Yep, hard to scream and holler for these day to day fluctuations, but my gut feeling is that we will see $30 or so by the end of the year.
Lot's in the pipeline to perk up the numbers between now and then with the new summer drinks, overseas booze sales, Girls of Starbucks, and the steadily increasing sales. A very good position we are all in right now with this one.
But what if they keep taking those comfy chairs out like they did in NYC? These out of work people could become quite numerous and overbearing and just use the place for a flop house and to read a free newspaper? Somewhere to go to get away from the ole lady and the kids during the day?
Your whole thinking is fundamentally flawed. If you think coffee is a "luxury", you must also think nicotine is a luxury. Now, I grant you that there may be some who buy Maxwell House or Folgers, who if strapped for cash, may go cheaper and buy some no name, black and white label generic stuff to stretch the unemployment check, but you typical Starbucks client is usually soaked in cash. Just spend some time in a Starbucks and you will get that message loud and clear.
You obviously are not a coffee drinker.
Starbucks are caught up in yester year performance. Sure it was a good stock to own when it was small like Peet's. It did not start out
large. It caught those great years "in between the Bush's" as they say. The greatest economic expansion in our modern history. That helped.
What they've done is set the stage for Peet's to grab its share of the premium coffee pie. Peet's, founded in 1966, only just a few months ago became available in a couple of major grocery chains. It is doing fantastic on all fronts. It is just waiting and poised to move east. Sure, just an average of 1 new Peet's owned store per month, but these are well placed and the new one are way ahead of the models from a couple of years ago in revenues. Look at the forward p/e...yes 22 is not low, but look at the size of the growth subsequent to the IPO. Quarter by quarter and add in the 35% more shares added in April of '02 in the secondary. It did not change the eps outlook even with that dilutive effect. Awesome.
You need to have SBUX come up with a blockbuster breakfast sandwich to take on Micky D's. It is my understand MCD is opening several new McCafe's in San Jose which will compete with SBUX and with PEET as well but if a success, look out nationally for SBUX if they meet or beat SBUX in this line. Peet is a niche player, but SBUX & MCD need huge bulk to hell with quality sales to deal with overhead.
"Peter Lynch wrote a fair amount about restaurant and retail stocks. Expansion is key "
I posted a link which I have since lost from about a year ago. One of those sites did a scan with 3 different things. One was money flow and putting the money back to work.
SBUX was in the top 10 they found. I reformatted my hard drive and lost many of my stock links. Sorry as it was appropriate.
Totally Real Guy I don't think Philly is Wakem - his spelling is pretty good and he can string together toughts although some of them are pretty off base. Take for instance his comments on California:
Rolling blackouts, about to declare bankruptcy, tax increases, budget deficit.
Funny, I haven't experienced a rolling blackout since the Spring of 2002. Bankruptcy is not on the horizon but tax increases are. There is one side of the aisle that proposes program cuts in lieu of tax increases. Can you imagine program cuts in California. Take for instance our hot shot firefighters battling the blazes in New Mexico - we should take them out of there after all who cares what happens in New Mexico. While we're at it, we might as well pull them from the fires in Southern California because that's la-la-land and well frankly, you get the picture. I suppose we can stop our efforts to erradicate the Northen Pike in Lake Davis (a predator fish in California) or maybe pull all the CHP officers off the bridges - this is just protection against terrorism but as I said this is California, the state that no one likes! And itsn't the lottery supposed to be the answer to California's education system? Well considering that the lottery contributes 3% to education I don't think so. Did I mention that the education budget is 55% of the general fund? So it goes, California won't declare bankruptcy but it will raise taxes just like 28 other states in the U.S.
FRankly Philly I resent your uninformed comments about California. You're listening to too much Rush Limgaugh.
And another thing, if I go into work tomorrow and find out that my job has been eliminated, then I would be very proud to work for Starbucks.
Just sign me,
Polly from Sacramento
"I can afford any coffee but would not put one thin rotten stinkin dime in the coffee coffers of Starbucks. Oh and the stock? laffin my ass off, you can faggggget-about-it!! It's going down!"
OK Phoney you win as usual. I call strike 3 and agree with you.
Just someone who wants us all to run for cover or call names if we have an alternative viewpoint.
I am familiar with this argument. We are heading into deflation just like Japan. Go look at Silicon Valley. We let those overpaid guys go. Those who turned their back on their boring jobs to start at $50K and $100K in 2 years with stock options. Of course, they had to be paid those high $ because the price of housing was so expensive.
I just don't buy the argument this means the U.S. is going to go into deflation. It means to me companies are running leaner and meaner. Improving margins and profitability.
Like it or not that is the new corporate outlook. Employees assumed they could call the shots forever and ask for the sky and it would be theirs. Unfortunately the table got turned. Not pleasant, but no choice but to live with it.
My other choice is to join the unemployment line.