|
|
|
|
StockCentral :: Community
|
|
Join in on the discussion with other like-minded investors in our community forums. Learn about the fundamental investing methodology and participate in educational workshops in the Investing forums, stay up-to-date on StockCentral news and make suggestions to the StockCentral team in Central Square, and discuss your favorite stock or recent market news in our A-Z ticker-based forums.
|
| Note: You must be a StockCentral subscriber and logged in to post messages. |
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
postman
 |
| 09/25/2006 3:06 PM |
|
Full disclosure: I'm addicted to caffiene, and Starbucks makes GREAT coffee. They're putting one in the first floor of my building, and I'm literally counting down the days.
But Starbucks always brings up interesting issues, especially in context of morality. There are those that accuse Starbucks of driving out local coffee shops, or for selling non-fair-trade coffee (which isn't even true) and all the social/environmental/economic arguments therein.
However, from an analysis perspective, Starbucks looks like a great buy, even if the price is about $10 too high right now. Check out the TakeStock Quality Rating - it's a 10. I'm sure it's on a lot of investors' radar, if they don't own it already.
But if you feel strongly about SBUX's apparent lack of social conscience, you're left in a moral quandry - do you invest in a great stock with tremendous growth prospects (gotta love those addictive products) that will undoubtadly make you money? Or do you stick to your moral guns, and implicity boycott companies that don't live up to a given standard of ethics, however supposed their transgressions may be? You could have the same discussion with Nike, Wal-Mart, or Halliburton (snicker).
I'm interested to see what people think about this. How much of a role does morality play in your portfolio? |
|
|
|
|
jncraig
 |
| 09/25/2006 4:07 PM |
|
Posted By Per Ostman on 09/25/2006 3:06 PM Full disclosure: I'm addicted to caffiene, and Starbucks makes GREAT coffee. They're putting one in the first floor of my building, and I'm literally counting down the days. Gee. I had a nice bagel and cup of tea in the shop on the first floor when I visited in June. You mean to tell me that Starbucks put them out of business?!?!?!?
Where is YOUR analysis, Per. And, why do you think that you should pay a $10 premium for this stock?
|
|
|
|
|
postman
 |
| 09/25/2006 5:35 PM |
|
To be honest, I usually take a more holistic approach to the general analysis of things (unless we're discussing baseball, at which point I'll whip out enough VORPs and Win Share calculations to make your head spin), but since you asked, my Toolkit SSG for Starbucks is attached.
I estimate sales growth to continue at roughly 25% (they're popping up everywhere, aren't they), and EPS at 20%. At $34 and change, it's right at the top echelon of my buy range. Not that I have any discretionary income to invest with, but still.
To me, it's a no-brainer from a purely analytical level - it's a franchised business plan hard-wired for success, the product is addictive, drinking Starbucks coffee has a hugely positive impact from a social trend perspective, caffiene is addictive, it's product is arguably the highest quality in its sector, and did I mention that it's addictive?
By the way, caffiene is addictive. According to wikipedia, "addiction" is "characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors." In layman's terms, this means that people will keep buying Starbucks coffee until they die, probably of some sort of caffiene-related heart condition.
In a vacuum, isn't this the perfect company -- one that produces a product that its customers cannot live without and subsequently buy constantly, and in mass quantities? But this speaks to my larger point -- are people okay with investing in successful companies with questional moral fiber/business practices?
Think back ten years ago, when smoking was still "cool," even though everyone knew it would kill you. You had tobacco companies actively marketing to kids, essentially profiting on mass murder. And the money was rolling in -- who owned Phillip-Morris in 1990? (Now, it's "The Altria Group" [MO], you know, to throw people off the "killing children" trail.)
I'm not saying that Starbucks kills children, but there's certainly always uproar about how it drives out the competition (you know, by providing a better product - damn capitalism) and buys/produces its coffee in less-than-palatable ways (the fair-trade argument).
I'm interested in whether or not a person's misgivings about the social aspects of a certain company impacts their decision to buy, or not to buy, that company's stock.
Personally, if Doug gives me a raise and I all of a sudden have disposable income, I'd buy Starbucks at up to 40-50 bucks a share.
|
Attachment: SBUX.ITK
|
|
|
|
 Danny Matthews
 |
| 10/19/2006 12:47 PM |
|
There are those who think that caffeine itself it a bad thing. In addition, to judge the morality of a company because they drive competition away would fly in the face of a free market. Our club recently bought SBUX at 28. The only thing that made me cringe was the PE of 40+. Bottom line for an investor will usually be the growth of sales to drive profits which in turn should drive the price. But since SBUX has proven me wrong by going to $38, for now, I side with the pro caffeine groups. People dislike the oil companies, but drive their cars everywhere. People dislike banks but deposit their money there. People dislike big box retailers but people shop there. I have morals but the hard part is everybody's got a different interpetation. My take is for a company is to be legal and ethical and have at least a faint view of the golden rule. Oh yea and quit overcompensating CEO's who are brought in with the mandate "Don't screw it up"! This means you Nardelli. Added the ITK file...love the edit button Used forward PE's of high 30, because I'm a chicken and a low of 20 as that is just above the market multiple. Note that as we already own SBUX I used the forward est earnings of .83 in Sec 4.
Remember to change the preparer in your SSG's because Hemscott is taking all the credit!!!  |
Attachment: SBUX.ITK
|
Danny Matthews Tuscola IL |
|
|
Jason Ramage
 |
| 04/07/2007 3:18 PM |
|
Posted By postman_SC on 09/25/2006 3:06 PM
But Starbucks always brings up interesting issues, especially in context of morality. There are those that accuse Starbucks of driving out local coffee shops, or for selling non-fair-trade coffee (which isn't even true) and all the social/environmental/economic arguments therein.
However, from an analysis perspective, Starbucks looks like a great buy, even if the price is about $10 too high right now. Check out the TakeStock Quality Rating - it's a 10. I'm sure it's on a lot of investors' radar, if they don't own it already.
But if you feel strongly about SBUX's apparent lack of social conscience, you're left in a moral quandry - do you invest in a great stock with tremendous growth prospects (gotta love those addictive products) that will undoubtadly make you money? Or do you stick to your moral guns, and implicity boycott companies that don't live up to a given standard of ethics, however supposed their transgressions may be? You could have the same discussion with Nike, Wal-Mart, or Halliburton (snicker).
I'm interested to see what people think about this. How much of a role does morality play in your portfolio?
Morality does play a role in my investments. I avoid pharmaceuticals and oil companies, but I don't nit-pick a actively search for the laundry list of sins every company has commited.
As for Starbucks, I don't find the charge that they drive out competition to be true. I think it's primarily because Starbucks offers no discount... their coffee is about the same price as any other coffeeshop. The second reason is that people who are really passionate about coffee rarely credit Starbucks with "great" coffee. (I am not one of those people... most coffeeshop coffee tastes about the same to me) But some indepedent stores gain a reputation for selling great coffee. I hear that employees from Starbucks and other coffeeshops come to this place called Sunergos here in Louisville. I happen to know the owners and have asked them about Starbucks. They credit Starbucks with making coffeeshops popular, so they believe they wouldn't have a business at all if it wasn't for Starbucks. Quite the opposite of feeling threatened :)
I'll copy-and-paste here what I said about Starbucks' valuation on Motley Fool's boards. We must remember that there's no such thing as "undoubtedly" making money. That's why I still consider Starbucks too expensive. I'll get interested down around $25. Otherwise, I can find other stocks because from this point, the potential for market-beating returns in Starbucks simply isn't there (unless it were to become even more overvalued).
EPS can optimistically be estimated to grow 25% over the next 3-5 years (avg analysts' estimate is 22%). Placing about a 1.3 PEG multiple on 22% EPS growth, I don't want to pay more than 28x this year's earnings (that is, 22 x 1.3). Analysts are estimating $0.89 EPS for this year, which I'm assuming is reasonable since Starbucks is a predictable company. So $0.89 x 28 P/E = $24.92 per share... I could settle for $25 :)
Yet even then, I wouldn't exactly "back up the truck" since I'd be paying a high multiple for high-end growth estimates. Of course, Starbucks won't fall into the value range that I prefer without something going horribly wrong, but I honestly don't think $25/share is unreasonable to expect. Remember, stocks are volatile. :)
All that needs to happen, in my opinion, is gas to go over $3/gallon, prompting worries on Wal Street that consumer discretionary spending will fall. And one of the easiest places to cut back is coffee. Even if they don't cut out coffee, more people will quit buying premium drinks, or cut down to a smaller size, choose McDonald's or other decent tasting competitors, or save money by brewing at home. Weak consumer spending is the achilles heel of Starbucks and I won't be surprised at all to see this stock fall at least to $25, especially if spending is weak and the company misses estimates.
Of course, that'll be good news for me, because I'll be buying Starbucks below $25... and backing up the truck below $20 :) |
|
|
|
|
Nick Caccavo
 |
| 05/15/2007 12:49 PM |
|
Morals shouldn't by nature be the primary concern of investing, but they certainly do play a part in the decision making process. There are enough quality companies out there so that a smart investor can afford not to buy stocks with moral red flags.
SBUX, however, isn't as bad a company as it is made out to be. True, they may not pay their employees especially well, but for all their reputation as a global monopoly in the coffee industry, they only represent 2% of global coffee production (plenty of room for growth ). They are the largest buyer of Fair Trade coffee in North America and represent 10% of total Fair Trade coffee in the world. Fair Trade coffee makes up 3.7% of SBUX coffee (an increase from 1% when they began selling FT coffee). Accordingly, if SBUX purchased 100% of the Fair Trade coffee in the world, it could only hope to have 37% of its coffee be Fair Trade, a minority of their total sales. The bottom line is that while SBUX may not be the best company in the world morally, it certainly isn't bad enough for the morally conscious investor not to buy.
The real moral question in the coffee industry is why do we not hold companies like Dunkin Donuts, which are doing far less on the green spectrum, accountable for their socially responsible business practices? |
|
|
|
|
 Danny Matthews
 |
| 05/15/2007 1:11 PM |
|
| As far as SBUX morals, I have read that they do provide health insurance for all their employees. Even the workers who work part time. Maybe with the benefit package, (pay and benefits), included it is well worth it for those who chose to work there? |
|
Danny Matthews Tuscola IL |
|
|
Jason Ramage
 |
| 05/15/2007 6:39 PM |
|
I'm surprised nobody gave me props for predicting the rise in gas prices to correspond with the fall in Starbucks' stock price :) I still intend to start buying if it gets to that $25 level.
Baristas are among the better paid of food service employees and Starbucks is one of the best companies to work for because they do provide health insurance (I think you have to work 20 or more hours per week). The pay probably varies quite a bit depending on what city you're in, but I think here in Louisville it's $6-7 per hour plus tips, which can put you over $10 an hour at a busy store. I've heard some people with a few years experience make $12-16 an hour, so you can definitely do a lot worse.
And getting back to socially responsible investing, another factor to consider is the role Starbucks has played in raising the standard of coffee quality in America. Without Starbucks, there wouldn't be nearly as large a market as there is for fair-trade coffee because very few people would be willing to pay so much. I think Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and Peet's Coffee owe no small part of their success to Starbucks, not to mention the many mom-and-pop joints who are able to support fair-trade. |
|
|
|
|
Nick Caccavo
 |
| 05/17/2007 9:44 AM |
|
| I just read about your prediction in the StockCentral Gazette. Well played sir. Where did you post the original prediction about Starbuck's stock price? |
|
|
|
|
Nick Caccavo
 |
| 05/17/2007 9:49 AM |
|
| I'm an idiot. I just spotted it a few posts and paragraphs up. |
|
|
|
|
Jason Ramage
 |
| 05/17/2007 2:25 PM |
|
I just read about your prediction in the StockCentral Gazette. Well played sir.
Shoot, I must've missed it. I really didn't expect the stock to fall immediately... lucky timing more than anything. Anytime a stock is priced at the kind of valuation where SBUX was at $40, the company has to come through perfectly or investors start getting worried because there's no room for error (or "margin of safety"). It's a pretty safe bet that perfection is impossible. :)
Hopefully a little more pessimism pushes this stock down just a liiittle more... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Note: You must be a StockCentral subscriber and logged in to post messages. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|