In my opinion yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Haters gonna hate. Own it bitch.
Printable View
In my opinion yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Haters gonna hate. Own it bitch.
hey, Benny wants shit to fall apart, and a whole bunch of fucking Brock Landers/Muds/other shitstains want to coast their way along. Save benny's at least honest saying he wants to cash in if shit falls apart, unlike the mud'esque "home ownership makes a better america"
Pallet full of craft beer blowout at my local lucky. Looked like some decent beers too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Conway
Responsible Man Sets Aside Small Portion Of Every Paycheck For Bank To Gamble With
NEWS IN BRIEF • Local • Money • Finance • ISSUE 50•41 • Oct 16, 2014
EDISON, NJ—Noting that it was the sensible thing to do at this point in his life, 27-year-old web designer Jonathan Elridge confirmed Thursday that he puts aside a small percentage of each paycheck for his bank to gamble with. “It’s really important to save money for the future, even if it’s just a little bit each month,” said Elridge, explaining that roughly $80 per pay period is automatically directed into a separate pool of funds that Bank of America proprietary traders use to continuously wage bets on complicated asset-backed securities and opaque financial derivatives with varying levels of risk. “I just want to make sure that over time, I slowly accumulate a significant amount of money that [some extremely well-compensated Wall Street speculators can indiscriminately throw around in what essentially amounts to a massive game of chance, for which they have zero accountability in any way, shape, or form]. Honestly, it’s just common sense.” While spending several minutes filing the paperwork necessary to increase his regular contributions to the fund, Elridge was reportedly unaware that his retirement savings had increased and decreased in value roughly 12,000 times.
someone's makin' butterQuote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Well, that little kerfuffle is over. Phew.
Don't fight the ECB on expiration day. DAX up 2.25%. Another very busy day. No let up at all.
Kerplunk.
IBM taking a swift kick in the nuts the last few days. Sux when you have to pay $1.5 billion to get someone to take a failing unit off your hands :zap:
Coca Cola and MacDonald's down. The world economy is contracting. Hail QE, hail!
http://thereformedbroker.com/2014/10...ster-children/
IBM, Coca-Cola and McDonalds are three of America’s largest corporations and most well-known brands. They are true multinationals in every sense of the word and they dominate their industries both at home and abroad. They are numbers 23, 58 and 106 on the Fortune 500 list, respectively. Together, they make up 12 percent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s total weighting.
And all three are plagued by the same problem – they’re shrinking. More than this, their shrinkage is finally being recognized on The Street, now that investors are peeling back all of the layers of buyback and dividend subterfuge that’ve kept this fact disguised for so many years.
McDonalds has been trading like a bond for the last two years, oscillating within a tight ten-point range between 90 and 100 dollars a share, a 3-and-change percent dividend along with a buyback keeping it afloat almost regardless of how poorly its margins and same store sales have come in. Not anymore. This morning it told Wall Street that earnings in the last quarter are down by an unbelievable 30 percent. No more bond-like status for Mickey D – and indeed, the stock looks to trade below the $90 level for the first time since January of 2013. As McDonalds raises prices on fancier offerings, they run into new competitors at the higher tier. As they fight to maintain their economically absurd “Dollar Menu”, they collapse their own margins. It’s not unfixable, but it’s a bad situation. On top of that, all of the marketing in the world cannot change the fact that the current McDonalds product and experience is socially unacceptable to what used to be the company’s core audience. I don’t know anyone who would feed their kids that stuff or bring a greasy sack of it up to their office these days.
Coca-Cola’s core business, diet and regular soda, is dead. Everyone knows it except for shareholders, who’ve kept the stock near 52-week highs regardless of the massive shift in consumer tastes away from sugars, preservatives, artificial ingredients and unhealthy soft drinks. They’ve been shareholder-friendly on management incentives, dividends and buybacks as well – but it may not be enough anymore. Coca-Cola is not growing and its core product has become increasingly meaningless to the next generation of consumers. This morning Coke reported an awful quarter to investors, its shares are off almost 6 percent as of this writing. That’s an exceptional decline for a such a traditionally boring blue chip – another “bond-like stock” now forced to face the music.
Which brings me to IBM – perhaps the very poster child of this moment in buybacks-trump-anything investing. IBM has spent $140 billion since the year 2000 on dividends and buybacks. Which has been great for shareholders, but not so great for the business: IBM has missed out on or underinvested in every single major trend within the technology space for the last decade. And now those chickens are coming home to roost. Management has dropped the Beijing-inflected “five year plan” nonsense finally and may have finally been scared straight into investing in innovation again. Is it too late? Has the price to sit down at the table gone higher than it would have had IBM been more aggressive sooner?
Buybacks have far outpaced revenue growth for the US stock market in the modern age and these three companies are emblematic of what that looks like as the fairy dust begins to wear off. What this could mean for a host of other stocks going forward is not encouraging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Yep, stock market now creates nothing. It's just just a wealth generator...until it isn't. Surprised by the voracity of this bounce from the lows. Blowing through resistance. Long or wrong. Berskshire is big holder of Coke and IBM but still up almost 1%.
Emerging Markets still lagging.
Where else are you going to make a buck?
know a guy who knows a guy who...Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Benny your McD's analysis seems to ignore the international market, remaining market penetration opportunity, etc. Don't see them contracting on a global basis because retards in the us are fixated on yoga and crossfit.
Despite having the biggest egos in the world we are an increasingly smaller portion of the overall GDP and population.
MacDs in the US are daily meals for millions, cheap and quick, but in a lot of emerging markets it's a relatively expensive novelty, and with contractions in those emerging economies, the average person will go back to cooking their meals, because they haven't forgotten how to, yet.
Which emerging economies are contracting?
China, Brazil, Thailand, Russia, the oil producing middle eastern states, and newly industrialized parts of Mexico. Among others. China is the 800 pound gorilla.
You mean negative GDP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
Brazil.
If companies like McDs would focus on what works, then they'd do great domestically. When were they rocking and rolling? When they started with the dollar menu. Then as it became the "Dollar Menu and More", and only like 2 items on there were a buck, sales dropped accordingly. It's also crazy how expensive it's become to get a combo meal of ANY kind. Just a burger by itself there is now usually north of $5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
During this not so hot economy, Americans are seeking a good value anywhere they can find it. Companies that understand this simple concept will prosper. Sure, they may not see the stock price "growth" that investors are always trying to force, but the revenue will always great.
I'm getting tired of this constant quest for growth, growth, growth, losing sight of the product itself in the meanwhile, which in the end seems to always result in loss of sales. I understand that McDs wanted to raise prices due to the rising costs of meat and other ingredients, but by doing so, they lost massive amounts of gross revenue. Even if it means lower net profits per unit, companies HAVE to suck it up and keep prices low if they want to keep their sales up.
With hordes of research and marketing experts, it's remarkable how little some of these companies seem to understand the majority of their customers.
if the turtle's head is back in his shell, he's not going anywhereQuote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
Something tells me that MickeyDs, of all companies, has a pretty advanced marketing department. Maybe you should try Chipotle?Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinFromSA
Growth through science.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinFromSA
May 28, 2014
(Bloomberg) — McDonald's Corp. set a target of returning as much as $20 billion in cash to investors through dividends and share buybacks by 2016, dashing optimism that the company would spend even more to boost its stagnant shares.
Down from its 6 year high. Oh no!Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Besides, I've owned it since 7/12.
China just grew 7.3% q/q. 7.3. A country with well over a billion people growing at 7.3%. Not contracting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
The middle eastern countries (Egypt Saudi Arabia UAE are each growing over 4%).
Mexico is near 3% overall. Brazil has been just below 0% recently but forecasts ~1% this year. So there's one.
Not to say mcdonalds is a great buy. I think less of a story is emerging growth and more is the push of Taco Bell/chipotle/etc along with low interest rates helping new businesses take share. Hits at revenues and will eventually hit at margins if they decide to lower prices to compete in these areas.
Oh, they do. Probably some of the best. That does little good though, when your sole focus is trying to please shareholders instead of the customers. It's like once a company (or its stock rather) grows to a certain size, they lose sight of what got them to that position to begin with, and instead of pleasing customers and focusing on overall revenue, they try getting their "growth" from manipulating stocks and other silly tactics, which as we all know, can only last so long before its inevitable downfall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Lots of companies out there are ripe for a proper stock reduction to bring them back to reality. Then perhaps they can get back to making the customer happy so that the company may see some ACTUAL growth again.