Thinking of sinking $1000 in shares (I know it's relatively not that much) as my first investment. I remember doing an 8000 word analysis on all of the ratios etc for NCEA Level 3 last year which led me to consider investing in Restaurant Brands.
Printable View
Thinking of sinking $1000 in shares (I know it's relatively not that much) as my first investment. I remember doing an 8000 word analysis on all of the ratios etc for NCEA Level 3 last year which led me to consider investing in Restaurant Brands.
They have a positive growth story which has paid off for them over the last couple of years. They also have a DRiP which gives you the equivalent of compound interest. They cycle the annual shareholder meetings between Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, unlike many companies. And there's the free lunch voucher each year.
I wonder whether Taxinda will introduce a 'Junk food tax'? Apparently, Mexico and Hungary have 4-8% tax on 'junk foods' with great sucess - https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16870014/junk-food-tax
Anyways, I think RBD is still a great company and am slowly increasing my holdings in it.
‘Chicken is where it's at’: the unstoppable rise of KFC
KFC has survived health scandals, veganism and a major delivery fail: can the fast food behemoth stay on top?
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/aug/18/chicken-is-where-its-at-the-unstoppable-rise-of-kfc
There are 1,158 comments
Agreed, starting small is not an issue.
I personally started with roughly $400 into each of 42 Below and Nuplex, quite a few years ago.
Starting small may not be cost effective from a brokerage point of view. However, it is very beneficial when you consider the knowledge gained from putting some money on the table and following/learning from your decisions.
My initial investments had their ups and downs, but overall one of the best decisions I have ever made (investing, rather than the specific companies).
Good luck Sir Josh.
Te
Disc: no longer hold any RBD shares
Getting rid of Starbucks will help overall Group performance
Good move
Pity Carl’s Jnr is a bit of dog brand
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/323192
I liked this bit in the announcement "...stronger emphasis on its core quick service restaurant brands..."
Can't say I ever come across a quick service outlet of KFC (not that I go that often), they seem to be the slowest of any of the fast food "restaurants" in my experience, whether you are the only person ordering or 5th (or more) in line
so if I understand it correctly they get up to $4.4m for Starbucks, for a minor adverse impact on the current year net profit (excluding non-trading items) result of approximately $1.3 million. So, Starbucks earns circa $1.3m NPAT per annum? And RBD sold it for $4.4m
The May 2018 presentation showed Starbucks had $25.8m of revenues, and $4.8m of EBITDA (and $4.8m and $4.4m in FY17 and FY16).
Tahua have got themselves an absolute bargain.
And don't get me started on comparing the price RBD achieved with what Cooks are paying for Mojo!
Next step ... a companies office search to find it who is behind Tahua Capital - aka the thieving bandits!
Quite bizarre. It looks like they literally gave it away ?
RBD don’t ‘own’ the Starbucks franchise, its not there’s to ‘sell’
They are only selling the fixed assets and stock in the stores ..might look cheap but probably a bit old. New owners going to spend a bit of money to upgrade stores
Hopefully no issues transferring all the leases to make a clean break
With this Tahua taking over the Starbucks franchise and the staff (obligations) and the leases a nice clean exit by RBD ..well done Russel
I would say that's the answer. Owners looking to turn the screws tighter on the franchisee's when the agreement comes up for renewal. Pretty much a given with corporate greed these days. Might be time for diligent shareholders to check when the next lot of corporate thuggery will hit RBD's operations with the next master franchise agreement renewal...
I know of a couple stores that would be needing new leases, I would imagine that would be very costly as these malls have been significantly renovated and revamped so they would want a decent $ for rent.
When Starbucks came to NZ, the idea was to bring the 'Starbucks' on every corner kind of mega coverage to the NZ café scene. Leases were taken out willy nilly to get maximum footprint coverage. There was no need to analyse how popular each location would be. The Starbucks on one block would be the de-facto billboard for the next. It was all about getting the name to be ubiquitous. The idea was that Starbucks would become so synonymous for coffee that NZers would just go to Starbucks for their coffee hit without thinking. What RBD didn't realise was that unlike the US where the coffee in general is dreadful, and so Starbucks is an oasis, the coffee culture in NZ is much more sophisticated and the competitive products are much better. So Starbucks in NZ had real competition, and not every NZ coffee drinker wanted to sing 'Yankee Doodle Dandee' as they quaffed down their morning cuppa.
Rather than being the all conquering brand, Starbucks has retreated to become a niche player. The all conquering dream ended probably a decade ago, and Starbucks were left to work through their expensive multi year lease deals. The jettisoning of Starbucks makes sense. It doesn't really fit with the other quick service meal outlets in the RBD portfolio and there must be few supply line synergies that will be lost by getting rid of them. RBD is, these days, about maximising the return from their capital. And a small coffee store in a high rent mall selling 'bits and pieces' does not compare well with a purpose built restaurant rented for a comparative peppercorn with much better cashflow. At least the disposal of Starbuck simplifies the business, decreasing the skill set required to be a director which will in turn flow through to lower directors fees in the future.
SNOOPY
discl: Just one of the sentences in my little diatribe above is a bare faced lie. I will leave it to the discerning reader to figure out which sentence it is!