September 6, 2008 08:16 PM
September 6, 2008 06:14 PM
September 6, 2008 04:23 PM
September 6, 2008 12:22 AM
September 5, 2008 04:08 PM
September 5, 2008 09:49 AM
September 4, 2008 09:52 PM
To add an specific blogger's feed, simply go to their blog and click on their individual RSS link.
I'm sipping a latte this morning, and it's not from Starbucks (SBUX), despite the retro "edgy" logo they're trying out. The beans are also not from Starbucks, nor is the mug. In fact, I rarely go to SBUX, as it's become the McDonald's (MCD) of coffee--fast, not especially good if you are a coffee connoisseur, but consistent if you're in a pinch. And I do like the retro logo--it's strange, and when was the last time you saw something strange in a Starbucks?
I'm not usually a value investor, because that discipline requires patience and, preferably, the ability to carefully analyze a company's financial condition. I have neither. But the idea of SBUX being similar to MCD got me thinking. Back in 2004, the notorious Super Size Me movie came out and proved what everyone knew, that McDonald's food is not healthy. The damage to the stock had been done already--from late 1999 to early 2003, MCD lost over 60%. Since then, unhealthy and unloved MCD is up 300%.
SBUX began its slide in late 2006, and nothing seems to be going right. McDonald's, speak of the devil, is now selling coffee that some people claim is good. I disagree that it's any good, but the point is there's competition out there. The cost of milk is making those Starbucks lattes very expensive to make, and it's tough to raise prices when they are already ridiculously high. Consumers are spending so much on gas, are they cutting down on coffee? I don't know, but all of this is giving SBUX CEO Howard Schultz a really tough job. Here's the bright spot: Starbucks is a household name selling an addictive product. Like McDonald's, SBUX isn't going anywhere. It's simply making the transition from a high-growth company to an established American staple.