The Most recent 40…….


Re: Walmart Has Them!
17-Jun-06 06:23 pm

stash margusson,
1. Do you have any evidence that the lobster tails that Whole Foods will be selling from Clearwater Seafoods from Canada actually had their tails ripped off from living lobsters? If so, present the evidence here for us to see.

2. Present your evidence of mandated 55% gross margins at Whole Foods by Mackey (or anyone else).

3. If Whole Foods decision about selling live lobsters is all about profit then please explain these other animal welfare decisions that have clearly hurt their profits by discontinuing popular &/or less expensive products.
A. They don't sell foie gras. Why not?
B. They don't sell eggs from caged chickens. Why not?
C. They don't sell Chilean sea bass. Why not?
D. They don't sell veal from tethered anemic calves. Why not?

Whole Foods has strict animal welfare standards in place throughout their supply chain. I advise you to check them out on their website. In addition, Whole Foods has created their Animal Compassion Foundation with funding of $1.2 million so far to provide research into the most animal compassionate methods of raising animals for human consumption.

The bottom-line stash margusson is that while you are free to rant all you wish to about Whole Foods you have no idea what you are talking about.


Re: Walmart Has Them!
17-Jun-06 11:53 pm

wholefoods sucks,
Everything that is alive is going to die someday (even you). What matters is the quality of life while something is alive. The fact that food animals are going to eventually die to feed humans doesn't mean that the quality of their lives is therefore irrelevant and should be ignored (since you are also mortal does the quality of your own life not matter either?). Quite the opposite. All sentient beings are worthy of being treated with respect and consideration IMO and that includes lobsters. Minimizing their pain is a worthy and admirable goal IMO. I admire Whole Foods for having animal welfare standards and for cotinually evolving them--and their ban on selling live lobsters is another positive evolutionary step on behalf of animals.

I've got good news for you: you don't have to shop at Whole Foods if you don't want to or work there if you don't want to or buy the stock if you don't want to or even participate on a Whole Foods bulletin board if you don't want to. So why are you participating on this bulletin board anyway? What's that all about?


Re: WFM-Feeling the pinch
18-Jun-06 12:07 am

flaglerwrangler,
Any chance you'll rid yourself of this bulletin board too? What is the point of your continuing to participate here?


Re: WFM-Feeling the pinch
18-Jun-06 07:54 am

wholefoods sucks,
1. Of course no one has to leave the Yahoo Whole Foods Board for disagreeing with me. However, you didn't answer my argument or my question. I'll repeat them for you and provide you another opportunity: "you don't have to shop at Whole Foods if you don't want to or work there if you don't want to or buy the stock if you don't want to or even participate on a Whole Foods bulletin board if you don't want to. So why are you participating on this bulletin board anyway? What's that all about?"

2. I'm not a hypocrite as you claim. Killing sentient beings unnecessarily simply for the pleasure of my palate is not acceptable to me. Instead I made the ethical choice of veganism several years ago. What about you?

3. Unlike an individual who only needs to make ethical choices for him or herself, however, Whole Foods is a business that must cater to a variety of constituencies and attempt to balance out as best they can a huge number of different values and desires. They have millions of customers they are trying to please, over 40,000 employees to try to keep happy, many thousands of investors they need to make money for, as well as thousands of suppliers and hundreds of communities--and they need to do that while simultaneously caring for the environment and making ethical choices throughout their supply chain. Keeping all these numberless constituencies happy with the company is of course an impossible task and Whole Foods leadership team must juggle as well as they can and attempt to create value for as many of their constituencies as possible. You accuse Whole Foods of hypocrisy, but I see a decline in hypocrisy with the lobster decision, not an increase. Instead I see a leadership team trying to make difficult ethical choices in an infinitely complex world and doing the best that they can considering all of the variables. Whatever ethical choices they make will inevitably piss many people off due to the complexity of the situation. They'll be damned if they do and damned if they don't. IMO Whole Foods was far more hypocritical for talking about improving animal welfare while continuing to sell live lobsters. By discontinuing the sale of live lobsters Whole Foods has reduced their hypocrisy and become more consistent with their articulated value of animal compassion. It is a step in the right direction, but over time many more steps will be necessary.

(continued on next post)


Re: WFM-Feeling the pinch
18-Jun-06 12:32 pm

stash margusson,
The argument you made in your last post is actually self-contradictory:
1. You believe that Whole Foods discontinued selling live lobsters out of financial self-interest. This assumes of course that Whole Foods was losing money selling them.
2. Then you accuse the company of delaying the decision for discontinuing them for several months while they researched more humane methods of production because of "the money". Which is it then? Did the company discontinue selling live lobsters to maximize profits or did they continue selling them for several months to maximize profits? You can't have it both ways.

I see no reason not to take Whole Foods at their word on this subject. They discontinued the sale of live lobsters on June 15 for humane reasons. They delayed the final decision for 7 months while their seafood teams investigated more humane alternatives (hence the self-imposed June 15th deadline). Not finding a satisfactory alternative the June 15th deadline went into effect on schedule. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a corporation such as Whole Foods is capable of acting ethically and trying to do the right thing?

Like many people you seem to divide the world into only 2 motivations: self-sacrificial altruism and greedy selfishness. Non-profit organizations are supposedly motivated strictly by self-sacrificial altruism while all corporations are strictly motivated by greedy selfishness. You seem to believe that Whole Foods motivations are strictly based on greedy selfishness. I think this caricature of human motivation distorts one's ability to see the world very clearly or accurately. It seems obvious to me that human beings have tendencies toward both self-interestness (and sometimes outright selfishness) as well as towards care, compassion, love and altruism. I believe we start out as babies pretty darn selfish, but as we learn, grow, and mature in life our consciousness develops greater and greater degrees of love and compassion. We have the potential to progress from selfishness to greater and greater care and concern. Whole Foods as a collective entity is really no different. It has a variety of constituencies that it tries to create value for--customers, employees, investors, suppliers, community, and the environment (which I assume lobsters fall under this category). Usually there is a harmony of interests between these constituencies, but sometimes there are conflicts of interest. The live lobster decision appears to me to a decision with many conflicts of interest between the various constituencies involved. Some customers wanted Whole Foods to sell live lobsters while others did not. Same for the employees of the company. The investors are primarily interested in increasing profits and the stock price so they will either applaud or disparage this decision based on whether they believe the company was making money on the sale or not. The only clear winner in the decision therefore appears to me to be the lobsters themselves.

Your reference to irradiation seems to me to be an attempt to change the subject. Whole Foods website has information about its policy towards irradiation: they don't think it is desirable or necessary for food safety and advocates mandatory labeling of irradiated food so that consumers could make informed choices. Whole Foods doesn't guarantee that all the food it sells is not irradiated just like it doesn't guarantee all the food it sells is GMO free. I don't know of any food retailers in the United States who are making this claim and if they are it is highly probable that they are misleading their customers with inaccurate information. If you want to avoid irradiated food then buy organic since irradiation is not legally permitted for organic foods.


Re: WFM-Feeling the pinch
18-Jun-06 12:36 pm

flaglerwrangler,
Merely saying my arguments lack logic doesn't actually refute the arguments. I challenge you to do so if you are able.


Re: Wholefoods' Hypocrisy
18-Jun-06 12:50 pm

wholefoods sucks,
Unfortunately you also make no attempt to refute my arguments.

Is Whole Foods hypocritical in some ways? Sure they are. Who isn't? You seem to also divide the world into overly simplistic categories of black and white. "Either one is a hypocrite or one isn't." If only life were so simple! It isn't. Am I a hypocrite for investing in Whole Foods or for shopping there? I don't see it that way. Every time I shop at Whole Foods (or anywhere for that matter) I vote for the kind of world I want with my dollars. By not buying any animal products at Whole Foods or anywhere else I am contributing to that much less exploitation of animals. If everyone voted with their dollars the way I do then no animal products would be sold at Whole Foods.

Your standard of virtue seems to be either utter perfection or utter depravity. However, the world doesn't work like that. Whole Foods isn't perfect IMO, but I don't know of any other food retailer (or anyone else) who is either. From my perspective Whole Foods is doing more to improve the lives of food animals than any other retailer in the United States. In all honesty, which other retailers out there are doing anything remotely similar to what Whole Foods is doing? The answer is no one. I'll keep voting my dollars at Whole Foods until a more ethical food retailer comes along for me to vote at. Got any candidates for me?

By the way, are you holding yourself out as the paragon of perfect virtue regarding animals? Are you personally a vegan? What vegan food store do you shop at? Are you also a "hypocrite" or just one of those people who enjoys judging and attacking everyone else from the safety of anonymity.


Re: Wholefoods' Hypocrisy
18-Jun-06 01:14 pm

Thanks. You are also entitled to your own opinions on this subject (even if they are not very deeply thought through).

I keep asking you questions but you never answer them. How about answering these 5 for me?

1. Do you care about the well being of animals at all? If not, then why not?
2. Are you personally a vegan? If not, then why not?
3. Why does the quality of the life of the food animal become irrelevant just because it is eventually killed?
4. If you eat meat wouldn't you prefer to eat it from animals who were decently treated during their lifetimes instead of living a life of immense pain and suffering in a factory farm?
5. If you don't care about the quality of life for food animals why does it upset you that others do care?


Re: Walmart Has Them!
18-Jun-06 07:25 pm

Hog152,
No doubt you're right (as usual). However, it isn't really wholefoods sucks who I'm trying to communicate with. What chance do I really have there? Not much. However, by negating his or her argument I might be able to communicate with others reading the posts here who have more open minds.


Re: WFM-Feeling the pinch
19-Jun-06 09:47 am

stash,
Organic foods cannot be legally irradiated and maintain their organic status. You are quite mistaken in your belief. Below is information from Organicconsumers.com:

"Which foods can be irradiated in the U.S.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has two functions, evaluation of scientific evidence and regulation of certain foods. 1) It has the primary responsibility of deciding if a new process like food irradiation can be used on foods. The FDA also sets the minimum labeling standard for all irradiated foods. 2) The FDA regulates all foods except meat, poultry and seafood.

The FDA has approved the following foods for irradiation:

1986: spices, herbs, herb teas, pork, wheat, wheat flour, fruits and vegetables

1992: poultry

1997: beef

2000: eggs in the shell, seeds for sprouting (like alfalfa)

The USDA has approved the following foods for irradiation:

1999: Refrigerated or frozen raw beef, pork, lamb, and poultry.2002: Imported fruits and vegetables2002: Meat purchased by the National School Lunch Program

In August 1999, a food-industry coalition asked the FDA to allow irradiation of seeds, sprouts, fresh juices, frozen foods, prepared fresh fruits and vegetables, and luncheon meats. The FDA has not yet decided.Organic foods cannot be irradiated."

Whole Foods doesn't label its food as either irradiated or non-irradiated for the same reason it doesn't test all its food for GMOs because it would need to test over 30,000+ products in its stores. That would be extremely time consuming and enormously expensive (costing several millions of dollars every year). Mandatory labeling of both irradiation and GMOs would provide invaluable information that would enable consumers to make informed choices. That burden should fall upon the suppliers--not the retailers.

Do you know of any other food retailers who test all their products for food irradiation or for GMOs? If so, post the information here.

I repeat my prior statement: If you want to avoid irradiation--buy organic foods.


Re: Rahodeb
20-Jun-06 02:26 pm

Looks to me like they are negotiating Odak's future employment contract, but they haven't been able to get it done yet. The amendment is temporarily buying them more time to figure it out. What do you think?


Re: Rahodeb
20-Jun-06 04:20 pm

Why make a public announcement about the whole thing? That doesn't make much sense to me.


Re: Question for board longs......
21-Jun-06 03:03 pm

OATS stock has been bid up as takeover speculation because Ron Burkle now owns 15% of the business. OATS underlying business has performed poorly for many years now, but the stock has done well the last 15 months due to Burkle. Burkle's investment also puts a floor underneath the stock and may give OATS some upside--if he buys the other 85%. If for any reason Burkle was to unload his 15% the stock would crater back below $10 a share.

In contrast Whole Foods has had excellent growth for the past 14.5 years as a public company and all signs point to strong growth ahead as well. On the other hand high growth expectations are already priced into the stock as it trades at a very high PE multiple. If the company continues to successfully grow the stock price is likely to continue its upward trek, but probably at a slower rate than it has in the past as the PE multiple deflates over time. If the company's same store sales (which have averaged about 10% for the last 10 years) were to plummet or the company was to badly miss earnings for some reason, the stock could easily fall 50%. There are several dozen shorts on this Board predicting that exact scenario.

Invest in OATS only as a speculation of a takeover by Burkle. Invest in Whole Foods if you are willing to hold for 5+ years and are willing to risk the stock significantly falling at some point. Over the long-term its strong growth will bail out the long-term buy & hold investors, but it may require commitment and patience.


Re: Question for board longs......
21-Jun-06 06:11 pm

tcd91,
The future is unknowable. The world is dynamic and in flux. Whole Foods has beaten earnings expectations many times and they have also missed many times. New competitors happen all the time. If you want predictability and consistency invest in Treasury Bills.

I have no expectations about Whole Foods over the short-term and I really don't care. It is only the long-term that I care about. Whole Foods success today is based on the good long-term decisions they made many years ago. Their future success will depend upon the decisions that they make today. Whole Foods management team doesn't manage the company to please short-term speculators. They will make difficult decisions for the long-term good of the company even if it hurts the short-term. Witness their recent lobster decision.

If you can't bear short-term pain don't invest in growth stocks like Whole Foods.


Re: Question for board longs......
21-Jun-06 11:20 pm

It creates good will with more customers than bad will. Probably 99% of their customers don't buy live lobsters. It creates good will with employees by demonstrating the company's true commitment to animal welfare by "walking their talk". Don't underestimate the idealism of Whole Foods young employees. Thousands of them believe in the company's mission and animal welfare is part of that mission. It may hurt sales in the short-term (but probably not profits much--handling live lobsters is an expensive proposition), but the increased goodwill will more than make up for it in the long-term.

I thought you were boycotting Whole Foods. How come you are still on this Board then? What is the point?


Re: Question for board longs......
22-Jun-06 04:54 pm

flaglerwrangler,
It has never been a "free country" in Whole Foods in the way that you mean it. They've always had quality standards that don't permit them to sell many products. When was the last time you bought a Pepsi or a Coke at Whole Foods? They stopped selling products with hydrogenated fats (like Pepperidge Farm Cookies) 4 or 5 years ago. Regarding animal welfare standards: they stopped selling foie gras back in 1997, Chilean sea bass 5 years ago, caged eggs in 2002, and now live lobsters and crabs in 2006. I expect this won't be the last product ban either


Re: the journey - unibmb999
23-Jun-06 08:06 pm

So radmok, how fast is Kroger growing? They just gave guidance of EPS growth of between 6% and 8% for 2006 and 2007--1/3 the rate of Whole Foods. Why then does it upset you so much that Whole Foods is valued at 3 times the PE of Kroger? They are growing 3 times as fast.


Re: the journey - rahodeb
24-Jun-06 10:17 am

radomok,
You like to throw around numbers on this Board and berate everyone investing in Whole Foods long-term as "stupid", "foolish", etc. You constantly argue that investors would be better off investing in slow growth stocks like Kroger (growing at 6%) or certificates of deposit (producing 4% to 5%). Unfortunately your math is deeply flawed because you have never grasped the fundamental principle of growth and compounding. Compound growth over longer time periods and your argument completely collapses and is seen to be short-sighted and foolish.

For example let's look at your logic on KR:
"lets take year 1, the person who buys 3 shares of KR will have technically made $1.53X 3 = $4.59 in EPS.. correct?/ now.. the person who bot 1 share of WFMI instead, will have "made" $1.66 in EPS..
so the person who made $4.59 is actually AHEAD of WFMI in year 1 by a whopping 200% on EPS."

What happens over time, however, to your scenario above? KR grows EPS at 6% for the next 10 years and that $4.59 in beginning earnings grows to $8.22. Over 20 years it grows to $14.72. In comparison, WFMI starts out at only $1.66 but over 10 years at a 20% CAGR that grows into $10.09, surpassing KR's performance by 22%. Over 20 years at a 20% CAGR the $1.66 grows to $63.64, surpassing KR's performance by 432%.

Whole Foods high PE is based on 26 years of continuous growth and the belief that far more growth lies ahead for the company. Since its IPO 14.5 years ago in January 1992, Whole Foods sales have grown from $92 million to $5.3 billion--a CAGR of over 32%. Now you are entitled to your opinion that Whole Foods growth isn't going to materialize over the next 10 to 20 years--that Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger, etc. are going to crush Whole Foods. Of course if that scenario plays out then certainly Whole Foods stock price is going to collapse and we'll see it trading at a PE multiple at or below KR. However, if Whole Foods continues to grow at close to a 20% CAGR over the next decade or so then you'll see the stock price continue to rapidly grow because the earnings are going to continue to rapidly grow. Obviously you don't think Whole Foods is capable of maintaining rapid growth and you've bet against the company. I'm certain, however, that Whole Foods is going to grow very rapidly over the next 10 to 20 years and have invested accordingly. Time will tell which of us is right and which of us is wrong.


Re: the journey - rahodeb
24-Jun-06 01:43 pm

radmok,
Not only do you not understand how growth works over long periods of time, but you also don't understand the power of high compounding of same store sales over a long-period of time. Whole Foods doesn't need to open the amount of stores that you claim they need to open because of their extraordinarily high same store sales--10% average over the last decade and 12.9% over the past 2.5 years. If Whole Foods doesn't open a single new store in the next 10 years, they will still probably grow 50+% faster than Kroger will over the same time period. How? 10% same store sales growth is 66% higher than Kroger's 6% total intrinsic growth rate.

Unfortunately for you Whole Foods is in fact going to open several hundreds of stores over the next decade. They've already got 78 in development which is equal to 71% of their existing total square footage. If you check their last 10 earnings announcements you'll see that they are announcing from 8 to 10 new stores signed every single quarter.

My best estimate is that Whole Foods sales will be between $30 billion and $35 billion 10 years from now and that they will have between 550 and 600 stores at that time. And while we are on the topic, I predict the stock will be around $250 per share (not including additional splits) in a decade, which will equal a PE multiple of just about 25.

I don't buy your NPV calculations for 3 reasons:
1. I don't think Kroger will grow its earnings at an 8% rate for the next 5 years, which is why I used the 6% number. I believe Wal-Mart has only just begun to hurt Kroger.
2. Whole Foods will grow its earnings at a 20% clip not only for the next 5 years, but for the next 10+ years (on average).
3. 5 years is too short a time period to measure a growth stock such as Whole Foods. Your Microsoft analogy is a poor one, because Microsoft is no longer rapidly growing. In contrast, Whole Foods is still very rapidly growing, with all objective evidence pointing to an acceleration of that growth over the next several years.

If you want to short Whole Foods, short it. But stop arguing that the longs are all stupid for betting on the long-term growth of Whole Foods. After all, we have been right so far (for 14.5 years now) and you haven't been. If the rapid growth continues then the future is going to prove that you are really the stupid one.


Re: Wow....Some honesty from Deb
26-Jun-06 05:53 pm

hubris12000,
I'm often wrong about things and might be wrong about Whole Foods too (although I doubt it).

Saying Whole Foods same store sales will "decelerate" isn't a very bold statement. Of course they will. The question is when and how much. I say the company averages over 11% for 2006 and over 10% for 2007. What do you predict? Put a number out there. Might as well say something outrageous. You won't be on this Board to be proven wrong after December 31.

By the way, another couple of weeks have passed as the clock keeps ticking on you. You're now down to only 188 days and my margin of safety remains over $12 per share. Next earnings report will be out in a little over a month. After that, you'll be down to your last round in our fight. Better go for the knockout because you're way, way behind on points.


Re: Wow....Some honesty from Deb
27-Jun-06 07:47 am

hubris,I could be wrong. Anything is possible. We must distinguish, however, between the possible and the probable. Is it possible that Whole Foods stock will fall below $50 by year end. Of course it is. Is it probable? No it isn't. That would require a 20% drop from the current stock price, which would necessitate either a bad earnings miss by Whole Foods in their next 2 quarters or an overall Market meltdown. While either scenario is possible, neither is probable within the next 6 months.

Your prediction of a decrease in same store sales is virtually a meaningless prediction. After all Whole Foods same store sales decline frequently in consecutive quarters. They declined last quarter from 13.0% to 11.9%. By your way of thinking this proves that doom is just around the quarter. However, so long as Whole Foods same store sales are at or above 10% I don't think the stock is likely to decline very much from current levels. When are you predicting that the same store sales will fall back below 10%? When will they fall below 8%? 5%? Live on the wild side hubris and make a meaningful prediction. I'll make one for you: so long as Whole Foods same store sales are in double digits the next 2 quarters the stock won't trade below $50 per share (and probably not below $60).

I think it is fascinating that you have stopped shopping at Whole Foods because it is too crowded at the store nearest you. Those crowds should be telling you something about this company, hubris. Too bad you don't get it.


Re: Wow....Some honesty from Deb
27-Jun-06 08:04 am

snosurfer,
You are projecting way too much knowledge and power onto me. The future is indeterminate. No one knows what is going to happen. Just look at Katrina last summer. Who predicted it (besides Al Gore of course)? If a terrorist blows up a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city this summer then we'll get more than a 50% haircut in Whole Foods stock price. There is no ultimate security or safety in life or with stocks.

I'm not predicting a 50% haircut for Whole Foods over the short-term (or any decline at all). I am merely saying that it is possible--not probable. And of course it is possible--anything is possible. If you want safety for your portfolio then invest in Treasury Bills. Whole Foods is a richly valued and volatile stock and thus is subject to the mood swings of Mr. Market. If you can't handle Mr. Market's bi-polar tendencies you shouldn't be speculating on Whole Foods (or any other stocks for that matter).

All my predictions for Whole Foods are geared towards the long-term. Todays stock price is largely the result of past decisions that Whole Foods management team made 5+ years ago. Today is the product of the long-term past. The stock price 5 years from now will largely be the result of decisions that Whole Foods management team is making today. If you think Whole Foods leadership is making good decisions today then it is probable that the company will have good results in the future.


Re: Wow....Some honesty from Deb
27-Jun-06 04:39 pm

hubris,
Is drrocker57 correct? Are you predicting an absolute decline in same store sales in Q1 2007 to a negative number?


Re: Wow....Some honesty from Deb
27-Jun-06 11:05 pm

hubris,
Well you've finally convinced me not to argue with you anymore. We'll just continue your countdown off the Board periodically. Best of luck to you.


Re: USA Today Article
30-Jun-06 10:37 am

liberfar,
Actually retailers usually dominate their fields for many, many years. Here are several examples:

Wal-Mart
Starbucks
CostcoBest Buy
Bed, Bath, and Beyond

Any predictions when that first crack in their armor is going to happen? Haven't you been making that same prediction on this Board for over 5 years now? Haven't been right yet, have you? When will you be right? hubris predicts negative same store sales in 2007. Are you predicting the same thing?

someday, someday, someday, etc. Whole Foods will falter. But not this year, or next year, or the next 5 years. Maybe you'll be right in 15 years. Hang in there.


Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 08:54 am

unibomber999,
radmok is interested in neither facts nor logic. He or she, like so many other shorts on this Board, love to spin their fantasies about the future while completely ignoring the facts of both the past and the present. radmok (hubris, liberfar and many other shorts & bashers) choose to focus on Whole Foods competition improving, while completely ignoring the reality that Whole Foods is improving & evolving far faster. They don't seem to realize that Whole Foods isn't sitting still, but learning and growing as an organization at a very rapid rate. They wrongly believe that Whole Foods competitive advantage is all about organic foods and that once Whole Foods competitors are all selling it (which has already been the case for nearly a decade now) Whole Foods will fade into the sunset. They refuse to recognize that Whole Foods is a mission driven retailer that has evolved numerous competitive advantages including a superior business model of optimizing stakeholder relationships, a unique company culture based on empowerment, service and innovation that cannot be duplicated by a command and control supermarket company, a happy and motivated work force, and highly motivated, skilled, and knowledgable leadership throughout the company. The shorts and bashers keep waiting for the whole thing to collapse, not understanding that Whole Foods has been continuously growing and evolving for 26 years now. This ain't no overnight success story.

One thing I've enjoyed about this Board is watching the shorts come and go every year. They come on to this Board making highly arrogant and "original" proclamations that this is just a stupid grocery store which is ridiculously overvalued and is going to get its comeuppance very, very soon. How many shorts have the long-term participants on this Board watched disappear every year with large losses on their shorts? Several hundreds now. Surely we must be getting close to a thousand or so by now. This current batch of shorts (with one or two exceptions) won't be here a year from now. They will have disappeared. However, new shorts will take their place (for the shorts we will always have with us) and they will say the same stupid and unoriginal things that their predecessors said before them, believing themselves to be both original and brilliant. There is nothing we can do, but regularly flush out the old shorts from the ignore button and replace them with the current crop. Meanwhile, Whole Foods will keep doing its thing--producing unmatched same store sales growth and continue its irresistable growth, driving the stock price up and the shorts off of the Board.


Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 12:08 pm

boogertooth75,Your post is short, but neither true or original. If you don't like my posts put me on ignore.


Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 12:09 pm

flaglerwrangler,And why are you still here? I thought you were boycotting Whole Foods? Why aren't you boycotting this Board too?


Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 12:12 pm

boogertooth75,
Don't think the stock is going anywhere? Based on what? Your own fantasies about the future. Here is reality of the past 14.5 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WFMI&t=m...

Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 02:34 pm

pump2dump,
I've got 14.5 years of sales, earnings, and stock price growth plus same store sales that have averaged over 10% for the last 10 years supporting my point of view.
Your theory on Whole Foods is that a bubble has been building for the last 14+ years and that now it is all about to collapse. What evidence do you have to support your point of view? I can tell you: You've got ZERO.


Re: on Competetion...
3-Jul-06 06:24 pm

flaglerwrangler,
As you wish: "ignore". Best of luck to you.


Re: on Competetion...
4-Jul-06 07:50 am

liberfar,
Fair enough. I admit that you are different from the other shorts on this Board. You're much more thoughtful and rational and perhaps more open minded (although I've never seen you change your mind about anything or admit you were wrong).

Of course things always eventually change for the worse for every company and that will also be the case for Whole Foods--some day. The question is when. I don't see it happening for many, many more years--at least another decade and probably much longer. Their growth run isn't over by a longshot.

The biggest challenge for Whole Foods lies ahead 10 to 15 years when their long-term senior leadership team begins to retire. Most of their top leaders are in their early 50's now and in another decade will be in their 60's. Time will tell whether the next generation of leadership will be up to the challenge of guiding this company.

The companies you listed in your post GM, Kodak, and Xerox may not be the best examples to prove your point because all had very long runs of dominance in their respective market niches--several decades (especially GM and Kodak). If Whole Foods is able to match their market leadership legacy we can expect another 40 to 50 years of market leadership for Whole Foods. In view of this, why are you so confident that the near term future spells so much trouble for Whole Foods? Certainly there is no evidence (future speculation doesn't translate into evidence except for hubris12000) currently existing that Whole Foods successful market leadership is about to expire.


Re: on Competetion...
5-Jul-06 11:07 am

liberfar,
I apologize for thinking you never admitted you were wrong. My mistake. Sorry.


Re: on Competetion...
5-Jul-06 03:52 pm

pump2dumpwfmi,Didn't we already have this argument before? You don't seem to understand the power of compounding of earnings over a long period of time. Whole Foods is compounding their earnings and cash flow by about 20% a year. Your "risk free" return of $3.57 is compounding at only 5.49%. Over 5 years your risk free return will only grow to $4.66 if you reinvest all of the money and it will grow to $6.09 in 10 years. Let's look at Whole Foods: consensus estimates put their earnings at $1.66 for their next fiscal year of October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. A 20% CAGR will grow that $1.66 to $4.13 in 5 years and to $10.27 in 10 years.

Your risk free investment at 5.49% is a better investment than Whole Foods for the first few years since it starts out with a higher base. However, beginning in year 6 Whole Foods stronger compounding will surpass your risk free investment and over longer periods of time completely blows it away.

However pump2dump, you are free to buy certificates of deposit or short-term Treasury Bills if you wish to. I urge you to read and study Jeremy Siegel's "Stocks for the Long Run". Siegel clearly demonstrates that over the long-run stocks achieve far higher returns than either bonds or Treasury Bills do. As a reference point, Whole Foods stock has appreciated at 26.6% over the past 14.5 years. $1,000 invested 14.5 years ago in Whole Foods stock would be worth $30,569 today. The same $1,000 invested 14.5 years ago in Treasury Bills that averaged 5.49% (they actually averaged much lower than this) would have grown to only $2,170. Your "risk-free" $1,000 investment would have produced a whopping $2,170 versus $30,569 in Whole Foods stock (not even including additional dividends paid out).

Those are the facts pump2dump.


Re: on Competetion...
6-Jul-06 07:40 am

eugsesnotne,
You're right. I did leave dividends and taxes out. Thanks. Chances are pretty good, however, that pump2dump doesn't pay much in the way of taxes.


Re: on Competetion...
6-Jul-06 07:42 am

Hog152,I've honored flaglerwrangler's request to be put on "ignore". Perhaps you should do so as well.


interesting chart
8-Jul-06 08:29 am

Look how closely Whole Foods stock has followed the S&P and the NASDAQ Indices since it was added to the S&P 500 back in December.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=WFM...

Re: Deb is WRONG, again and again
8-Jul-06 06:42 pm

dawg lawger,
You are correct and I am wrong--at least about the dates of the chart parallel. The chart comparison I found so interesting is only for the last 3 months. Here it is again. The 3 month comparison with NASDAQ and the S&P 500is quite close, even if the 6 month chart is not. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=WFM...Whole Foods stock spiked up to an all-time high around the announcement of the S&P 500 inclusion (as well as the stock split and special dividend announcements) and has traded off since that all-time high back down to about where it was a year ago. I also think it is interesting how similar the chart comparison is with NASDAQ and S&P 500 over the past 12 months, except for the temporary 3 month spike from the end of October until January.


Re: Everyoneoutofthepool WFMI Bear Market
14-Jul-06 01:27 pm

Actually, Whole Foods stock chart is remarkably similar to the NASDAQ composite chart over the last 3 months. Whole Foods sold off right before its last earnings announcement and then spiked up when they reported strong earnings and comps. Here is the 3 month comparison:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=WFMI&t=3...

There is nothing wrong with Whole Foods. The problem is the weakness of the stock market itself.


Congratulations to hubris and goodbye
12-Aug-06 06:19 pm

This will be my final message on this bulletin board as I have lost my bet with hubris12000. Congratulations hubris! You win. I lose. I will honor the terms of our bet.

The learning from this bet is to never underestimate the manic/depressive nature of Mr. Market. Whole Foods had a very strong quarter with same store sales up 9.9% on top of a 15.2% increase last year--phenomenal results. In addition EPS were up 27% over last year and the company beat earnings estimates by 3 cents. However, Mr. Market hit the panic button and the stock has crashed, down almost 40% from its high of just a few months ago. Whole Foods itself has a very bright future and I will continue to hold my stock for a very long time--until the growth begins to significantly slow.

I've enjoyed my 8 years on this Board, but all things must come to an end. I wish everyone the very best. Hog152--keep the faith. liberfar--good luck with your market timing game. hubris12000--take your profits while you can, Whole Foods remains very strong and the stock will show continued strong growth over the long-term. Surgeon General and Boston Cowboy--you were both right about my true identity all along. Congratulations on your cleverness.

Take care everyone. Goodbye.