sharetrader
Page 61 of 133 FirstFirst ... 115157585960616263646571111 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,220 of 2642
  1. #1201
    Member moimoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Taco Bell would be good one i reckon.

  2. #1202
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Balance View Post
    RBD can write-off all the goodwill of KFC and PH for all the market cares.

    What's the real value of goodwill?
    In the year 2000 RBD Balance Sheet, the goodwill listed as a result of the Eagle Boys acquisition was $23.186m. That goodwill rose out of the laying out of real money, of *my* money (for I was shareholder back then) so RBD could buy the leases and burn the logos of some 50 Eagle Boys stores.

    Whatever the real value of goodwill is now, it was cold hard cash then. And it still hurts now to see that cash frittered away.

    Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, as without mistakes you don't learn. But when RBD writes off their investment in PH Victoria, then PH New Zealand and (soon?) Starbucks NZ one has to ask the question. What has mangement learned? And exactly what expertise are mangement bringing to these businesses?

    As for other businesses - plenty out there now that RBD is rid of its problem child. I guess the risk is that RBD does another PH Victoria.
    And you know why RBD got into Pizza Hut Victoria don't you? Becuse of their success in managing Pizza Hut New Zealand! Their real success was in eliminating a whole chain of retail competition in NZ with one stroke. Once real competition reemerged though, the flakiness of RBD mangement was exposed for all to see.

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  3. #1203
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moimoi View Post
    Taco Bell would be good one i reckon.
    Taco Bell has been mentioned as a possibility before, back in the Jim Collier days(?)

    However back then, mangement decided to run with the Starbucks concept for their third arm instead. I wonder if that decision will prove a mistake?

    I have done quite bit of reading on Taco Bell, mainly because I am a YUM (the parent master franchise holder) shareholder. The interesting thing is, in the United States, Taco Bell has more outlets than KFC. Yet outside the USA, Taco Bell is outnumbered by KFC in a ratio of 50:1. And Taco Bell has had plenty of time to grow overseas, as they were first franchised 45 years ago.

    Taco Bell is listed as the market leader in the 'Mexican Quick Service Restaurant' sector. Does that mean Taco Bell owes its existence to millions of Mexicans coming over the border?

    I am left wondering if Taco Bell can be made to work in another country. Wasn't there a Taco Bell in Sydney a few years ago? What happened to that? Are there any in Mexico?
    How do they compare with 'real' Mexican food outlets?

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  4. #1204
    Member moimoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Taco Bell are a similar format to BK and McDonalds, its takeaway food, but its mexican.

    They were a very cheap meal. There is a mexican place on Victoria St in Auckland that has been there 20 years or so. The decor doesn't appear to have changed and its been packed every time i have been there. It just makes me wonder if cheap and cheerful mexican food could go quite well here.

  5. #1205
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    anzac
    Posts
    1,211

    Arrow Just what we dont need..

    Quote Originally Posted by moimoi View Post
    Taco Bell are a similar format to BK and McDonalds, its takeaway food, but its mexican.

    They were a very cheap meal. There is a mexican place on Victoria St in Auckland that has been there 20 years or so. The decor doesn't appear to have changed and its been packed every time i have been there. It just makes me wonder if cheap and cheerful mexican food could go quite well here.
    NO new arm for RBD just when the company seems to becoming good we don't need
    Mexican food or Indian curry STAY with what we got,, PLEASE NOTE the population of NZ;

    4,313,746 work it OUT..

  6. #1206
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankiwi View Post
    In my home town back in the states (population of 13.5K), there is a shop that contains a KFC, Pizza Hut, & Taco Bell.

    There is only 1 service counter, from which you can order from any of the three menus.
    To give people some idea of how big your home town is Yankiwi, it is similar in size to Levin (population 15k). I stand to be corrected here, but I think Levin has a KFC and a Pizza Hut as two separate stand alone units. I have read about the 'multibrand' units that operate in the USA. As at year end 2008 there are 4629 such units, but only 40 of those offer food from three concepts.

    For me the NZ version of multibranding (those shops that sell fish and chips and burgers for instance) is a turn off. I tend to think that outlets that try to do too much end up doing mediocre job of everything. What is your opinion of how multibranding works in your home town Yankiwi? Do you think it would work for Restaurant Brands in New Zealand?

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  7. #1207
    One Fearsome Feline winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    28,050

    Default

    Your old mate Bongo rates RBD a buy and says at least a 'dollar and a half'

    He's also glad that they finally listened to him and going to hock off some the Puzza Hut stores .... something he told them do years ago when he had a significant shareholding

    Thought you would like to know that Snoopy

  8. #1208
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRICKS View Post
    NO new arm for RBD just when the company seems to becoming good we don't need
    Mexican food or Indian curry STAY with what we got,, PLEASE NOTE the population of NZ;

    4,313,746 work it OUT..
    In my view Taco Bell would be a competitor for those largely Greek Souvlaki places that serve Pita bread wraps, with carved spit meat of your choice. There are certainly plenty of those about. Am I correct that Taco Bell serves up mince in a hard corn chip style shells? If that is so, it does sound like a second rate option.

    I once thought of opening a Somali takeway outlet as an antidote to the high fat western takeaways. I would have served up only white rice and not much of it. When customers inevitably complained I would have told them to be thankful for what little they got. Maybe Mexican's are similarly grateful for Taco Bell?

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  9. #1209
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Your old mate Bongo rates RBD a buy and says at least a 'dollar and a half'

    He's also glad that they finally listened to him and going to hock off some the Puzza Hut stores .... something he told them do years ago when he had a significant shareholding

    Thought you would like to know that Snoopy
    It is all very well rating RBD as a buy. But has Bongo bought any? And have any of Bongos investments in other retailers been as successful as my own investment in RBD in particular or retail in NZ in general over the years?

    I am a true long term investor in RBD, having been on the share register since the company listed in June 1997 (albeit in a small way). I bought the shares not to 'get rich quick', but for income. Over the years I have built up my shareholding a lot, with what I would call judicious buying. My overall capital gain over that time has been, wait for it, nothing. Any time soon I expect Phaedrus to pop up with a long term chart to show what a failed investment this has been. However, if you look at the dividends that have been paid over the years you will find a rather different picture.

    Dividends since listing have totalled 96c per share, including the effect of the 1:12 bonus issue on 30th March 2000. We can therefore look at the average compounding return aover those twelve years as follows:

    ($1.02)(1+i)^12=($1.02+$0.96)

    This gives an average compounding return of 5.7% after tax or 8.5% before tax - all of it due to dividends in my case. This is a good result which has been achieved despite the fiasco of the RBD expansion into Australia, and in more recent times the huge problems with Pizza Hut in New Zealand.

    Of course those shareholders who bought in at the float at today's equivalent price of $2.03 - the literal buy and hold brigade- will not be doing so well. The secret to investing in RBD for me has been buying when the price is low and people cannot see the underlying strength of the business above the raft of negative news.

    Over the last twelve years my overall 'retail investment strategy' in NZ has been surprisingly focused. Before I first held RBD I held no retail shares on the NZX at all. For a while I became a WHS shareholder too. But I sold out after the Australian expansion failed (for a nice little profit it must be said) into the Foodstuffs takeover offer at $5. Over the subsequent months I carefully reinvested that capital into RBD as well.

    Overall then my time with RBD has been a roller-coaster ride with more down times than up times, yet I have come out well ahead. Therein lies a lesson to the 'dividend denying' out there.

    SNOOPY

    discl: Have held RBD for 12 years over which time the share has grown from my smallest NZX investment, to the point today (boosted by the partial share price recovery over the last few months) to my largest NZX investment.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  10. #1210
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    2,059

    Default Fundamental Mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I am a true long term investor in RBD, having been on the share register since the company listed in June 1997. My overall capital gain over that time has been, wait for it, nothing.
    Well, there it is again Snoopy. Another 10 - 12 year "investment" for zero capital gain - this, in spite of RBD having risen over 70% recently. It is painfully obvious that you are doing something wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Any time soon I expect Phaedrus to pop up with a long term chart to show what a failed investment this has been.
    Failed is such a strong word Snoopy. I would prefer to categorize it as a very poor investment. Especially when you compare it to the average market gains of about 100%, over this period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    However, if you look at the dividends that have been paid over the years you will find a rather different picture.
    'Fraid not. RBD has been in a long-term downtrend for the last 8 years, and has a confirmed trendline in place. Over this extended period of time it has fallen an average of 15 cents/year - notwithstanding the recent 70% rise! A dividend of around 8 cents/year is not enough compensation for such capital destruction.



    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    The secret to investing in RBD for me has been buying when the price is low.
    I don't think too many people would be interested in emulating your "secret", Snoopy! You also need to be able to sell when the price is high. Buying is only half the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Overall then my time with RBD has been a roller-coaster ride with more down times than up times...
    See that? Right there is the main reason for Snoopy's conspicuous lack of success. "More down times than up times"? Folks, that's called a DOWNTREND. You don't want to be buying (or holding) downtrending stocks - whatever their dividend yield! Why fight the market?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    I have held RBD for 12 years over which time the share has grown from my smallest NZX investment, to the point today to my largest NZX investment.
    People, read that statement carefully. This is PRECISELY what happens when you "average down" and it is the other reason for Snoopy's woeful underperformance. This undesirable state of affairs is the logical consequence of continually adding to a losing investment, of buying more of a downtrending stock as the price progressively falls. YOUR WORST INVESTMENT BECOMES YOUR BIGGEST INVESTMENT. This is the exact opposite of what you want. Your largest investment should be your BEST. This occurs quite naturally as a logical result of following the old rule "Cut your losers and let your winners run".

    When your biggest investment has returned zero capital growth in 12 years, something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.

  11. #1211
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    69

    Default

    I agree with you Phaedrus, especially with respect to your largest investment being your best by 'natural selection'. Always cut your losers.

    I note that RBD is respecting its long-term trendline linearly on your chart rather than the oft-drawn logarithmic trendline. This indicates to me that the trendline is falling at a greater average percentage from one year to the next.

    If it was a log chart...am I correct in thinking (because I haven't checked for myself yet) that the price action is even further away from the trendline than it appears on the chart above? Why would anybody bother with it.

    All this talk about Pizza Hut, KFC, blah blah blah is a waste of time when one look at a chart like this tells you all you need to know about whether it is a good investment.

    NO.

  12. #1212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    905

    Default

    Some people on this site are long term investors and tend to hold a share once bought. Others buy and sell actively and are traders.

    People compare the results obtained like they are comparing apples with apples.

    The one thing none of the traders mention is that they are liable to pay tax on their gains. Liable is the key word here. If they don't declare the income then they won't pay it. But if the IRD look at their earnings then they will end up paying it plus plenty more in penalties.

    Remember, the buyers intention is what matters to the IRD, not how long you hold a share. If you bought a share with the intention of trading it, then even if you hold it for five years the IRD expects tax to be paid on any gain.

    It would be good to see more accurate comparisions being made by the participants of these forums.

  13. #1213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    anzac
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Dear worry..

    Quote Originally Posted by emearg View Post
    Some people on this site are long term investors and tend to hold a share once bought. Others buy and sell actively and are traders.

    People compare the results obtained like they are comparing apples with apples.

    The one thing none of the traders mention is that they are liable to pay tax on their gains. Liable is the key word here. If they don't declare the income then they won't pay it. But if the IRD look at their earnings then they will end up paying it plus plenty more in penalties.

    Remember, the buyers intention is what matters to the IRD, not how long you hold a share. If you bought a share with the intention of trading it, then even if you hold it for five years the IRD expects tax to be paid on any gain.

    It would be good to see more accurate comparisions being made by the participants of these forums.
    Never worry about other peoples TAX payments just worry about your OWN..

  14. #1214
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Well, there it is again Snoopy. Another 10 - 12 year "investment" for zero capital gain - this, in spite of RBD having risen over 70% recently. It is painfully obvious that you are doing something wrong.

    Failed is such a strong word Snoopy. I would prefer to categorize it as a very poor investment. Especially when you compare it to the average market gains of about 100%, over this period.
    Phaedrus the NZX50 is a gross index that includes dividends. You have to add on the dividends to get a comparable result. So my gains have actually been 94% (or 100% in round figures). More or less the same as the index. Not 'zero' as you claim.

    'Fraid not. RBD has been in a long-term downtrend for the last 8 years, and has a confirmed trendline in place. Over this extended period of time it has fallen an average of 15 cents/year - notwithstanding the recent 70% rise! A dividend of around 8 cents/year is not enough compensation for such capital destruction.
    You have set up a straw man Phaedrus. The capital loss of buying twelve years ago while just waiting and collecting dividends is not a sufficient reward - Quite right. But that is not what I would recommend. And that is not what I did.

    People, read that statement carefully. This is PRECISELY what happens when you "average down" and it is the other reason for Snoopy's woeful underperformance. This undesirable state of affairs is the logical consequence of continually adding to a losing investment, of buying more of a downtrending stock as the price progressively falls. YOUR WORST INVESTMENT BECOMES YOUR BIGGEST INVESTMENT. This is the exact opposite of what you want. Your largest investment should be your BEST. This occurs quite naturally as a logical result of following the old rule "Cut your losers and let your winners run".
    "Your largest investment should be your BEST." Sorry I can't agree with that Phaedrus. As a long term investor I am always working towards a balanced position, not a skewed one.
    So I am always looking to add to my worst investment before topping up my best.

    I notice you are speaking as though there are only 'good' and 'bad' investments Phaedrus. For a long term investor this distinction is not the way investments are defined. There are plenty of good investments out there that I wouldn't touch because they are poor value. Likewise there are 'bad' investments out there that I seek because the market has discounted them out of all proportion to their actual 'badness'. If my biggest investment is also my best, then this is a potentially dangerous situation. Such an investment becomes vulnerable to the double investment risk of earnings reduction and earnings multiple reduction. Long term investment is all about balancing relative value. Not seeking out the 'good' and the 'bad'.

    When your biggest investment has returned zero capital growth in 12 years, something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.
    It is not all about capital growth Phaedrus, it is about total returns. You can't just continue to ignore dividends. As shown in this case this has lead you to a massive error of judgement. Your view is that I have made nothing in the last twelve years, when simply adding up the dividend returns means that the sum of dividend returns has actually been 94%. A huge difference which you refuse to acknowledge.

    The main reason for the lack of market capital growth of RBD Phaedrus is that:

    1/when the company listed in 1997 is because it was floated with a puffed up PE multiple.
    2/ when a company pays out almost all of its operational earnings as dividends (as RBD did until two years ago) you would not expect the price to rise.

    There has been no significant underperformance here Phaedrus.

    A return of 5.7% after tax compounding return will turn $1000 into

    1000(1+0.057)^12= $1945 after twelve years, such is the power of compounding

    On average that equates to an annual return of $1945/12= $162.08 per year.

    That means that if you wanted to get that same return at the bank, you would have to look for a bank blackboard one year return rate of 16.2% -after tax. Or 24% before tax (assuming a tax rate of 33%). How many banks do you know year in year out that have offered a return like that?

    My investment in RBD has done exactly what I went into it for. It has paid a good regular income over twelve years and outperformed the banks *significantly*. Sure my capital has not grown, but neither has it shrunk. This is exactly what you would expect from an analagous bank term deposit in fact. You need to look at your measuring stick Phaedrus, if you think a performance like that is poor.

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  15. #1215
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    There has been no significant underperformance here Phaedrus.

    A return of 5.7% after tax compounding return will turn $1000 into

    1000(1+0.057)^12= $1945 after twelve years, such is the power of compounding

    On average that equates to an annual return of $1945/12= $162.08 per year.

    That means that if you wanted to get that same return at the bank, you would have to look for a bank blackboard one year return rate of 16.2% -after tax. Or 24% before tax (assuming a tax rate of 33%). How many banks do you know year in year out that have offered a return like that?
    Before anyone else picks me up on these calculations, I should point out that in my attempt to simplify the maths in calculating my returns, the figures above do not tell the correct story.

    Income investors in RBD at any one time are considering what the yield is at the time they make their investment. This is not the same working out an average yield by summing the income over the whole investment period and dividing by the time of the whole investment period as I have done above. The instantaneous yield changes both with the prevailing share price and the actual dividend paid out. If we now look at an investor who invested on 30th September each year, the actal yield achieved over the subsequent twelve months was as follows:

    Year, RBD Share Price 30th Sept, Dividend, Net Yield, Gross yield, Typical Bank rate

    1997: $2.37, 3c, 1.3%, 1.9%, 6.5%
    1998: $0.80, 7.5c, 9.4%, 14.0%, 6.5%
    1999: $1.30, 10.25c, 8.0%, 11.9%, 5.5%
    2000: $1.14, 9.0c, 7.9%, 11.8%, 7.0%
    2001: $1.56, 8.0c, 5.1%, 7.7%, 5.5%
    2002: $1.72, 9.0c, 5.2%, 7.8%, 5.2%
    2003: $1.25, 9.0c, 7.2%, 10.7%, 4.9%
    2004: $1.29, 9.0c, 7.0%, 10.4%, 5.6%
    2005: $1.40, 9.0c, 6.4%, 9.6%, 6.25%
    2006: $1.08, 5.5c, 5.1%, 7.6%, 7.0%
    2007: $0.87, 6.5c, 7.5%, 11.1%, 8.0%
    2008: $0.65, 7.0c, 10.8%, 16.0%, 7.75%

    The second to last figure in each row is the return that should be compared to prevailing term deposits, the last figure in each row. As you can see in all years bar the first (1997), there has been a big advantage in investing in RBD instead of in the bank. (Forget that 24% equivalent figure in my last post).

    The numbers are different but the conclusion is not altered. If you can invest in RBD using whatever method you choose - and retain your capital as I have done-, this has been a very successful investment over the years.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 17-08-2009 at 12:10 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  16. #1216
    Member moimoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Hi Snoopy,

    Any idea what inflation has averaged at over your 12 year time frame.?

    cheers
    Moi.

  17. #1217
    Member Lego_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    450

    Default

    I'm not going near this argument, but Snoopy will also have enjoyed tax advantages from not having his capital gains taxed.

  18. #1218
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    69

    Default

    The point that is often missed is that using technical entry/exit points does not necessarily a trader make.

    It is quite possible to use TA and be a long-term holder of a stock in much the same way that Snoopy has with RBD. Just because you use TA to time your entry and exit points does not mean that you are automatically tax liable. You could have held FBU continuously for 4 years using TA entry and exit from 2003-2007, collecting both dividends and capital gain along the way.

  19. #1219
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moimoi View Post
    Hi Snoopy,

    Any idea what inflation has averaged at over your 12 year time frame.?

    cheers
    Moi.
    Yes. Exactly the same amount as if I had just put my RBD money in the bank. :-P

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  20. #1220
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankiwi View Post
    Well I can say the FA/TA debate has now come in to perspective for me. :o

    Am I correct in thinking the following?

    Snoopy & the other FA crowd compare their earnings to a bank deposit.
    I don't speak for the 'other FA crowd' Yankiwi, only myself.

    Generally I would compare my New Zealand sharemarket investment performance to an NZX index. However, that part of my portfolio they I have invested in for 'income' I would tend to compare to a bank term deposit. RBD has always been an 'income investment' for me.

    SNOOPY
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •