Why Do People Struggle So Much With Snack Prices?

[mf1972]

ironically, after reading a lot of these comments, I feel like I need a drink

 

[YozhikRoth]

You're off base here. Fewer shares = higher EPS. Share repurchases DO increase shareholder value from an EPS perspective. If they didn't, investors wouldn't care about them and companies wouldn't do it.

Read this:

Repurchase Impact on EPS
Since a share repurchase reduces a company’s outstanding shares, its biggest impact is evident in per-share measures of profitability and cash flow such as earnings per share (EPS) and cash flow per share (CFPS). Assuming that the price/earnings (P/E) multiple at which the stock trades is unchanged, this should eventually result in a higher share price.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112013/impact-share-repurchases.asp

Like I said, the impact of the share repurchase is the message that management feels the company is undervalued. Any savvy investor, including institutional investors will normalize EPS for the share repurchase. A cynic would ask if capital is best used for debt repurchase, or capital investment in the company. Many companies do it because they have a surplus of cash on hand, and the shareholders demand either a share repurchase or a cash dividend.

Think about it-how has returning cash to the shareholders impacted the operations of the company? Do they perform their core business(es) any better?

Just another discussion of snacks...............

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Nuts?

 

[flynnibus]

Employers constantly cut employee benefits and only offer them to remain competitive. They are shrinking more and more each day and eventually there will be few if any employee benefits.

... and then people realized their company flourished when they had a competent, motivated, and enthusiastic work force and companies started investing back in their employees not simply to be competitive in hiring, but because they recognized the business did better overall. This goes in cycles as morons chase the pennies as you advocate and then get stomped by other companies with better strategic visions.

Seriously if you are the output of a business school.. its worse than I thought. Do they really forget to teach you the world, success, and innovation is not found in a balance sheet?

 

[Chef Mickey]

Like I said, the impact of the share repurchase is the message that management feels the company is undervalued. Any savvy investor, including institutional investors will normalize EPS for the share repurchase. A cynic would ask if capital is best used for debt repurchase, or capital investment in the company. Many companies do it because they have a surplus of cash on hand, and the shareholders demand either a share repurchase or a cash dividend.

Think about it-how has returning cash to the shareholders impacted the operations of the company? Do they perform their core business(es) any better?

Just another discussion of snacks...............

If a company repurchases half its shares, it's EPS will double and make your shares more valuable. 5 years later, no one is saying, "Well they used to have 2b shares versus today's 1b, so we don't care what the current EPS says." Share buybacks increase prices over time by reducing shares outstanding and increasing EPS. Ultimately, your shares are worth more.

 

[Chef Mickey]

... and then people realized their company flourished when they had a competent, motivated, and enthusiastic work force and companies started investing back in their employees not simply to be competitive in hiring, but because they recognized the business did better overall. This goes in cycles as morons chase the pennies as you advocate and then get stomped by other companies with better strategic visions.

Seriously if you are the output of a business school.. its worse than I thought. Do they really forget to teach you the world, success, and innovation is not found in a balance sheet?

Times are changing. Companies don't care about anything but making money now. This isn't your dad's business. I learned reality...you're stuck in the past. I'm not even saying you're wrong. You're just behind if you think it's about anything other than money.

At the end of the day, we have better products and services than we EVER had in the past, so the consumer is still winning. I'm not sure they employees are winning, however.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm speaking overall and comparing their overall operating margin today versus 20 years ago. I really don't care what unit margins they make on individual items. I'm just saying from a high level, they are making the same operating margin and even less than some years prior.

That's a nonsense means of drawing conclusions that only lends credence to the idea that you're more interested in bragging than making some sort of point. If anything, the lower margins show that the current model you love to praise is NOT generating the best shareholder value.

The very idea that you think a company should be soulless and only driven by dollars is part of the problem. Chasing profits while closing your eyes to everything else tends to end in nice explosions.

Or the outcome of an explosion at a fake one...

 

[Chef Mickey]

That's a nonsense means of drawing conclusions that only lends credence to the idea that you're more interested in bragging than making some sort of point. If anything, the lower margins show that the current model you love to praise is NOT generating the best shareholder value.


Or the outcome of an explosion at a fake one...

It is because they have balanced margins while increasing the number of people they crank through the gates.

I don't even like their current model, but it has increased shareholder value. I also think the park quality has suffered due to Iger's cash cow treatment of WDW. I liked WDW more 10-20 years ago, but I still love it today too.

 

[flynnibus]

Times are changing. Companies don't care about anything but making money now. This isn't your dad's business. I learned reality...you're stuck in the past. I'm not even saying you're wrong. You're just behind if you think it's about anything other than money.

At the end of the day, we have better products and services than we EVER had in the past, so the consumer is still winning. I'm not sure they employees are winning, however.

I guess they dropped SUSTAINABILITY 101 from your cherrished school's curriculum.. and any actual history classes.

How does your brain digest stories like Tesla's Model3 demand? Was Telsa's brand, image, and success driven by the idea that 'its only about the money'? Or do you think someone like Elon Musk is a complete idiot who clearly has no idea how to start and run business and product lines?

 

[jloucks]

... and then people realized their company flourished when they had a competent, motivated, and enthusiastic work force and companies started investing back in their employees not simply to be competitive in hiring, but because they recognized the business did better overall.

You sorta made the point tho... The companies were FORCED by profit (or lack of) to pay their human resources more to retain good human resources. They didn't want to because they were morally obligated. They did it because ey were profit obligated.

They happy employees are a tool for profit. Has nothing to do with right or wrong morally.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney is getting singled out because people forget that everywhere they go, it's the same or worse. Countless examples given. The people complaining about Yankee games would be just as wrong as complaining about Disney.

Your world is a sad sad place.

You keep pointing to examples, including franchised monopolies (and usually companies with the lowest satisfaction ratings around... utilities) as examples of how the world should be and how everyone should just step up and accept this is the way things are.

I can't wait until you get steamrolled in your career and some day you are down and out.. and you need to keep telling anyone around you how great that business model is and everyone just needs to accept that soulless is the way going forward.

 

[flynnibus]

You sorta made the point tho... The companies were FORCED by profit (or lack of) to pay their human resources more to retain good human resources. They didn't want to because they were morally obligated. They did it because ey were profit obligated.

They happy employees are a tool for profit. Has nothing to do with right or wrong morally.

No - your response again makes the logical fallacy that SUCCESS is equal, and only equal to PROFITS

Profits are about being HEALTHY - not always the only objective.

Compassion is still present, and respected in the world... even in business. But Chef Mickey and you are blind to it... and frankly seem to want to kill it off.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is because they have balanced margins while increasing the number of people they crank through the gates.

I don't even like their current model, but it has increased shareholder value. I also think the park quality has suffered due to Iger's cash cow treatment of WDW. I liked WDW more 10-20 years ago, but I still love it today too.

That's just more correlations you are picking and choosing.

 

[jloucks]

I guess they dropped SUSTAINABILITY 101 from your cherrished school's curriculum.. and any actual history classes.

How does your brain digest stories like Tesla's Model3 demand? Was Telsa's brand, image, and success driven by the idea that 'its only about the money'? Or do you think someone like Elon Musk is a complete idiot who clearly has no idea how to start and run business and product lines?

Of course profit was the main component. What are you thinking drives (heh, drives) a car company?

Don't let the PR make you think it is about sea otters and bumblebees.

However, for CONSUMERS sea otters and bees can drive demand. Musk knows this. Musk is very smart.

I have an all electric car. I bought it because gas was $4 a gallon when I bought it. Bees were secondary.

 

[flynnibus]

threads like these illustrate why I want to live on an island.. very very far away from most people.

 

[jloucks]

No - your response again makes the logical fallacy that SUCCESS is equal, and only equal to PROFITS

Profits are about being HEALTHY - not always the only objective.

Compassion is still present, and respected in the world... even in business. But Chef Mickey and you are blind to it... and frankly seem to want to kill it off.

You can't define success any way you want. Success is pretty clearly defined in capitalism. It is not happy employees. It is not a good retirement package. Those things can be a factor or contribute to profit, I agree there. But don't put the cart before the horse.

For the record, I am a highly educated liberal. I detest what has happened to capitalism. I also fully understand it. Doesn't mean I like or endorse it. I think it is going to be hugely problematic with the shift in wealth we are experiencing. But that is another topic and simply a response to you insinuating I don't get capitalism.

Where I am a little shaky comprehension wise is when and exactly why profit degree changed. Profit has always been there, but the pressure to maximize seems to have evolved to an extreme. ....recently.

 

[jloucks]

threads like these illustrate why I want to live on an island.. very very far away from most people.

Me too. ...probably a different island. ...although that would be hilarious.

 

[njDizFan]

... and then people realized their company flourished when they had a competent, motivated, and enthusiastic work force and companies started investing back in their employees not simply to be competitive in hiring, but because they recognized the business did better overall. This goes in cycles as morons chase the pennies as you advocate and then get stomped by other companies with better strategic visions.

Seriously if you are the output of a business school.. its worse than I thought. Do they really forget to teach you the world, success, and innovation is not found in a balance sheet?

Keeps reminding me again of last weeks Silicon Valley.

The product is secondary to the money that it produces.

Times are changing. Companies don't care about anything but making money now. This isn't your dad's business. I learned reality...you're stuck in the past. I'm not even saying you're wrong. You're just behind if you think it's about anything other than money.

At the end of the day, we have better products and services than we EVER had in the past, so the consumer is still winning. I'm not sure they employees are winning, however.

And yes the consumer is being hurt because it represses innovation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

threads like these illustrate why I want to live on an island.. very very far away from most people.

But unlike some you would struggle to afford an island and like an old man don't understand how the times have changed the island market.

 

[jloucks]

But unlike some you would struggle to afford an island and like an old man don't understand how the times have changed the island market.

There are some affordable islands out there still.

...cost you $12,000 to get there and back, but the price is right.

No running water. Water is $3 a bottle.