reynolds and Imperial for the reasons you state and while Swedish Match would make sense on paper, their recently announced joint venture with PMI shows they are moving in a different direction.  

Lorillard seems married to the cigarettes; marketing it the same way they did 20 years ago.  To date, they have completely botched what should have been a winning snus introduction; still languishing in two test markets and exposed as secretly lowering their snus nicotine levels.

Lorillard will eventually be taken over by some one as the American cigarette ban draws closer, but by then, their share value will be so low that they will be absorbed by the purchaser, not an equal partner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>None of the scenarios seem likely:  Reynolds and Imperial for the reasons you state and while Swedish Match would make sense on paper, their recently announced joint venture with PMI shows they are moving in a different direction.  </p>
<p>Lorillard seems married to the cigarettes; marketing it the same way they did 20 years ago.  To date, they have completely botched what should have been a winning snus introduction; still languishing in two test markets and exposed as secretly lowering their snus nicotine levels.</p>
<p>Lorillard will eventually be taken over by some one as the American cigarette ban draws closer, but by then, their share value will be so low that they will be absorbed by the purchaser, not an equal partner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
