Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse Group]

The Warehouse Group [WHS.NZ] has been in the news over the last week, with a Court of Appeal case being heard over its possible future ownership. This saga has been going on for nearly two years now.

That aside, my history of share ownership with this company goes back to 2000 when I first bought a small holding and stupidly sold them on September 11 2001. I then bought more in 2002 and have added to my holding since then.

The main reason I bought this share was that I spent an awful lot of money buying stuff there and noticed lots of other people doing the same. Not a good reason to buy a share, on its own but there are other reasons as well.


Why did you buy that stock?

Why did you buy that stock? [Freightways Ltd]
Why did you buy that stock? [Kiwi Income Property Trust]
Why did you buy that stock? [Hallenstein Glasson]
Why did you buy that stock? [Briscoe Group]
Why did you buy that stock? [Fisher & Paykel Healthcare]
Why did you buy that stock? [Pumpkin Patch Ltd]
Why did you buy that stock? [Ryman Healthcare]
Why did you buy that stock? [Michael Hill International]
Why did you buy that stock? [Mainfreight]
Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse Group]
Why did you buy that stock? [Goodman Fielder]
Why did you buy that stock? [Auckland Airport]
Why did you buy that stock? [Sky City Entertainment]

Discuss Fletcher Building at Share Investor Forum


The Warehouse and its dominant position in the market made my decision to buy even clearer. I cant ignore the fact that the company is the largest seller of various products on the New Zealand retail landscape: Music, books and gardening items are among the categories it kills.

This dominance has been impossible for other retailers to chip away at over the company's 25 year history and its low cost business model: goods straight into the store, with "just in time" delivery and sophisticated logistics make it hard for other retailers to compete on price.

It owes alot of its success to the company it is modeled on, Walmart, and apart from an awful execution of an expansion into Australia in 2000 management have been good managers of the business.

Like the other companies in this series, The Warehouse runs a business that is easy to understand and being a rather simple fellow myself that appeals to my investing genes.

The question I always ask, would I buy this share today? The answer would have to be a resounding yes. I am slightly put out that Woolworths or Foodstuffs would want to buy my shares off me because as my readers would know, I like to hold for the long term.

Being part of a larger group or on its own as a publicly listed company The Warehouse look likely to continue to dominate the New Zealand retailing scene.


The Warehouse Group @ Share Investor

Long vs Short: The Warehouse Group
Warehouse bidders ready to lay money down
The Warehouse set to cut lose "extra" impediment
The Warehouse sale could hinge on "Extra" decision
The case for The Warehouse without a buyer
Foodstuffs take their foot off the gas
Woolworths seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court
Warehouse appeal decision imminent
Warehouse decision a loser for all
Warehouse Court of appeal decision in Commerce Commission's favour
MARKETWATCH: The Warehouse
The Warehouse takeover saga continues
Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse]
History of Warehouse takeover players suggest a long winding road
Court of Appeal delays Warehouse bid
The Warehouse set for turbulent 2008
The Warehouse Court of Appeal case lay in "Extras" hands
WHS Court of Appeal case could be dismissed next week
Commerce Commission impacts on the Warehouse bottom line
The Warehouse in play
Outcomes of Commerce Commission decision
The fight for control begins soon

Share Investor Forum-Discuss this topic


Related Links

The Warehouse Financial Data

• Summary
• Charts
• Dividends
• News
• Announcements
• Price History
• Related Securities

Related Amazon reading



The Motley Fools Rule Breakers Rule Makers : The Foolish Guide To Picking Stocks by David Gardner
Buy new: $11.15 / Used from: $0.01
Usually ships in 24 hours


c Share Investor 2008 & 2009

Wrigley/Mars passes Warren Buffett's taste test

The merger of Mars Inc with Wrigley Jr Company and Warren Buffett's interest in helping fund the purchase, and having a subsequent minority stake in the merged company, to be held by his Berkshire Hathaway investment vehicle, is Warren Buffett in his element.

Wrigley and Mars as one, will make the largest confectionery business in the world and its combined brands, like Mars chocolate bars, Snickers, Doublemint and Juicyfruit will make Buffett a very happy man indeed.

Warren Buffett already owns outright or portions of some of the worlds biggest food, consumer and beverage brands: Coca Cola, Gillette, MacDonald's and America's Sees Candies among them.

He sees in Mars/Wrigley what he sees in his other holdings, companies and brands with strong histories and dominant positions in the marketplace that will survive through the turbulent times and good times alike.

He calls companies like these "Economic Moats", companies that have products to sell that have a point of difference, cannot easily be copied and are hugely dominant, and therefore see off competitors year after year. Mars/Wrigley strong brands easily fulfill this investment requirement.

Another requirement that fits Warren Buffett's investing criteria is the fact that Wrigley/Mars is a very easy business to understand. There is nothing complex about making chewing gum and chocolate bars and therefore huge continuing capital expense involved in such in industries as computing, in coming up with new technology to stay ahead of competitors isn't going to hurt the food-makers bottom line.

One thing I am not sure of, is if Buffett's main criteria for investing is being fulfilled in the Wrigley/Mars tie-up. That is, the value investing part of his investing principles. Whether he is paying too much for his stake in the merged company will only be known by the man himself and by the rest of us in time, as the merits and performance of the merged giant reveal themselves.

He is famous for making good investment decisions and I personally doubt he has made a mistake to get involved in this monumental marriage of these two sugar pushers.

In New Zealand the closest thing we have to a Wrigley/Mars is Goodman Fielder Ltd[GFF] , an Australasian food conglomerate with very strong dominant food brands and a long history of loyalty among consumers. Its brands are staples, its business easy to understand and its products consumed for breakfast lunch and dinner.

It definitely fits my investment criteria and I have a holding.

Further reading on the Mars/Wrigley merger

• MOODIE REPORT: Wrigley to be merged into Mars in U...
• MONEY TIMES: Wrigley board approves merger with Ma...
• DAILY TELEGRAPH UK: Mars $23bn deal for Wrigley wi...
• REUTERS: S&P may cut Wrigley's ratings after Mars ...
• CNBC: Warren Buffett on Wrigley's deal-Video and I...
• CNBC SQUAWK BOX: Warren Buffett Finances Mars-Wrig...
• WSJ BLOG: A Sweet Deal for Warren Buffett
• THISISMONEY.CO.UK: Pressure on Cadbury as Buffett ...
• BLOOMBERG: Buffett's Berkshire, Mars to Buy Wrigle...
• BLOOMBERG:Mars, Berkshire May Acquire Wrigley for ...
• MARKETWATCH: Mars, Buffett said near $22 billion d...
• WSJ: Mars, Buffett Team Up in Wrigley Bid

c Share Investor 2008

Vector sale decision hangs on political knife edge

From the Share Investor Blog an article with a political bite which continues in the vein of The Labour Party and its inconsistent political decisions purely based on returning them to power regardless of the real consequences and the impression it gives the voting public at large.


The dilemma I would be facing now if I was a minister in the New Zealand Government is, if I gave to go ahead for the Hong Kong based, Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings (CKI) to buy 100% of Vector (NZ Herald story) energy's[VCT] lines infrastructure, in the Wellington region, then I would be going against a decision I made just a few weeks ago to refuse the sale of a non-controlling interest in Auckland International Airport[AIA], to a Canadian pension fund, thereby making me look like an utter plonker.

On the other hand If I turned down the sale of arguably a much more "strategic" asset, again Wellington region power line infrastructure, then I would put the Chinese Government's nose out of joint by reneging on detail of various free trade agreements made only a couple of weeks ago and again look like an utter plonker.

Lets face it, our government is at least consistent in its inconsistency.The vetoed sale of the airport and Vector's Wellington lines is the same scenario whatever way one cuts the cable.To say otherwise is to be just ever so slightly more than economical with the truth. For Helen Clark to give the reasons for a go ahead for a Vector sale that "the sale doesn't include any sensitive or strategic land" is a pure unadulterated lie. She made reference to the Airport sale over this "land issue" but that deal wasn't turned down because of "sensitive land", it was turned down for political reasons.

The issue of land rights in the Vector deal may actually be applicable. The power infrastructure and lines that Vector is selling has to have easements over the land they transverse thereby making Helen Clark's claim just a generator or two short of a full load.

It is hard to say what the Labour Government will do in the Vector case, but one can be sure it will be a purely political decision, rather than the financial one it should be, and once again the investing public is unsure about how their investments will be treated by such Governments in future takeovers.The consistency we investors need, especially during these tough economic times, is found wanting by the very authorities that are supposed to be instilling security and a level hand to one of the backbones of our economy-the stockmarket and the essential funds it provides for investment and economic expansion.

The university trained political plonkers who make these decisions have clearly not woken up to the fact that they are not working in theories anymore and the real world consequences of their ludicrous strokes of the pen is costing us millions.Vector is going to retire some of its large debt with the proceeds of the sale, ironically established when management went on a buying spree around 5 years ago and borrowed heavily to buy the Networks now up for sale off United Networks.

Worryingly, Micheal Stiassny, Board Chairman and his management are also looking to use proceeds to buy more infrastructure assets, probably "greener" forms of electricity assets, like wind turbines, in which they already have interests in. Stiassny and his crew don't have a good track record in management or the purchasing of assets.

Investors marked VCT shares down 1c to NZ $2.10 on average volume on today's news.

Related Share Investor Reading

Cullen's move on Auckland Airport has far reaching effects

Related Reading

Stiassny.org

NZ Herald report on Vector sale

www.vector.co.nz

c Share Investor & Political Animal 2008

Vector sale decision hangs on political knife edge

The dilemma I would be facing now if I was a minister in the New Zealand Government is, if I gave to go ahead for the Hong Kong based, Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings (CKI) to buy 100% of Vector Vector Ltd [VCT.NZX] lines infrastructure, in the Wellington region, then I would be going against a decision I made just a few weeks ago to refuse the sale of a non-controlling interest in Auckland International Airport[ Ltd [AIA.NZX], to a Canadian pension fund, thereby making me look like an utter plonker.

On the other hand If I turned down the sale of arguably a much more "strategic" asset, again Wellington region power line infrastructure, then I would put the Chinese Government's nose out of joint by reneging on detail of various free trade agreements made only a couple of weeks ago and again look like an utter plonker.

Lets face it, our government is at least consistent in its inconsistency.

The vetoed sale of the airport and Vector's Wellington lines is the same scenario whatever way one cuts the cable.

To say otherwise is to be just ever so slightly more than economical with the truth. For Helen Clark to give the reasons for a go ahead for a Vector sale that "the sale doesn't include any sensitive or strategic land" is a pure unadulterated lie. She made reference to the Airport sale over this "land issue" but that deal wasn't turned down because of "sensitive land", it was turned down for political reasons.

The issue of land rights in the Vector deal may actually be applicable. The power infrastructure and lines that Vector is selling has to have easements over the land they transverse thereby making Helen Clark's claim just a generator or two short of a full load.

It is hard to say what the Labour Government will do in the Vector case, but one can be sure it will be a purely political decision, rather than the financial one it should be, and once again the investing public is unsure about how their investments will be treated by such Governments in future takeovers.

The consistency we investors need, especially during these tough economic times, is found wanting by the very authorities that are supposed to be instilling security and a level hand to one of the backbones of our economy. The stockmarket and the essential funds it provides for investment and economic expansion.

The university trained political plonkers who make these decisions have clearly not woken up to the fact that they are not working in theories anymore and the real world consequences of their ludicrous strokes of the pen is costing us millions.

Vector is going to retire some of its large debt with the proceeds of the sale, ironically established when management went on a buying spree around 5 years ago and borrowed heavily to buy the Networks now up for sale off United Networks.

Worryingly, Micheal Stiassny, Board Chairman and his management are also looking to use proceeds to buy more infrastructure assets, probably "greener" forms of electricity assets, like wind turbines, in which they already have interests in. Stiassny and his crew don't have a good track record in management or the purchasing of assets.

Investors marked VCT shares down 1c to NZ $2.10 on average volume on today's news.


Related Share Investor Reading

Cullen's move on Auckland Airport has far reaching effects

Related Reading

Stiassny.org
NZ Herald report on Vector sale
Vector.co.nz

Vector Ltd @ Share Investor

Long Term View: Vector Ltd

Discuss VCT @ Share Investor Forum
Download VCT Company Reports




c Share Investor 2008