WFMI at all time high
29-Aug-01 07:29 pm

I'm surprised that no one noticed that WFMI closed at an all-time high today!

OATS
14-Nov-01 04:32 pm

To Joe and liberfar,
You both are fairly optimistic about OATS future prospects. I am not. We shall see who is right about the future. There can be no doubt, however, that I was right about both Whole Foods and OATS in the past.

If Odak turns OATS around I'll be very much surprised. I predict this company is sold within 24 months at a bargain basement price and possibly broken up and sold off in pieces.


Re: rahodeb: Oats and shorting
17-Nov-01 09:33 am

liberfar--let's make the length of time of your short a minimum of 1 year. Whole Foods stock price has risen tremendously over the last 18 months (150%). Over the short term the stock may or may not trade higher. However, I believe it will be higher than $40.30 1 year from now. Is that time period for measurement acceptable?

Re: rahodeb: Oats and shorting
19-Nov-01 08:01 am

liberfar--one can make money shorting Whole Foods (or any stock) if one is an excellent market timer. Whole Foods stock could be below $40 in 6 months. That is too short a time frame of measurement for me. What I'm sure of, however, is that this company is going to continue to successfully grow and its stock price is going to continue to rise--over the long-term. I'll watch your fantasy short with interest over the next 6 months, but I am unwilling to say you're going to lose fantasy money on it. WFMI may be lower 6 months from now, but probably will be higher in 12 months and almost surely will be higher in 24 months. I'm not a buyer at the current price ($40), but I'll continue with my long-term investment. Good luck to you.

Re: 100 Best Companies to Work For
26-Jan-02 11:47 am

irishoatz,My name, age, gender, net worth, where I live, and where I work (assuming I work) will remain my own business. Sorry. Best of luck to you.


WFMI hits new all-time high
19-Mar-02 02:34 pm

WFMI traded today at $46.60, an all-time high.

One implication of this is that every current short position on the stock has lost money. Every current long position has made money.

As Ben Graham and Warren Buffett like to say, Mr. Market is a manic/depressive. Right now he is clearly manic about Whole Foods Market as the stock is trading at a rich premium to both the overall market and WFMI's historical valuation levels. Mr. Market's mania need not end any time soon, however. If WFMI keeps delivering strong comps and earnings he is likely to become even more manic in the future.

Since I'm a long-term holder of WFMI, I largely find Mr. Market's antics more amusing than anything else. I know that sometime in the future Mr. Market's mania will end and he'll inevitably become depressive about WFMI again. When that occurs we'll have to listen once again to the shorts crow on this Board. WFMI's incredible long-term track record will be pooh poohed and predictions of doom and gloom will predominate. In view of this I'll take this opportunity to update everyone on the 10 year and 2 year performance of WFMI stock:'

10 year CAGR of WFMI stock price--27.0%
2 year CAGR of WFMI stock price--70.5%

These are pretty good numbers! Wonder how much money HedgeGP ended up losing when he finally covered? Runbill are you still short?


Re: Hog and Rahodeb
23-Jul-02 06:59 pm

Actually dcc7 I'm really George W. Bush and Hog really is my father, George H. Bush. John Mackey is a fellow Texan that I know and like and I deeply resent the bashing he frequently undergoes on this board!

Why don't you come clean with us dcc7? You really are Perry Odak aren't you!


Re: Where's the buyers
15-Jan-03 06:18 pm

Be patient Runbill. You'll get your chance to short WFMI again--and lose money again. Hang in there buddy.


Re: Julyette4th is John Mackey
11-Mar-03 04:36 pm

dnceteacher,
I am neither "kneejerk" or a "conservative".

My positions are very well thought out. They are based on years of life experience, encyclopedic reading, and clear, honest thinking.

Conservative? Hardly. I'm more a revolutionary than anything else. My political views fall into the category of "Independent" with a strong tilt towards "Libertarianism."

Teach me to dance? That is very sweet of you. Thank you, but my life is pretty full right now.


Re: OATS STILL STRONG ACQUISITION TARGET
30-Oct-03 10:28 am

retailerexec,
I disagree with almost everything in your post.
1. Is OATS a strong acquisition candidate? I don't think so. What do they have of real value? Very little in my opinion. Their stores are overall too small to interest either conventional supermarkets or Whole Foods. Most of their locations in my opinion are "B" real estate locations--probably taken to secure low rents, but as a result will never maximize sales.

2. You also make a point that their stores could be bought for only about $2.5 million per store and compare that to a $3.2 million to $9 million range that other supermarket chains have recently paid for stores. However, the key comparison figure should be the price paid per sq. ft.--not per store. OATS stores are usually only 1/4 to 1/3 the size of a conventional market. On a per sq. ft. comparison OATS is probably currently considerably overvalued vs. conventional alternatves. In addition, the overall smallness of their stores provides a very real physical ceiling to the potential upside volumes these stores could ever do. Finally, a bunch of small stores in "B" locations actually have "negative value". Why? Because they are only marginally profitable (if that) but have long-term lease commitments. They can't be profitably relocated because the writeoffs of the operating leases are too large. As a result, OATS is sitting on a pile of real estate liabilities which will eventually need to recognized and written off. Any acquirer of OATS would end up with a bunch of lousy real estate that they don't want and that contain large operating lease liabilities. This drives down the value of the company considerably to a potential acquirer.
(continued on next post


Re: But, cheaper than CHS...
7-Dec-03 07:20 pm

joecricket2000,
Welcome to this Board. We've been listening to your message for many years now proclaimed by countless shorts--watching short after short after short lose money big time.

"At the end of the day its a food retailer."

Oh yes food retailing is such a simple business isn't it? No doubt you could make millions at this business if you just put your mind to it. Safeway just announced more negative same store sales--something they have been announcing for many quarters now. Whole Foods announced that their same store sales were an incredible 13.7% the first several weeks of their first quarter! If Safeway, Kroger, and Albertsons are such good companies then why are their sales so terrible and Whole Foods' so good? The simple fact is that Whole Foods is competing against these companies across the United States and is systematically beating them quarter after quarter and year after year. The supermarket chains don't have an answer to Whole Foods. They have been selling natural and organic products for many years, but they continue to lose market share to Whole Foods. Why is this?

Wal-Mart is killing the conventional chains on supply chain efficiencies and lower labor costs and thus lower retail prices. Whole Foods is beating them in quality, customer service, and overall store experience. The conventional markets are stuck in the middle trying to serve a market that is steadily abandoning them every day.

Over 70% of the supermarkets owned by the conventional chains are unionized. Management and labor are at war with each other in these companies and that spells big trouble for the business. The result is that they aren't competing well anymore in the market against either low price or quality operators. They are dinosaurs headed for eventual extinction over the next decade or so.

Good luck to you. However, I predict you're off this Board within 12 months as Whole Foods continues to grow earnings and its stock price at a 20%+ rate. So long as Whole Foods keeps growing its bottom line by 20%+ they are going to keep their fat P.E. multiple. If you have any evidence that this earnings growth is about to significantly slow down tell us what it is. Otherwise watch Whole Foods continue to set new all-time price records as it continues its steady growth.


Re: How 'bout than Sutton Deal
9-Dec-03 11:34 am

joecricket2000,
With all this "competition" how do you explain Whole Foods incredible same-store-sales quarter after quarter and year after year? Why does Whole Foods keep gaining share at their competitors' expense?


Re: Agree to disagree..................
12-Dec-03 10:06 am

JoeC,
I have read both Graham & Buffett. I admit to being much more influenced by Buffett than Graham, however. Graham believed in minimizing risk in investing by buying stocks that were selling below book value, preferably selling below the cash on the balance sheet. Buffett in contrast has long emphasized buying companies selling below their intrinsic value, but with good to great long-term prospects. As Buffett has said many times, his preferred holding period for a great company is forever. He is a long-term Buy & Hold investor. Sure he tries to buy as low as possible to maximize his gain. But once he buys he holds--until future prospects no longer look bright. Well, I bought Whole Foods low and future prospects still look bright to me.

What we really disagree with are the future prospects of Whole Foods. I think they are incredibly bright, while you see them about peaked out with overwhelming competition coming. Our disagreement can only be settled by letting the future unfold itself. I will say, however, that the cynics have been saying the exact same things about Whole Foods over the past 12 years that you are saying today. Your message is hardly new. All I can say is that the cynics have been wrong for 12 years now and I believe they will probably be wrong over the next 12 years as well. That is not to say that Whole Foods won't have any problems. They will. They've had a ton of problems over the last 12 years--Amrion, WholePeople.com, and unionization in Madison--being just 3 of the more notable ones. However, the company has proven to be quite resilent and has overcome all these problems and seems to have learned a great deal from their failures.

Let me clear about my future predictions though. I am not predicting an 11.5% stock appreciation for Whole Foods over the next 10 years. Predicting stock prices is a fool's game because multiples of earnings and cash flows wax and wane so much. I will predict, however, that Whole Foods continues its rapid growth in sales and earnings over the next 10 years, and assuming that this happens, investors will be very happy with what the stock does as well. Personally, I think Whole Foods will do better than an 11.5% CAGR over the next 10 years.Good luck to you too JoeC. Let us know on this Board when you locate great young companies with great future prospects. I would love to find another Whole Foods or Starbucks to buy when they are young.


Re: WATCH OUT - WALMART COMETH
3-Mar-04 04:24 pm

What do all the shorts on this Board have in common?
1. They believe Whole Foods Market is "just a supermarket company". Easy business. Shouldn't get a high valuation.
2. The believe competition from Safeway, Albertson's, Kroger, Wal-Mart, Trader Joe's, Wild Oats, etc., etc. are going to compete away Whole Foods business.
3. They think the stock is ridiculously overvalued on a P.E. basis--especially since it is "just a supermarket company".
4. They think Whole Foods products are too expensive and customers are simply stupid for paying so much for them.
5. They keep losing money shorting the stock and it just makes them madder and madder because they're convinced they are right and everybody else is just stupid.

I believe it is futile to argue about the opinions above, because they are all highly subjective (#5 being the exception because in fact most shorts consistently lose money shorting Whole Foods). The numbers speak for themselves so I'll repeat them again for the benefit of the slow learners out there:

Since Whole Foods IPO in January 1992:
Sales CAGR for 12 years 34%
Net Income CAGR for 12 years 41.57%
Stock Price CAGR for 12.2 years 27.0%

Same-Store-Sales average last 10 years 8.5%
Same-Store-Sales average last 5 years 9.1%
Same-Store-Sales last quarter 14.7%

Whole Foods has always had a high P.E. multiple. It probably will continue to have a high P.E. multiple as long as their sales and earnings continue to grow at a 15+% CAGR and same-store-sales remain in high single/low double digit range.

My conclusions:
1. Market is continuing to rapidly grow
2. Competition is increasing
3. Whole Foods' stores are rapidly improving and getting larger and larger.
4. Whole Foods is beating its competitors--gaining market share at their expense.

The simple fact that no short or Bear on the stock has ever been able to answer--Whole Foods extraordinary same-store-sales. 14.7% last quarter going up against a 10.5% the previous year--12.8% not including strike impacted stores in Southern California. Wild Oats had a whopping 2.2% same-store-sales growth in 2003 (including the strike impacted stores). Kroger, Safeway, and Albertsons reported under 2%. Wal-Mart at about 4%. Whole Foods is gaining market share year after year after year. It is gaining market share at the expense of its competitors. Whole Foods is winning. Their competitors are losing.

The question that should be asked and answered is not "How will Whole Foods Market successfully compete with all its competitors?"; but rather "How will Whole Foods Market's competitors successfully compete against it?" Based on Whole Foods incredible track record of success for so many years now the burden of proof in this argument is not on the defenders of Whole Foods, but on its critics. It isn't necessary to defend Whole Foods competitive track record--the numbers are quite clear about it. Rather it is incumbent upon its critics to present arguments and evidence as to why Whole Foods won't be successful in competition against Wal-Mart or anyone else. Just asserting an opinion but not backing it up with evidence, facts, or cogent arguments is not very persuasive--just another typical case of "short fantasies"--something we've seen proven wrong over and over and over again.


Re: value_finder_2000 THE ASS HOLE!
30-Apr-04 02:30 pm
Just put valuefinder on your ignore list. I did so a few days ago.

Re: Where's Rahodeb?????
5-Aug-04 12:56 am

Thomas Brix,
I'm still around. My comments:

1. The momentum players bid Whole Foods stock up too high too quick. What then is the "right price" for Whole Foods then? Who knows? The "right price" for any stock is ultimately the present value of all the future cash flows that the company will produce over the course of its lifetime. Who the heck knows for sure what that number will be? I sure don't. However, we do know that Whole Foods is growing both sales and earnings at about a 20% clip per year. Given a constant PE multiple of any number we can therefore expect to see the stock price increase at about a 20% annual compounding rate. Since the stock price has been increasing faster than the earnings rate the last few years it was inevitable that the stock price would either need to tread water for a year or so for the earnings to catch up with it or else the stock price would need to fall. The second alternative has come to pass.

2. The fact is that Whole Foods had a great Q3! They reported 14% same-store-sales (compare this with any other public food retailer--nobody is even 1/2 as good--OATS reported 1.5%), 8 new stores in development for the quarter, and raised their own earnings guidance range for the 4th consecutive time.

3. The so-called earnings "miss" for the quarter has been blown way out of proportion by the Shorts. First of all, Whole Foods didn't "miss" any guidance that it gave out itself to the investment community. As I said in point 2 above Whole Foods just raised its guidance estimates for the 4th consecutive quarter. What Whole Foods "missed" were the consensus estimates by all the sell-side analysts covering the stock. These analysts kept raising their own estimates quarter after quarter after quarter due to Whole Foods stellar performance. Eventually some of these analysts became overly enthusiastic about the company and made estimates that were simply too high for the company to achieve. The consensus for Whole Foods in Q3 was $.51 per share and the company produced $.50. This means that Whole Foods produced 2% lower earnings than the sell-side analysts had predicted. Is that really such a big deal? No. If the sell-side analysts had simply followed Whole Foods issued guidance for the year (which Whole Foods has raised by $.15 per share) then no "miss" would have occurred. However, sell-side analysts are forever raising and lowering earnings estimates and upgrading and downgrading stocks because that is how the firms that employ them make money--buying and selling shares for their clients.

4. It doesn't matter to me whether Whole Foods stock price goes up or down in the short-term. What matters is the company's ability to continue to grow its sales and earnings at a 15% to 20% clip over the long-term. If Whole Foods can continue this growth rate then the stock price will continue its long-term upward climb at about the same rate--it will double in value about every 4 years. This is good enough for me. I saw nothing but positive news in Q3 for Whole Foods Market. The long-term growth story is not only still intact, but continues to improve as the company keeps rapidly increasing its development pipeline and same-store-sales on average continue to grow faster than any other public retailer in the United States.

5. Buy this stock. Hold it until the end of the decade. Make lots of money. Piss off liberfar.


Another disaster for OATS
25-Oct-04 11:43 am

UPDATE 1-Wild Oats forecasts 3rd-qtr, full-year losses
Mon Oct 25, 2004 09:42 AM ET (Adds details, stock activity)
NEW YORK, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Wild Oats Markets Inc. (OATS.O: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday forecast a loss for the third quarter and full year, rather than the profits Wall Street was expecting, because profit margins are being squeezed by aggressive price cuts, new store expansion and competition in key markets.

Shares of Wild Oats fell to $6.43 in premarket trading on the INET electronic brokerage system from their market close of $7.45 on Friday.

The company said it expects a loss of 20 cents to 22 cents per share in the third quarter, including 8 cents to 10 cents in one-time restructuring charges, and a loss of 13 cents to 17 cents per share for the full year.

Excluding one-time items, Wall Street analysts on average were expecting profits of 1 cent per share for the quarter and 19 cents for the year, according to Reuters Estimates.

Comparable store sales, a key measure of health in the retail industry, are still expected flat to slightly negative in the third quarter. Comparable store sales in the fourth quarter are still expected to fall 4 percent to 5 percent as stores in Southern California cycle strong results last year, when conventional grocery stores were hit by a union strike.

For the full-year, same-store sales should be up 1 percent to 1.5 percent, Wild Oats said.

Boulder, Colorado-based Wild Oats plans to report full third-quarter results on Nov. 4.Wild Oats shares fell 10 percent at the open on Nasdaq, to $6.68.

(With reporting by Dan Burns)

Any Insiders who bought stock have only shown how stupid they are. Pebster has only shown us how little he really understands OATS. OATS is continuing to spiral downwards. They don't have a future. This management team under Odak is systematically destroying shareholder value.


Re: FIRE CRACKHEAD GEORGE BUSH THE
3-Nov-04 09:32 am

He didn't get fired. 3.5 million popular vote victory, over 51% of the total vote, and when it is all said and done--286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252.

The anger and hatred of Bush by the Left has not produced victory but rather defeat. Combined with additional seats in the Senate and the House, the defeat of Tom Daschle in South Dakota, and a majority of State Governorships (plus future Bush nominees to the Supreme Court) means that the Democratic Party continues to lose support and power in America. Time for the Democrats to accept reality, regroup, move away from the Michael Moore's and other Leftist extremists in their Party and move back towards the center. If they do, then they might begin to win more elections and eventually regain majority status. If they don't--well the Republicans will dominate political power in America for decades to come.


Re: Rahodeb
1-Feb-05 10:34 pm

Hi TCD,
I'm not short OATS or anyone else. I seldom short stocks, preferring my long-term buy and hold strategy of great growth companies. OATS is still over valued, but I have little faith that the Market is going to recognize this fact anytime soon. The Market continues to believe that someone is going to purchase OATS for a premium and/or that a succesful turnaround is right around the corner.


Re: alsin on oats
25-Feb-05 08:00 am

Hog--chill baby,
OATS is $1 billion in sales--not market capitalization. This is a fact and not open for debate.

Read my e-mail more closely and you'll see that I'm highly skeptical that OATS is either going to dump Odak or be turned around. My point in the posting is that there is always hope for any company until it is liquidated in bankruptcy. OATS has over 100 stores. My guess is that probably 40 to 50 of those stores are successful and profitable stores. Bring in visionary/competent new leadership, dump the loser stores, sell off Henry's to raise capital, get the company refocused on its Business Mission and do another round of financing (maybe take OATS private if the stock price falls under $4 a share). If this strategy was followed then OATS would probably survive and possibly become a viable business once again. However, the above scenario is unlikely for the following reasons:

1. Odak looks to have a strong grip on the OATS Board and probably can't be easily forced out. He probably believes he can still fix OATS if just given more time for additional research studies.

2. The 40 to 50 currently profitable and successful stores will steadily diminish in number as Whole Foods, TJs, and others aggressively go after them. OATS is wasting time right now and they don't have time to waste.

3. I have no idea who OATS could bring in to turn the company around. There are plenty of ex-Whole Foods executives who may be getting bored with retirement who might be seduced by Big Bucks to try.

4. I don't know who might buy OATS and take it private. However, the spread in market capitalization between Whole Foods and OATS is now so large that it might tempt a financial buyer to take the plunge in hopes for a large gain in the future by a new IPO.

5. I assume that you are referring to John Mackey from Whole Foods in your post. I see no reason to believe that either Mackey or Whole Foods is getting "soft" on OATS. After all they claim to have 25 stores opening in the next 2 years that will directly compete with OATS. I guess you think it should be 50 stores!


Re: What a WEENIE Store!!!
25-Feb-05 06:03 pm

ruckpral,
If I didn't think what you thought mattered then I would put you on "ignore" as I have done for many dozens of posters on these Boards over the years.

You are definitely right, however, about the inappropriateness of criticizing OATS for restating results due to changes by the SEC. It appears to effecting almost all public retailers. I did not realize that at the time and I apologize for my misconception. I will be happy to apologize in the future again if my predictions about OATS are also proven incorrect. As John Maynard Keynes once said we he was accused of inconsistency when he changed his mind about something:

"Madame when the facts change I change my opinions. What do you do?"

The facts have changed, so has my opinion. If/when OATS starts producing strong comps, good profits, consistent growth, and well executed stores then the facts will have changed and so will my opinion about them. Until that happens, however, the facts support my negative opinion about OATS.

Re: Long (for years) on WFMI
4-Mar-05 07:06 am

OATS is not #2 in the natural foods industry and never has been. That honor has long belonged to Trader Joe's. OATS is a distant third and is losing more ground to both companies with each passing day. If OATS were easily fixable then Odak would already have done so. The repositioning into conventional products is an act of desperation which will prove to be the company's final undoing. Wait and see.


Re: Insiders are dumping
23-Mar-05 12:16 pm

Whole Foods insiders have been selling stock just about every quarter for 13 years now and they will continue to do the same thing for the next 13 years as well. That is the intelligent thing to do before their stock options expire. It means nothing and never will. Best try a new tack.


Re: OATS is only down with the maket
31-Mar-05 10:39 am

OATS is greatly overvalued. PE for Whole Foods is 47. The PE for OATS is infinite! OATS has never made a dime over its collective history. It lost money in 2004. It is going to lose money in 2005 and for the foreseeable future. It doesn't have a viable business model that can compete. Time will prove what I am saying is correct and the stock will inevitably follow a downward trajectory as the Market comes to realize that no one is going to buy OATS and bail out them out of their countless mistakes.


Re: WF not invulnerable to competiion
21-Apr-05 04:22 pm

liberfar- Your dislike for this stock is so obvious I could have predicted your response post. Do you really want to state that 144 Safeways converting to its new format is harmful to WF? A competitor to WF must be nearly as good as WF to have an impact. If within 2-3 years there are 30-60 of these new Safeways and many of them are within WF's trade area, I have considerable doubt that WF will be negatively impacted at all.


Re: More good news for Nashville Oats
25-Apr-05 09:26 pm

motheriv,
j7Brink's messages on this Board are simply "prophetic pronouncements". He or she never backs up what he or she says with facts, evidence, logic, or well reasoned arguments. It is fun for me to take his or her message and turn it around by making only minor changes. My goal is for him or her (or at least others on this Board) to see how pretentious and ridiculous these prophetic pronouncements really are.

I have plenty of other posts as well in which I engage in original thinking and back up my conclusions with facts, evidence, logic, and well reasoned arguments. I'd be happy to make only these type of posts if/when j7Brink stops playing the pretentious prophet. Until then--well I intend to keep doing what I've been doing. Sorry if it bothers you. Just skip ahead to the next post or put me on "ignore".

Re: Deep value = OATS
10-May-05 09:58 am

j7brink,

I finally figured out why you make such a big deal about "OATS chart"--or at least OATS short-term chart, since their long-term chart is terrible--you don't know how to read an Income Statement, Balance Sheet, or Cash Flow Statement. If you could actually read and understand these you would sell OATS now and take your profit while you can. OATS isn't going to fix their problems. They've run out of time. Too much competition is coming their way over the next couple of years. You're counting on Burkle to bail OATS out. However, please note that Burkle bought his 9.2% stake for $7.30 a share. He has probably already sold it for a tidy profit. If not, do you really think he is going to try to acquire the whole company for $15+ a share? Do you really think he's that stupid?


****** GREAT ARGUMENT **************


Re: Now I'm Desperate! rahodiarreahea
14-Sep-05 09:07 am

Right pal. My investment in Whole Foods has increased over 3,000% in less than 14 years. You'd have sold all your stock back in 1992 after you'd had a 5% gain. I may be "lucky" but I've been lucky for almost 14 years. My investment in Whole Foods is now worth several millions of dollars. Not too bad for a person with less than "half a brain".


Re: Now I'm Desperate! rahodiarreahea
14-Sep-05 09:50 am

There will come a time to sell Whole Foods Market. I won't hold it forever. However, that time isn't now because most of their growth is still ahead. I think I'll probably sell most of my stock in about 15 years. At that time Whole Foods will be doing around $100 billion in sales and the stock will selling for over $1,000 per share (before splits). My 3,000+% gain will have turned into a 30,000+% gain by then. I might sell a few shares along the way just for the sheer fun of it.

The problem with all you traders is that you don't understand the power of long-term compounding tax-free. Get an education and read Roger Lowenstein's wonderful biography on Warren Buffett, "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist". Or don't read it. Doesn't matter to me. Trade away if it pleases you.


Re: Now I'm Desperate! rahodiarreahea
14-Sep-05 02:48 pm

Seems very doubtful to me. They've announced a 15% square footage growth target. Why do you ask?

Re: rahodeb-Not selling your IMAGINARY....
14-Sep-05 02:50 pm

Thanks for your pity. I don't need it though. If I told you how many shares in Whole Foods I actually own you wouldn't believe me.


Re: rahodeb-Not selling your IMAGINARY..
14-Sep-05 02:53 pm
Alot!!!!


Re: rahodeb-is an 8 yr old MENTALLY!
14-Sep-05 08:36 pm

Where do you come up with the crazy idea that I'm a paid poster? I spend about 15 minutes a day on this Board 2 or 3 days a week--less than an hour a week. What other Boards do I post on? OATS once a month maybe. I guess since you are incapable of intelligently arguing against my positions you are restricted to making things up and calling me names. O.k. do it, if it makes you happy.


*****ANOTHER ONE


Re: STFU RAHODEB (Not rated)
20-Sep-05 03:51 pm

We aren't competing on the basis of qualifications. We are competing on the basis of evidence and facts. You think dairy cows have to graze to produce milk. You are wrong, they don't need to graze. You think most dairy cows in the United States graze on pasture. You are wrong, they don't graze, they are confined. You think most pigs are out flopping around in the mud. You're wrong--they are confined in small cages their entire lives. So are ducks and chickens. You see some beef cattle outside grazing while you are driving around in Iowa and you believe that is how farm animals are being raised in America. But you are wrong. Everything I'm saying can be easily verified in 5 minutes just using Google. Try it. Learn something.


Re: STFU RAHODEB
20-Sep-05 08:30 pm

upyerzcanada,
It truly is a waste of time arguing with you. You back up none of your opinions with evidence or facts--just anecdotes about your "uncle", growing up on a farm in Iowa, and driving around the mid-west in your car looking out the window. FYI--those stories aren't evidence or facts and can't be verified or falsified by anyone (which is no doubt why you tell them). Most dairy cows are not allowed to graze daily. This is a fact and I can present an avalanche of articles and statistical evidence to prove it. Why don't you present some counter evidence to prove your case that 99% of dairy cows graze daily? Duplicate an article from any source to back up your opinions. Here is one to back up my beliefs:

Super Healthy Milk
By Jo Robinson
Most cartons of milk in the supermarket show a picture of cows contentedly grazing on grass. Unfortunately, 85 to 95 percent of the cows in the United States are now being raised in confinement, not on pasture. The only grass they eat comes in the form of hay, and the ground that they stand on is a blend of dirt and manure.

The reason for confining our cows in feedlots and feeding them grain rather than grass is that they produce more milk—especially when injected with bi-weekly hormones. Today's grainfed cows produce three times as much milk as the old family cow of days gone by.

With the current emphasis on quantity, the quality of our milk has suffered. One of the biggest losses has been in its CLA content. CLA or "conjugated linoleic acid" is a type of fat that may prove to be one of our most potent cancer fighters. Milk from a pastured cow can have five times as much CLA as a grainfed animal. To date, most of the proof of the health benefits of CLA has come from test tube or animal studies. But a few recent human studies have produced encouraging results. For example, French researchers compared CLA levels in the breast tissues of 360 women. The women with the most CLA in their tissue (and thus the most CLA in their diets) had a 74 percent lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.(Bougnoux et al, Inform, 10:S43, 1999.) If an American woman were to switch from grainfed to grassfed dairy products, she would have levels of CLA similar to those with the lowest risk of cancer. Got CLA milk?

Milk from pastured cows also contains an ideal ratio of essential fatty acids or EFAs. There are two families of EFAs—omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Studies suggest that if your diet contains roughly equal amounts of these two fats, you will have a lower risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, allergies, obesity, diabetes, dementia, and various other mental disorders.[1]


Re: Competition
28-Sep-05 11:59 pm

Oh no Wegmans too! And what about Wild Oats, Publix, Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's? Don't forget them.

The simple fact is that Whole Foods has been competing against all of these companies for years now--and winning. 9% same-store-sales average for the last 10 years. Show me another company anywhere in retail that has averaged 9% same-store-sales for the last decade. There are none. So much for the mighty competition. They are destroying Whole Foods aren't they, stock researcher?

Your argument reduces down to this: Someday in the future Whole Foods will run into trouble and then the stock will fall. Duh! Do you have any evidence that that "someday" is soon? If you are waiting for Trader Joe's or Wegmans to slow down the Whole Foods express train you're going to be waiting the rest of your life. It ain't gunna happen.


Re: Deb
9-Nov-05 01:32 pm

Oh yes, "the John Mackey identity theory". I've heard it a few times before on this Board. Believe it if you wish since it enhances the value of what I write.


Re: find me a single stock more overvalu
23-Nov-05 10:50 am

OATS IS NOT WFMI!!!!

You are exactly what I thought you were--a liar! You don't keep your word.

The Market is smart over the long-term in valuing stocks.


Re: Rahodeb = BS
10-Feb-06 02:34 pm

wfmi red today,
1. Calling me a fool or other names doesn't answer my arguments or refute my investment strategy success.

2. I define wealth as total assets minus total liabilities. Wealth doesn't equate to cash. All assets are subject to risk and possible loss in value--including cash.

3. I didn't sell any shares on 12/28. However, I did sell 13,000+ shares on December 6th.

4. The shares I've sold in the past I wish I had held on to. I would have a much higher total return if I would have. However, I needed the money for other purposes in my life.

5. I have sold covered calls many times on Whole Foods when the stock has gotten really high and I believed the short-term prospects for additional appreciation were not likely. In fact, I've got some covered calls out there right now expiring in May that were priced pre-split at $165. I've made money on all of my covered call bets so far.

6. I am not a "shill for Whole Foods". You can read my opinions and analyses on this Board for the last 8 years. You would be wise to do so.


The real reason OATS stock went up
22-Feb-06 04:11 pm

With Perry Odak now selling over 50% of his total shares on the recent stock run up, we now see clearly what has happened. Let's review some history:

1. OATS announces its 2004 results on Feb.22, 2005. It lost $40 million in 2004. On Feb. 23, the stock falls to $6.11 a share, its lowest closing price of the year.

2. In March 2005 it is announced that Ron Burkle has purchased 5% of the company for under $7 a share. The stock trades up to double digits again on speculation of a Burkle takeover.

3. Through the first 3 quarters of 2004, OATS loses $150,000. No actual operational "turnaround" is in sight.

4. In early 2006 before the earnings announcement it is announced that Ron Burkle has purchased 15% of OATS. The stock trades up on this news.

5. On Feb. 16, 2006 OATS announces its Q4 2005 earnings--$.11 a share--which raised EPS for the entire year also to $.11. At the same time OATS raises 2006 guidance and announces that they have a new 40,000 sq. ft. prototype store in development for Boulder, Colorado that will be unlike any other food store in the world--and that can successfully compete with any store in the world--even with stores that are twice as large. The stock "explodes" reaching new 6 year highs. How were earnings increased so much in Q4 compared to the first 3 quarters of the year? Some expense control, but primarily through higher gross margins--284 basis point improvement. How is that possible with same-store-sales actually declining 33% from the previous quarter? Simple: OATS obviously raised their prices and my guess is that they raised them fairly significantly to get that large of a gross margin increase. With the large price increases resulting in temporary earnings gains, increased forward earnings guidance, and promise of a powerful new competitive store format it is no surprise that OATS stock has strongly traded up. Why did OATS want to get the stock price up so quickly that they would raise prices, increase earnings guidance, and talk up a future store prototype that is many months away from opening? The answer is in 6 and 7 below:

6. Feb. 22, 2006, Perry Odak sells over 50% of his shares for a huge personal profit. With his personal loan to OATS coming due before the next earnings announcement, Odak needed a high stock price. He has created one, at least for the short-term.

7. March or April 2006--I predict that OATS announces a secondary offering to sell additional shares to raise additional money. OATS has a terrible balance sheet. Only $4 million in tangible net equity. High long-term debt. Only $35 million in cash and most of that is needed for working capital. The bottom-line is that OATS lacks sufficient capital to open more than a few more stores, especially including their new "prototype" store and new headquarters in Boulder.

8. In early May 2005 OATS will announce its Q1 2006 results. Odak will have sold his stock and the company will have completed its secondary equity offering to raise more capital. Earnings will be disappointing. Sales, gross margins, comps, and earnings will all be below expectations. The company will have more "one time" expenses to announce--more store closures in Ft. Lauderdale and Portland, Oregon (and maybe another store too). The stock price will naturally fall on this news, but Odak will still have cashed in 50% of his stock and OATS will have shored up their weak balance sheet with more cash.

9. Is any of the above "stock manipulation" by insiders at OATS? I think it might be. Time will tell.


Re: my own opinion
23-Feb-06 02:42 pm

robrich2,
You act like it is no big deal that the CEO just unloaded 1/2 of his position in the company. There were other alternatives to selling his shares. For example, the Board of Directors could easily have approved an extension of his loan or an extension on some of it. I believe the arguments I made are valid arguments: Odak worked diligently to increase the short-term value of the stock just prior to selling 1/2 of his stock. The guy is working for himself and not for the long-term interest of all the shareholders. Where was that 284 basis point increase in gross margin last year, when the OATS long-termshareholders were getting crushed? Why did it mysteriously materialize in the last quarter before Odak has to repay his loan?

FYI--I couldn't care less about winning "bragging rights on this Board".


Re: rahodeb = PROVEN DUMB-ASS!!!
27-Mar-06 09:40 am

yhoo id tracking,
I stand by everything I said in that post on the OATS Board. OATS has been in business for 19 years now and its cumulative losses are $84 million over that time period--most of that in the last 5 years under Perry Odak's "brilliant" leadership. Its sales growth, comps, sales by store, and profitability all remain mediocre.

One thing and one thing only has changed for OATS in the previous 13 months since I made that Board posting--Ron Burkle has bought 15% of the company. He apparently sees value in OATS that I don't see. Time will tell whether Burkle (and yourself) are right or whether I am. The $19 stock price isn't based on anything substantive--just speculation on a Burkle buyout. If Burkle ever sells his position the stock will collapse back to $6 or below. OATS is a mediocre company with a terrible track record--19 years in business and they've never made a dime in profit. Whole Foods continues to successfully invade market after market after market where OATS previously had no competition. Odak jacked up retail prices at OATS in their Q4 in order to maximize short-term profits so that he could unload 50% of his shares less than a month ago onto suckers like yourself. Now OATS former Chairman of the Board is the new CEO of Albertson's. Great move by OATS making that guy their Chairman!

My prediction for OATS in 2006: they won't hit their guidance, but will give us tons of excuses; Burkle won't buy out the company; the stock will drift below $15 a share and possibly lower.


Re: RAHODEB'S SELL ON OATS AT LOW 2/24/
29-Mar-06 10:35 pm

yhoo id tracking,
The only thing time has told us about OATS is that it has lost $81 million in 19 years and $33 million over the last 3 years. You continue to ignore these facts. Why is that?

The stock is up on takeover speculation and nothing else. The company still stinks and remains grossly overvalued based on very weak fundamentals. The stock is up now, but if it doesn't get sold in the next year or so it is going to plummet back down. Wait and see.

You're also right that I have no shame. Why should I?


Re: 20% premium above $10 to $13
9-May-06 02:47 pm

Whole Foods is trading at 64 times trailing earnings, while OATS is trading at 93 times trailing earnings (45% higher than Whole Foods).

Re: Deb
19-May-06 07:42 pm

hubris12000,
You continue to mistake your theories about the world for evidence. Do you have any evidence to support your theories hubris? How about just one simple fact that Wal-Mart, Safeway, or Wild Oats are actually hurting Whole Foods? That shouldn't be too hard for you? Just one fact? Have you got anything, hubris?