Jump to content

KO - Coca-Cola Company


valueinvesting101

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Strangest part of their reply is using their share repurchase plan to justify the issuace of stock. Buffett likes to explain things by taking them to their extremes (like stock options). If they were to issue the fulll $4.5B worth that they repurchase would this still be appropriate. They are right, there would be theoretically no dilution however the intrinsic value of the business would be far less (same as it is when issuing the amount they currently issue).

 

Using share buy-backs to jusify option issuances is definitely not something you'd expect from KO, especially given their track record (one of the first to adopt stock option expensing if I recall). You never know, Buffett may be moving in the background, he doesn't do this publically.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1% seems very high for management given that this company will probably last upwards of 100 years and compound along the way. All compensation should be cash based or less options.

 

One interesting mental exercise:  1% dilution per year over 100 years means over 100 years, the original owners will own 0.99^100 = 36.6% of the company, whereas various management along the way wind up owning 64% of the company.  Is this a truly egregious outcome?  To manage the company through the past 100 years, where you went through wars and inflation and recessions, I'm not sure how bad it is.  (if instead of KO, we are talking about BMW managed through WWII, for example, as a defeated nation)  But the issue is also, of course, that during tough times, when company is in tough situation, you may in fact get much greater dilution than just 1%.  2% dilution, on the other hand, implies that over 100 years, original owners will only own 13.3% of the company.  I think it's pretty easy to agree that it would be too much.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 1% is too much for a huge company like Coke. In addition, why do they need to pay more than 6000 managers with options and restricted stock? It is a perverse incentive. Most of these mid tier managers have no impact on capital allocation decisions. They should instead be incentivized with a well crafted bonus plan. It seems to me that a sensible stock plan should cover no more than 10 people at headquarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I just finished reading Dream Big - the story of the guys at 3G.  I thought it was ok, but could have drilled a little further into the specific business moves that they made.  I guess the book would have lost a lot of readers if it had got too detailed.

 

One thing I found quite interesting is that right at the end it speculates about 3G and Buffett taking control of Coca Cola.  In some ways it would make sense, given that that 3G thrive on driving efficiencies out of great consumer companies that may have become complacent.  Given Buffett exhorted Coca Cola not to become complacent when he appeared at the AGM, this is something that may be on his mind.  Recent events around management compensation are also indicative of a company that has lost a little focus.

 

The last line of the book is says that when asked: "Buffett leaned his head back and laughed: "You won't get anything out of me about that right now"".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
But Buffett’s partnership with 3G surprised investors like hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, who noted that Heinz grew its Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) by 50% in the year after the acquisition — growth generally unheard of for a mature business, Tilson said. And he thinks Buffett won’t stop there: “I think that Warren Buffett and 3G will team up again to buy Coke,” he said. “Anything that shakes up corporate boards is a good thing, because there are a lot of companies that are just fat and poorly run. Take Heinz.”

 

http://fortune.com/2014/05/03/warren-buffett-activist-investor/

 

So, one of the primary pieces of evidence that Winters has is an off-the-cuff quote from Tilson in a Fortune article.  This is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...