I hemmed and hawed when I saw Jennifer Openshaw's piece on MarketWatch a few weeks ago; her opinion was that Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) would recover much of its lost value in these past several months of sluggish sales, rising milk costs and slipping coolness, no matter what the naysayers, say. Her argument: that Starbucks was great because of its atmosphere and general quality standards in coffee. While I certainly agree that Starbucks is still an attractive "third place" and would pick Pike Place brew every time over McDonald's or Dunkin Donuts coffee, I hesitated. Had management already made too many mis-steps? Had hubris got the best of the 'Bucks?The latest news; that Starbucks management has plans to close 600 stores in the U.S. this year; could be an indication of positive things in the company's stock price. It certainly had traders in after-hours activity eagerly snapping up shares, sending 72 cents, or 4.6%, to $16.34 around 2 a.m. I'm always leery, though, of a huge strategy reversal such as this. In my analysis of Starbucks' financial statements, the company spends about $300,000 to start a new store, and this is largely funded through cash. Management regularly offers old furniture and equipment to its high-ranking employees when upgrading or shutting down a store, so it's unlikely that much of the cost will be recouped. Doug McIntyre noted further that Starbucks will continue to pay more millions in lease costs; the company is known for locking up prime real estate with serious long-term lease agreements. Sure, the loss won't affect the cash balance much, and the charge will be "one-time," so the financial picture will still look rosy in a year when the charge has dropped into "historical financial statements." Investors don't look back.
But by acknowledging that some $180 million in costs, not to mention the hundreds of millions probably spent to train and employ staff at these locations, was a big waste of money, Starbucks management is owning up to a future of slow growth.
Tax Reform in This Election Year: It's Not Likely
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger

