I always agree with you. this pig must have one more flight
blind and deranged as always. btw, thank you for money.
well, this pig concept could be fixed. but with a lot of work, of course. get rid of management team and many items on the menu, then develop new menu around one concept, kind of family style meal with appetizers, real soups and few protein dishes where everything could be shared. I know it may sound more Euro or Chinese or both, but it will be the only way to survive.
u know i posted "reddy has to go" thesis sometimes last summer
Otherwise this pig will be auctioned by pieces or sold for $5 to major outfit that has two more concepts ready to go.
seriously, after massive put trading yesterday open interest is still very high.
If after lousy earnings and even more lousy conference call Noodles management won't bring couple experts who can fix the menu then they must be shorting their own stock.
food and packaging
ARE THE STORE LEVEL EXPENSES
what are you doing for living, buddy?
he doesn't have and never had any position on this ticker, but he is a permanent verbal bear on it because i bought a ton of it in mid 8's and his "group" made a fun of me for months. still, i think u guys are carried away by these high multiples and growth dreams are somewhat artificial. bear flag is a bear flag
Tricked you, because everyone is asleep anyway. But the figure is still massive $1.2 Billion it is. And what do they really have in that store to spend $2 Mil per unit? Schultz is creaming on both sides. When are these pigs going to pay?
All these companies have a lot in common regardless of the sector they are in:
Massive, almost unreal CAPEX
Massive depreciation/ tax evasion as they move their losses form operations into CAPEX
Falling cash position and increasing debt
High participation in option casino, especially weeklies
Consumer discretionary is the best way to find these schemes. Stabucks, "THE UNTOUCHABLE" and widely loved has spent $2.1 Bil to open 517 new company owned stores in 2014. Strange thing, I posted it few days ago and it hasn't impressed anyone here. Moron sybil would rather short Under Armor
It is about franchisees again. Look at the count 1368 vs 1360 last year, because company had to absorb bunch of stores and it is all happening with borrowed money. At the same time company is marketing franchises quite heavily, I see their ads in Franchise Times regularly.
I also know they won't be able to compete in prime markets like Chicago, so this is third tier company in my book, but seriously misunderstood by the masses as far as trading concerned.
Per filing company bought 234,000 shares between February 23 and March 29, almost double it bough during the first 2 months of the quarter.
So, funds are not buying the bottoms. We'll see shortly anyway.
During Q1 2015 company used $8.16 Mil in CAPEX to open 7 new stores
During Q1 2014 company used $6.53 mil in CAPEX to open 9 new stores
CAPEX is not on statement of operations, but it smells like a dead rat
I was thinking to short a little if it spikes without solid reason, but it appears the dip is being offered instead :)
Well, this company is still trading on good feelings of short squeeze and it is quite speculative based on EV / EBITDA multiple, but no one seems to give a crop, because everyone love volatility :)
Comparable = sss = stores that are 15 months old+
after I excluded the effect of 4.5% combined price increase I got the following:
During Q1 2015 same store sales have increased by $0,645 Mil
while during Q1 2014 same store sales decreased by $1.5 Mil.
Conclusion: Q1 2015 was very easy quarter to deliver at least some top line growth with more stores and after the massive drop in Q1 2014. Q2 should be almost as easy.
CMG fell on 10.5% sss growth, of which 6.5% was related to the price increase and 4% was related to the traffic increase. 4% sss growth rate (after excluding price increase) means traffic in older stores is flat and WS doesn't like it.
PBPB and CMG are adding units at approx the same rate, which is around annual 12%-14% and those new units experience high growth rates during 2-3 years.
To make long story short: to keep older well established units at the flat line traffic level sss have to deliver around 4% with such massive addition of new stores. So, basically when new units are growing volumes, old units are already losing sales and at some point may become unprofitable.
whats your opinion?
i don't mind to short or go long on fundamentals at the right moments, but I expressed my simple concern here. they do $7 Mil EBITDA after collecting $10 Mil royalties and operating small bunch of company owned stores
Warp, i am warning you, brother. If you won't stop your grandstanding gibberish. I will have to publish your Reddy love speech from $40 level.