Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: JohnGalt79 One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1011  
Subject: Re: Monster Beverage Corporation, and stock spli Date: 12/23/2011 2:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I agree with you in voting against both of the proposals. I don't see the need for either of them. I'm borrowing ideas from Lynch & Buffett, but both the name change, and using the share doubling for a stock split seem like an unnecessary waste of shareholder funds.

Good point about no guarantee of a stock split. It was an assumption on my part, and I would be really upset if it was used to give management options, etc. I wonder if they used similar language before the 4-for-1 split.

I noticed that the back of the Monster can already shows "2011 - Monster Beverage Corporation", with no mention of Hansen Natural Corp anywhere. This name-change business is irritating.

Lets see, the reasons given for the name change were to better communicate with:
1.) Customers - how are customers going to be confused... they're already buying cans that only say Monster.
2.) Business Partners - can't imagine any supplier, distributor, etc caring one way or another. They certainly seem to be getting along ok and making sound profits so far with the Hansen name.
3.) Investors - if anything, I see temporary confusion from the name change, and also if the ticker changes. The bigger point in my mind is - do we really need to attract the kind of shareholders that can't figure out that Hansen Natural produces Monster?

Oh well. Hopefully these are the worst decisions they make. I can live with it if they don't start making it a habit (assuming the new shares are for a split and not a bunch of options).

I haven't looked close enough to know if they've abused options in the past. A quick glance on Google finance shows them using about $180 Million for stock buybacks over the past 4 years, and the overall share count dropping from 93.2 million to 89 million.

If we swag an average price of $40/share for the buybacks over the past 4 years, they would have bought back around 4.5 million shares. The net shares actually reduced by slightly less: 4.2 million shares. So, they might have given out 0.3 million shares over the past 4 years, or 0.3% dilution? I can live with that, if that's correct.

(I'm not sure if I'm figuring it correctly, but that's what it looks like to me on the back of the envelope.)
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement