In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst David Meier and host Ricky Mulvey discuss:
-
Brian Niccol’s move from Chipotle to Starbucks.
-
What Home Depot‘s quarter says about the economy.
-
On Holding‘s impressive growth.
Plus, Motley Fool host Alison Southwick and personal finance guru Robert Brokamp discuss how investors can prepare for a lower-rate world.
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our beginner’s guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.
Should you invest $1,000 in Starbucks right now?
Before you buy stock in Starbucks, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Starbucks wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $763,374!*
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of August 12, 2024
This video was recorded on August 13, 2024.
Ricky Mulvey: A burrito for a coffee, please, you’re listening to Motley Fool Money. I’m Ricky Mulvey. Joined today by David Meier. David. We got a lot of news to talk about, and I appreciate you being here.
David Meier: Yes, we do and thank you for having me.
Ricky Mulvey: Starbucks has a big swap on its hands. They want a little bit of that Chipotle magic. The coffee giant is replacing its current CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, with Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol. This morning, Chipotle is down about 13%. Starbucks is up more than 20%. There’s some negatives and some positives to this, but let’s start with the positive with Chipotle. Brian Niccol has been the CEO there since 2018. What’s he been able to do in the last six years there, and what Starbucks hoping that he’ll be able to bring over?
David Meier: The better question may be, what’s he not been able to do? Cause he’s done quite a bit. He’s been able to raise prices consistently, and actually quite significantly, which, if you think about it, unlocks a lot of Chipotle’s brand value. Pricing power is one of the signs that you have an enduring brand, and he took advantage of that, and rightly, I should add. During the COVID era, he really supercharged Chipotle’s digital presence, this is not just in terms of taking digital orders, but in addition, he really pushed hard for the loyalty program. The founders wanted the food to speak on its own. It didn’t want to necessarily give benefits to customers as a result of eating it, but Niccol said, you know what? No, this is the direction we’re going, and that’s also been huge. Then lastly, he experimented with the menu and that’s not an easy thing to do at Chipotle. Again not something the founders necessarily wanted. They liked their limited, but customizable menu and he found some ways to get some incremental benefit out of that. What does he bring? Well, he brings all that strategic and tactical knowledge and experience with him, and I think it should benefit Starbucks when he takes that post.
Ricky Mulvey: We got the Chicken al Pastor out of it. Hard to be mad about it. A little bit mad about the price increases. Anyway, turning to Starbucks, a few months ago, Howard Schultz wrote a letter to the board, which he posted on Linkedln implying that the leaders did not understand the soul of Starbucks and its brand. Even though Narasimahn’s been there for just a short time, it kind of seems like that might have been the writing on the wall.
David Meier: One of the interesting things to think about here is Howard Schultz obviously, has had a huge impact on Starbucks over the years, and he continues to be a very influential figure there. We shouldn’t forget he actually helped recruit Narasimahn to the role, so he takes a little bit of the blame, as well. Unfortunately though, when the stock price has been pretty much trending down throughout Narasimah’s tenure. It’s not really surprising that Schultz and activists and plenty of others have been chiming in that, hey, we got to make some improvements, and they decided now is the time.
Ricky Mulvey: Well, the market has been fairly unhappy with Narasimahn’s ideas, basically, really expanding the menu, bringing in energy drinks and the refreshers. This is something that we complimented Brian Niccol for doing, but maybe it was done in a little bit more of a thoughtful way. He really wanted to build up the Starbucks app engagement. We got a transformation plan, where Narasimahn promised to unlock efficiency, David. By the way, do you know he spent a couple of decades at McKenzie?
David Meier: I saw that.
Ricky Mulvey: I think there were several things that the market was a little unhappy with him on that. But I have to say, David, Narasimahn he was in the role for just a little over a year. Do you think future employers are going to worry that he’s a job hopper? He’s just going from one opportunity to the next. This is bad for the cover letters.
David Meier: Yes, it is bad for cover letters, but no, I don’t think this hurts him. Let’s step back and think about this for a sec. Starbucks is an enormous company, and it takes time to implement changes, especially big ones, ones with lots of fanfare, because their operations are spread around the world. Their stores have different cultures that they have to deal with. Perhaps, he could argue that, hey, I wasn’t necessarily given enough time. The environment’s been challenging. Again, I don’t want to sound like I’m making excuses for Narasimahn, but let’s remember, Niccol is going to face many of these same challenges. Now he’s had some experience dealing with him at Chipotle, but he’s going to have to hit the ground running and gather some short term momentum, otherwise the arrows are going to be pointed at him next.
Ricky Mulvey: Yeah, the board may not have a ton of patience on this one.
Let’s talk about Home Depot, which reported this morning. David, I got two quotes from CEO Ted Decker. Sounds like they came from different earnings calls, they came from just one. Here’s number one. Higher interest rates and greater macro economic uncertainty pressured consumer demand more broadly, resulting in weaker spend across home improvement projects. This is where you’re getting the CNN headline. Home Depot issues warning about the economy. Warning, warning, warning. Second quote. The fundamentals of the home improvement market remain strong. We have significant growth opportunities in front of us. Which one should the long term investors focus on more?
David Meier: Great question. Can I say both? Is that acceptable?
Ricky Mulvey: Yes, why not?
David Meier: In all seriousness. In the near term, I say the first one. If we compare what Home Depot said about the do-it-yourself market for home improvement, let’s call those lower-budget projects. That’s very consistent with what Trex just said in their most recent earnings report. The alternative to wood deck maker commented that there was weakness in its lower price segment of products. Perhaps right now, the customer wants to forego some near term improvements, and lower prices aren’t necessarily making them change their minds.
Ricky Mulvey: Usually stocks get hammered when they cut guidance, and Home Depot did that for same-store sales, going from a negative 1% decline to negative three to negative 4%. Stock doesn’t budge much, and while we’re long term investors, I thought this was an interesting short term move. Home Depot id special or something. What’s going on?
David Meier: This is a very interesting observation, and it really gets to how markets work. No, I don’t think Home Depot is necessarily special as a result of lowering guidance and not really seeing much penalty as a result. But let’s look at the price action. If we think about what the market does, the markets seem to expect this. Despite recent dips in interest rates, interest rates are still relatively high during the company’s most recent quarter, and consumer behavior doesn’t necessarily change on a dime just because rates have come down a bit. Again the market, I don’t think was caught off guard by this, which is why they’re not getting the penalty. But this is where the long term view comes into play. With inflation continuing to soften, rates are now starting to move down on their own, and there’s still an expectation of a rate cut from the Fed. At some point, consumers are likely going to come back to these projects and maybe even expand them. That’s where I think the market is looking ahead. The last thing I’ll say is their most recent acquisition of SRS distribution closed in June. If in a lower rate environment, if they see a pick up on the professional side for home improvement projects, they can get a little extra benefit there.
Ricky Mulvey: Before we move on to on holding, anything else from Home Depot’s quarter business really stand out to you?
David Meier: Yes. Regardless of what’s happening at the top line or above the top line, and with regard to consumer behaviors, this company is just a cash flow machine. And that bodes well for the things that it needs to do right now, which is pay back its debt, buy back shares, and fund current and future dividends. Home Depot isn’t the growth story it once was. Those things are what are important components of the total return potential that shareholders will want going forward.
Ricky Mulvey: Let’s talk about a retail company that’s grown a little bit quicker, a lot a bit quicker. That’s on holding. The sports apparel maker.
David Meier: [laughs] A lot a bit quicker.
Ricky Mulvey: They make on clouds, which I really liked the shoes. I did a segment about them a while back and I ended up getting converted into an ON Holding customer. Still on my watch list as an investor. It’s net sales are up almost 30% from just one year ago, operating profit up about 20% a year ago. It’s adding some retail stores. David, if you look at this business, it seems like we’ve got a growth company moving like a growth company here.
David Meier: 100%. It’s interesting, the stock was off to a rocky start in pre trading. It was down, but as we’re talking about this, it’s up somewhere around 6-8%. It looks like, at least since the market has opened, the stronger hands have prevailed in digesting more of the information. Sales growth came in slightly ahead of expectations. But as you noted above, operating profits were off a little bit relative to expectations, and it looks like as a result of higher costs. Looking a little deeper into their income statement, they only give a single line item for operating costs in the press release. I don’t know exactly where the culprit is, but this company has been spending to innovate and to invest in its brand. I wouldn’t be surprised if those were the two areas responsible for higher costs. Frankly, I have no problem with On investing more there.
Ricky Mulvey: There was some currency stuff between the Swiss Franc and the American dollar that also, I think, hit it for a little bit before the balance came back. Let’s talk about the brand stuff. Some big developments with this company, ON launching a multi year deal with Zendaya, the actress Challengers. Star as Challengers and Dune. Challengers were good. Anyway, and they’ve also got spray-on shoes, “shoes that fit like a glove for performance athletes”. I want to talk about the spray on shoes because that seems like a pretty significant innovation, and I was surprised to see it from a company like ON and not from a company like Nike or Adidas. How about you?
David Meier: First of all, I agree the spray on technology that they have is pretty cool, but I just want to be clear, both Nike and Adidas have, what are essentially 3D-printed footwear options. But so far, all three of these companies have been focusing on a little bit different parts of the shoe in order to bring that innovation to the market. I have to confess, I’m a former shoe junkie, I love shoe technology, especially when I was working out more and playing soccer and playing basketball, etc. I have to say that this spray on innovation is really pretty cool. What it does is it changes the way the upper part of the shoe is formed and how it attaches to the midsole. It removes the laces while still providing a comfortable, durable, glove like fit. I have to say, if this had come out five years from now, I guarantee you had to have a pair on my feet right now.
Ricky Mulvey: Helps that one of the winners of the Boston Marathon was wearing them as well. One of the things I liked from the call as well was co-founder David Allman reflecting on, hey, we’re going to report these numbers quarterly, but let’s not think of this as a quarterly business. Looking at the four-year cycle of the Olympics, which, saying that big dreams require a longer period to train, evaluate and prepare. Thought we’d wrap up by looking back on this business, looking ahead. In 2019, ON did about $250 million in sales. Over the past 12 months, it’s done almost $2 billion. Good or bad, this is a growth company that’s going to act like a growth company. What should long term investors or people like me who have this company on their watch list expect by maybe 2028 when the Olympics arrive in Los Angeles?
David Meier: I think this was a great frame for the CEO to use, and it fits exactly with what we try to do here at the Motley Fool, which is take a longer term view. I think the conclusion to be drawn here is that On has arrived. You don’t just take market share away from big players like Nike and Adidas very easily. You have to have good products. You have to have strong distribution. You have to have the ability to build a brand, and On has done all of those things extremely well. Which should help propel them to be even more successful going forward. I think this is where we’re going to see some of that come from. Right now, analysts are seeing somewhere between 23-30% growth per year over the next three years, so it’s still a growth company. But the company is now generating significant operating and free cash flow, which puts them in control of their future growth. They don’t need to go back to the capital markets to ask for capital in order to try to fund some of the projects that they want to do. They can actually take even more incremental risk as they innovate. Let’s see what they do with the spray on technology. Let’s see what they do to incrementally improve that technology and roll it out across their product line. Frankly, with their growth still ahead and the huge cash flow that they’re generating. If you think about what Nike and Adidas did from this point forward in their careers, there’s a good chance On has a good probability of doing something similar.
Ricky Mulvey: On has answered the conversation, David Meier. Appreciate you being here, and thank you for your time and your insight.
David Meier: Thank you very much. This was a lot of fun.
Ricky Mulvey: Ricky Mulvey with Motley Fool money here to tell you about the Range Rover sport, the vehicle that leads by example, visceral, dramatic, and uncompromising. The Range Rover sport offers powerful on road performance and commanding all terrain capability. Once you hit the accelerator, you’ll feel this vehicle’s exhilaration. The Range Rover sport combines dynamic sporting personality with the peerless refinement that you expect from Range Rover, and this vehicle has a pretty incredible optional feature, massage seating. You can enjoy a dynamic drive in total comfort in a 22 way adjustable and ventilated front seat with massage function. It heats up in the colder months too. You’re not just going where you need to go. You’re working out some knots along the way. Look the third generation Range Rover sport is the most desirable, advanced, and dynamically capable yet. I drove one. It was a great experience, and that’s why I’d like to invite you to visit landroverusa.com to learn more about the Range Rover sport.
Up next. The Fed is implying that a rate cut is coming. Market thinks so too. Alison Southwick and Robert Brokamp discuss how investors can prepare for a lower-rate world.
Alison Southwick: Most investors recognize that the stock market has been the place to be for the highest long term returns. But that doesn’t mean every one of your dollars should be in equities. Depending on your risk tolerance and time horizon, you should likely have some of your money in cash or bonds. The returns you’ll get from those assets depend an awful lot on interest rates, which have been dropping over the last several weeks. Plus the Federal Reserve has hinted that they may begin cutting the Fed funds rate as soon as September. All this means that there could be big changes in what we get from our cash and bonds over the coming months.
Robert Brokamp: Yeah, most interest rates have actually been coming down, the 10 year treasury hit a high of 4.7% in April, and has since dropped below 4%. That rate, as well as the rates on other intermediate to long term bonds are mostly determined by the bond market, as investors anticipate a rate cut from the Fed and maybe a slower economy. Short-term rates such as those paid by treasuries that mature in a year or less, as well as just plain old cash, they’re more driven by the Fed, which has two primary mandates, low inflation and maximum sustainable employment, sometimes they’re at odds. The focus has been much more on inflation since the beginning of 2022, with the response being this aggressive rate hiking cycle intended to put the brakes on the economy. However, the rate of inflation has come down significantly with the most recent 12 month change in the consumer price index coming in at 3%. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has increased to 4.3% up from 3.5% a year ago. As chair [inaudible] said in the press conference after the Federal Reserve’s July meeting a couple of weeks ago, the Fed is going to start focusing on both of its primary goals. Here’s a quote from the press conference afterwards. He said, as inflation has come down, and I think the upside risk to inflation have decreased as the labor market has cooled off, and now the labor market has softened, I think the downside risk to the employment mandate are real now. The time is coming at which it will begin to be appropriate to dial back that level of restriction so that we may address both mandates. In other words, it’ll soon be time to cut rates, and the Fed would be late to the game. Central banks in Sweden, Switzerland, England, Canada, and the European Union have already cut rates.
Alison Southwick: The market has been lowering rates in anticipation of the Fed’s first cut. What has happened to cash and bonds so far?
Robert Brokamp: Well, as rates fall, bond prices go up. Since the end of April, the bond market has returned around 5%, which is pretty good for bonds for just a few months worth of work. The returns do vary on the type of bonds you own. Longer term bonds are more sensitive to moves in interest rates. Long term bonds have returned almost 10%, whereas short term bonds have returned close to 3%. As for cash, we’ve already started seeing rates on CD, savings accounts and money markets start to drop ever so slightly, but they will react very quickly to a rate cut from the Fed. We’ve probably likely seen the highest rates we’re going to see this cycle. I’ll just also add that loan rates have also started to come down. For example, the rate on the 30-year mortgage is now 6.6% down from 7.5% at the end of April.
Alison Southwick: What should people do now to prepare for a possible lower-rate world?
Robert Brokamp: I would say the first step is to consider locking in today’s rates with CDs or individual bonds for the money you don’t need to be completely liquid and that you can leave alone for a year, maybe a few years. For money that you do need to be liquid, like your emergency fund or maybe any cash, you need to pay the bills, then look for higher-yielding savings accounts or higher-yielding check accounts, and you can find just such accounts as well as higher yielding CDs at the ascent of Motley Fool website. For your bond funds, I think it makes sense to consider moving some of the money that you have in short term bonds to intermediate-term bonds. If interest rates continue to come down, you’ll get a little bit more price appreciation. The same could be said for long-term bonds, but they’re so volatile that I generally stay away from them. The risk-reward trade off, I think is not there, especially if this is money that you want to be a little more stable. But longer term bonds definitely have been the better performers over the past few months. If you don’t mind that extra volatility, maybe even having a little bit in long term bonds makes sense.
Alison Southwick: You’ve been lumping cash and bonds together, but which is better?
Robert Brokamp: Well, I would say it depends on what you’re going to do with the money. Cash is all about liquidity and not losing value. It’s for the money you want to keep super safe and that you may need to spend in a moment’s notice. Plus, on top of that, you get the FDIC insurance up to $250 thousand per account type. Now usually, you pay a price for that safety in the form of lower yields. But that hasn’t been the case for the past couple of years due to something called the inverted yield curve, which I’m sure we all heard about it. It’s just an economist way of saying that cash and short term bonds have yielded more than intermediate and long term bonds. That’s not usually how things go. But the yield curve has been inverted for a while now, really since the summer of 2022, it’s the longest period of inversion in modern times by passing the previous record set way back in 1978. But that’s going to change. In fact, it’s changing now. The yield curve is starting to flatten out. Eventually, we’ll go back to a more normal environment in which bonds return more than cash. Just to give you an idea what that looks like. According to a report published earlier this year by LPL, over the 40 years ending in April, bonds have returned an average 6.1% a year versus 3.5% for cash. Bonds had better five year returns and 95% of the rolling five year periods when cash did do better, it only out performed bonds by 0.4%. I’ll throw in some tidbits from a recent report from Schroders, which found that over the 22 rate cutting cycles we’ve seen since 1928, bonds have outperformed cash on average by 3-4% over the subsequent 12 months. Doesn’t happen every time, but definitely most of the time. For money you want to keep out of the stock market that you don’t need in the next year or two or three, you’ll likely earn a higher return from bonds over cash. Plus, you can make more strategic tax decisions with bonds. Cash is always taxed as ordinary income at the state and federal level. I’m assuming it’s not in some retirement account. The taxation of bond interest depends on the bond. Corporates are also taxed by states and Uncle Sam. Treasuries are free of state taxes and municipal bonds can be completely tax free depending on your state and the municipal bonds you choose. Your tax status also plays a role in the cash versus bonds decision and which bonds you might choose.
Alison Southwick: We’ve been hearing the word recession more frequently, which is why many people think the Fed should cut rate. Jeremy Siegel, the Wharton professor, and author of stocks for the long run. He told CNBC last week that the Fed should do an emergency rate cut of 75 basis points now, saying it should be somewhere between 3.5 and 4%. Otherwise, Siegel says, if we don’t do this, we’re not in for a good time with this economy. I like a good time economy [inaudible]. Should people be worrying about a recession?
Robert Brokamp: I would say that people should always be prepared for the consequences of a recession, which generally involves a decline in the stock market and an uptick in unemployment. Regardless of what’s going on in the economy, you should always have a plan B for what will happen if your portfolio loses value or you lose your job. Now is the risk of recession growing now? I guess I would say yes. I mentioned that the yield curve is inverted, which is a pretty reliable predictor of a recession, though it takes several months to more than a year for the recession to begin. Hasn’t happened this time so far, but we did have a few quarters when GDP growth was pretty low or even slightly negative. Now, what happens often right before a recession is that the yield curve begins to uninvert, and that’s starting to happen. But the other reason we’re hearing more about a recession is due to something called the SAHM rule, spelled S-A-H-M, created by economist Claudi Assam who used to work at the Fed. The SAHM rule says that the initial phase of a recession has started when the three-month moving average of the US unemployment rate is at least half a percentage point higher than the 12-month low. The July jobs report officially met this criteria. Now that said, Claudi Assam herself is not so sure. She told CNBC, we are not in a recession now, contrary to the historical signal from the SAHM rule, but the momentum is in that direction. A recession is not inevitable, and there is substantial scope to reduce interest rates. She’s joining the chorus of experts calling for the Fed to cut rates, but she is pointing out that things are slowing down. But even if a recession may not be inevitable, I think it makes sense to do all the things necessary to build up the defenses of your personal finances. You know what these things are. That would include having a big enough emergency fund, reevaluating how much you want in the stock markets, especially since we’ve had a pretty good couple of years, and then what to do with that money you keep out of stocks. Finally, do all you can to ensure your job is safe if unemployment.
Ricky Mulvey: As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about. The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buyer sell anything, based solely on what you hear. I’m Ricky Mulvey. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back tomorrow.
Alison Southwick has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. David Meier has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Ricky Mulvey has positions in Adidas Ag, Home Depot, and Trex. Robert Brokamp has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chipotle Mexican Grill, Home Depot, Nike, Starbucks, and Trex. The Motley Fool recommends On Holding and recommends the following options: long January 2025 $47.50 calls on Nike and short September 2024 $52 puts on Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Why Starbucks Wants Chipotle’s CEO was originally published by The Motley Fool