Coffee Republic Share Discussion Threads

[cold as ice] 28/7/2009 12:04

Factual warnings based on a weakening economy. Factual warnings based on persistent loss-making P & L account. Factual warnings based on liabilities exceeding assets. Facts that the barriers to entry to the industry of making coffee and cakes is tremendously low. Facts that the CEO was pub 'n' greasy spoon seller but not experienced in running a large national chain listed on the stock exchange. Those were all facts. The character of the CEO is not as much fact, but it doesn't have to be. The basis is one of judgment which is a little more subjective, but it seems one which has proven to be correct regardless of whether it was based on fact or not.

Now you can argue about the franchisees comments that is true, but related to the above it is the smallest of the issues which you have picked up on. I do notice that you have not commented on those.

You say you have chuckled over some of the comments. I don't think this is about laughing but people, but if it is, the last laugh lies with those who judged correctly. Unfortunately for the investors, unless they got out with a buck it is no laughing matter I suspect.

[krod mandoon] 28/7/2009 12:02

JAF - the FACT that they kept having to raise more money might have been a clue that things weren't going that well !!!!

[crdirect] 28/7/2009 12:01

jaf

so what happened to

usa
greene king
roadchef
scotland
china
russia

to start with a few ...lies lies and lies ....what happened to the diluted share money to aid expansion,,what happened to the cashflow positive ...are these not comments untrue if they are does this not make them conmen

[shrewd_n_sharp] 28/7/2009 11:37

What boggles the mind even more was the fact that Jim Slater's name was trumpeted as being a big catch for the CFE guys. Jim Slater is a reknown investor, whose book "Beyond the Zulu Principle" laid out some very clear guidelines on how he assesses his core holdings. Yet Jim Slater's CFE holding as a percentage of his net worth was paltry. And it went against nearly all of his "Zulu Principles". One can only conclude that, far from being a company he believed in, it couldn't have been anything more than a minute "game for a laugh" speculative punt for him.

[jonc] 28/7/2009 11:10

lol.



oh and



:-)

[growthhunter] 28/7/2009 10:42

i would even say they don't have a good brand

COSTA
NERO
STARBUCKS

....are they quaking?

CFE with thier sit up and beg seating were hardly innovative

[cufes2] 28/7/2009 09:35

Cold as Ice

Interesting post . . . It's probably over two years ago that I posted about the dangers of "groupthink" and self appointed "mindguards" . . .

[krod mandoon] 28/7/2009 09:16

You missed off
7. Don't ban people from threads because they don't positive things about CFE.

And most importantly of all

8. Never fall in love with a share or with Barty.

[cold as ice] 28/7/2009 09:13

It's funny that "hindsight" is being used as a word on here as if it come out of nowhere. No doubt there are an element of people on here who think this was a "black swan" event. But there were people warning on here about the franchises. There were people warning on here about the character of some of the owners. There were people warning on here about the economic outlook for this company. And there were people warning about the company's persistent weak finances and poor balance sheet.

But what was the response? "If you don't believe us don't criticise." "It's all in the brand". "We've got information you haven't". "You don't understand". "You need to get with the programe". "Believe". Such is the mindset in a bubble or whereby a close cabal become defensive and are unable to deal with external critique. It's the same mindset that led the internet stocks investors to the slaughter.

In other words, despite factual warnings against investing in this business, there was not a jot of factual evidence nor hard information in its defence. I think this company is going to be the subject of a few people's "case analysis" in UK business degrees, MBAs and investments magazines and journals in the future. It seems to be that the warnings (and lessons) were clear.

1. Don't invest when in a loss making debt-ridden company unless there is a clear feasible plan to turn it around
2. Don't invest in a company where management do not have experience of running such large scale operations, and where their character is unproven
3. Pay attention to the economic climate
4. Do not invest in a saturated market were supply of competitive products are high
5. Don't invest in a company for the long-term in a sector whose barriers to entry are tiny (selling coffee and cakes)
6. When investing in a company scrutinise the balance sheet and challenge the value of a "brand" or "goodwill" - especially where that "brand" or "goodwill" is generating consisten losses.

The list goes on and on. The above isn't new. It's old rope. It's such a shame a few basic were not grasped by investors with money to burn. Let's hope lessons are learned. And let's hope nobody goes under as a result of it.

[winning_streak] 24/7/2009 23:38

Well said carwhite - he wants shooting along with barstlett but, you can guarantee the idiot is under more promises! Along with Hammond and, maybe JAF.

[carwhite] 24/7/2009 11:15

Just back read some of your posts JonC about as appetising and stable as stale Saturian mouldy cheese.

If people like you had been more analytically productive in your posts instead of being outright infantile, there could have been enlightened debate here which may have saved an awful lot of people unwarranted grief over losses perhaps they can ill-afford to stand..

[jonc] 24/7/2009 08:59

ws,

English please.

[carwhite] 24/7/2009 08:32

An experience is something you learn from and move on, but this is a con and it happens all to frequently. Therefore you don't have to be SHERLOCK HOLMES in order to grasp the elementary fact the there is no clear regulation and that it wont be long before some other poor suckers are in the same boat but different company and set of crooked directors.

For me, Barty hung himself by what he posted here and stated elsewhere, and it should now be a question for the SFO.

[daimonbok] 24/7/2009 08:25

Lordkendal Have a great retirement its been fun!!:0) Ok its been an expeience.

[coffee911] 23/7/2009 19:38

So is good Karma...

[lordkendal] 23/7/2009 18:46

hindsight is a wonderful thing! :-)

[lordkendal] 23/7/2009 16:30

CFE purchases / sales details, values, cost of, all removed from SIPP's

All gone and so am I.

Its been an adventure and an experience.

Good bye and good luck to all.

Alan

[lordkendal] 22/7/2009 13:45

The thrust of the point I am making is that when you start adding a branch located nearby from a successful solid profitable base its usually fine but when the branch count gets to a certain size you need to put in the structure in people to deal with the inevitable problems that will occur especially in a far flung UK empire. No structure or unsuitable people = failure

[carwhite] 22/7/2009 13:29

So what you are saying is that if you can count to 1 then it would be difficult for you to count to 10.

I think not! As I said previously look at all the other fast food franchises, they work as its as easy as 2+2=4!

You were all sold a bummer by incapable, wannabe bums who had a golden opportunity but were only used to dealing in lead.

[ericardlussa] 22/7/2009 11:33

just freeze it Lord.Or buy some "Aqua Viagra" :)