Chủ Nhật, 9 tháng 12, 2018

Youtube daily Dec 9 2018

- Guess what we're making today.

Hint number one, hint number two.

Today we're making sugar cookies.

Not just any sugar cookies, but Christmas sugar cookies.

Our recipe for sugar cookies is really sturdy,

really easy, and perfect for decorating.

Let me show ya!

So we're starting with our dry ingredients.

We've got some all purpose flour, baking powder, and salt.

I'm just gonna give these a quick whisk,

and then we can move on to our wet ingredients.

We've got our two sticks of butter, some granulated sugar,

and we're just gonna cream these two together

until they're light and fluffy.

And now, last few ingredients.

See, I told you it was simple.

Egg, a splash of milk,

and a little bit of vanilla extract, a teaspoon.

This will be a pretty loose mixture,

but once we add our dry ingredients,

it'll start looking a little bit more like cookie dough.

Lets do about a third.

Alright, so there are two things

you can do with the dough at this point.

One is wrap it in plastic wrap

and fridge it for about an hour.

Or, our Kitchen Assistant June taught me

this really cool trick where you roll it out immediately,

from this stage, in between two layers of parchment

and that way, instead having to let it come to temp,

it's already rolled out so you can just cut

your shapes out and bake them immediately.

So, I've got some parchment here.

Precut, which we're obsessed with in the kitchen.

So nice, it fits perfectly on a baking sheet.

There's enough dough that we

actually probably want to do this in segments,

because we're rolling it super thin.

I've got to about an eight of an inch thick,

which is just what we want,

and I am going to just slide it onto a baking sheet.

Ready to chill. This one I'm gonna roll out,

and then I'll pop them both in the fridge for an hour.

When they're done, we'll cut them

into cute little shapes and bake 'em.

Alright, we're chilled.

So I am just gonna put this on our surface, very carefully.

And then I'm just gonna make sure both sides

of the dough are separated from their parchment paper.

So that when I cut out my shapes, they don't stick.

And best thing about this,

you can bake on the parchment you used.

I've got star, gingerbread man,

a snowflake, and a tree.

And when we're done, a special guest will help me decorate.

We have a oven preheated to 350,

and they'll bake for like eight to ten minutes.

Good luck in there.

Alright, so there are a few different types

of frosting you can use for Christmas cookies.

But, recently we've been really

into decorating them with buttercream.

So we're starting with two sticks,

and I'm just gonna whip it till it's smooth.

This is like perfectly softened butter, so satisfying.

Next, we're gonna add our powdered sugar.

It's a lot, I know.

And we're just gonna beat this

until there are absolutely no lumps.

The good thing about this frosting

is even though it's really sweet,

the cookies actually aren't that sweet.

So this sweet frosting plus the not too sweet cookie

is like the perfect balance.

So now, it looks like we're about ready

for some more powdered sugar.

This could be flavored, really, any way you like it.

You could put lemon zest in it.

We're gonna throw some almond extract in it.

So, in order to bring this together,

we have a few more ingredients.

We have a little bit of heavy cream,

some salt just to balance all the sugar,

and this is some almond extract

which is actually one of my faves.

Ah, it smells so good.

Smells like holidays.

Add a little more cream.

If you've never tried baking with almond extract before

and you like the flavor, you should really give it a try

because it gives a whole new dimension to your baked goods.

Alright, so I have separated the buttercream

into three bowls and I have a very special guest

to help me decorate, Makinze,

our amazing Test Kitchen Assistant.

- [Makinze] Hello. I always start out with about that much,

- [Lena] Okay. (laughs)

- [Makinze] Cause you can always add more.

- That's true. - You can't take away.

You can add a little frosting if you need.

- Oh smart. But yeah, it's so much more fun

with another person with me.

You can actually talk.

- You have to decorate Christmas cookies together.

- That's true. Makinze's favorite piping tips.

- [Makinze] So these are both open star tips,

and this is just a round tip.

- What are you going to decorate first?

- Um, I don't know, maybe a snowflake, I love snowflakes.

- Makinze loves snow so much.

I had friends that never saw snow

until they were in college,

but you did, you grew up with snow.

- And I still love it.

Alright, we've got our cookies, we're ready to decorate.

- [Makinze] Frosting bag, I like to twist it.

Hold your bag at the top, not down here,

cause then it's all gonna shoot out this way.

You can use your hand to steady if you need.

So just to do, pipe a little dot, apply pressure,

release pressure, and then pull off.

It looks like mini trees on top of the tree.

- [Lena] Oh my god, you're totally right.

If you don't want to go through all the trouble

of piping bag, piping tip, it's a great spreadable frosting.

- [Makinze] The student has become the master.

So with this tip, the round open tip,

if you don't want to pipe dots, you can just swirl it.

- [Lena] Swirl. - [Makinze] Zig zag it.

You can do this with the other tips too,

and it creates just more texture.

These are a few really simple ways to make your cookies

look amazing, and there's infinite varieties

of ways you could decorate them.

I think we're gonna keep decorating.

(upbeat music)

- Alright, so that's how you make super easy,

delicious Christmas cookie with

a beautiful buttercream frosting.

So go out there, grab a buddy, and decorate some cookies.

Boop. Mm, yeah, we did a good job.

- Mm-hmm. Happy holidays.

- Happy holidays. Fade out, snowflakes coming down.

- Snow falling behind us. (laughs)

- Jingle bells in the distance?

- Sleigh rides. - Santa!

(upbeat music)

For more infomation >> How To Make Perfect Sugar Cookies With Buttercream Frosting | Delish Insanely Easy - Duration: 6:29.

-------------------------------------------

Beyond Scared Straight: Tori Update One Year Later (Season 3 Flashback) | A&E - Duration: 4:14.

For more infomation >> Beyond Scared Straight: Tori Update One Year Later (Season 3 Flashback) | A&E - Duration: 4:14.

-------------------------------------------

Pawn Stars: Custom Dodgers Autographed Baseball Bench Table (Season 12) | History - Duration: 4:59.

For more infomation >> Pawn Stars: Custom Dodgers Autographed Baseball Bench Table (Season 12) | History - Duration: 4:59.

-------------------------------------------

Tax Cuts After One Year – Thousands Of Layoffs, Massive Corporate Profits - Duration: 4:54.

We're only a couple weeks away from the one year anniversary of Donald Trump signing the

tax cuts and jobs act, which really had nothing to do with jobs that just cut taxes for major

corporations who already weren't paying their taxes and it cut taxes on millionaires and

billionaires while the rest of us get absolutely nothing.

But anyway, that was signed into law by President Trump on December 22nd 2017.

So here we are almost a full year later, and the big question everybody has, God is where

are the jobs?

You know, this is the tax cuts and jobs act.

Republicans swore every day Paul Ryan was incessant with it, telling us the corporations

are about to create thousands upon thousands of new jobs for United States citizens.

Where are they?

We were all going to get raises.

Remember?

Remember that talking point, everybody's going to get a raise.

Every is going to start getting these bonuses.

What happened with that?

What happened at company is reinvesting in their own company, expanding all of that,

hiring new people, being more efficient.

That didn't happen either.

What we've seen over the last year are hundreds of thousands of jobs cut hundreds of thousands

of jobs lost, not because companies aren't profitable anymore, but because they want

to retain more of that profit and the only way to do that for them is to cut their staff

so they don't have to worry about that salary and those benefits anymore.

We have seen corporations buy back their own stocks.

In fact, corporate stock buybacks are at an all time high right now and all that does

is enrich the shareholders.

The board of directors and the CEOs does nothing to actually help the health of the company

or the workers themselves.

And only about 13 percent of the companies who got the tax cuts said they were going

to let any of it at all trickled down to their employees or be used to expand their companies.

So we all got screwed.

And we all know that.

I mean, everybody's been looking at their paycheck every time.

They get one this year and we understand we didn't get a damn thing from this, but what's

worse is that not only did we not get a damn thing is that a couple of hundred thousand

people lost their jobs and they didn't lose their jobs because they worked for a crappy

company.

These weren't just all toys r US employees or sears employees who got laid off when the

company shut down.

These are massively profitable corporations and they're the same corporations.

By the way, according to a new report from Joshua Israel, I think progress who lobbied

for this bill, they spent $48, million dollars lobbying for this tax cut.

There was a coalition and you can read this story and find out how to sculpting it is.

It's A.

There's a link to it in the description of this video, but a thing.

Progress points out that there was a coalition of 32 businesses that were fighting tooth

and nail to get this tax cuts and jobs act passed.

Some of the folks involved in that includes Aetna AT&T Altrea, CVS, Kimberly Clark, Home

Depot, Intel, Ford, General Dynamics.

Northrop Grumman, Nike, a SNP Global, Southern Company, T-Mobile, UPS, Verizon, Viacom, Walmart,

Reynolds, Raytheon, FedEx, all of those people gathered together.

They created this unholy alliance of corporations to get this tax cut passed, not because they

wanted more money to give their workers that money was already sitting in the bank.

Corporations, big banks, they're doing better than ever.

They've got the money to give to their employees, to pay a living wage, to give them benefits

are better healthcare for God's sake.

They just choose not to and instead these companies out of the ones I just listed and

a couple that were also part of the coalition, decided to use cut jobs instead.

The job cutters who also received a tax cut and in fact lobbied for it include AT&T, Brown

Foreman, Capital One, Cox Enterprises for General Dynamics, Intel, Kimberly Clark, Lockheed

Martin, Macy's, Northrop, t mobile, verizon, Viacom, Walmart, Walt Disney, Edison Electric,

and the National Retail Federation, which also does represent people like Toys R Us,

Macy's, Sears, K-Mart, JC Penney, and Footlocker.

Among others.

They didn't want to give money to the workers.

They didn't want to expand their businesses.

They were doing just fine as they were.

There was not enough demand to need an expansion.

All they wanted was more money in the pockets of their CEOs, the pockets of their board

directors in the pockets of their ultra wealthy shareholders.

That's what this tax cut was about.

So we're one year on, we've exploded the deficit trying to pay for these idiotic tax cuts for

the wealthy.

Got Everything.

While the rest of us got completely screwed, because Republicans don't care what happens

to us, they only care what happens to their wealthy donors.

For more infomation >> Tax Cuts After One Year – Thousands Of Layoffs, Massive Corporate Profits - Duration: 4:54.

-------------------------------------------

Music & The Spoken Word: Christmas Special - Live Stream December 9, 2018 - Duration: 1:27:24.

For more infomation >> Music & The Spoken Word: Christmas Special - Live Stream December 9, 2018 - Duration: 1:27:24.

-------------------------------------------

Palace Confirm: Prince Harry furious after William of trying to wreck his relationship with Meghan - Duration: 10:12.

Prince Harry went mental and accused William of trying to wreck his relationship with Megan.

Palace insiders say he's going all out to protect his wife

Because he couldn't do the same for his mother

The real reason Harry and Meghan are moving to Windsor is because of tensions between the two brothers

It's claimed

Initially it was.

The frosty relationship

Between Meghan and Kate was

Is to blame for the Duke and Duchess of

Sussex is moved from

From Kensington Palace

But the driving force behind the Divide

Is actually friction between Harry and William

According to the Sun

The paper claims Harry has accused William of trying

Direct his marriage after his older brother voiced concerns over Mega

The Duke of Sussex

Sex is also said to be overly protective about his wife because he couldn't do the same for Princess Diana

Apellis Insider told the Sun

It's my opinion

That Perry feels he couldn't protect his mother

So he's going all out to protect

His wife

This is his way of atoning

He will broke absolutely no criticism of Megan

And he is so sensitive he often sees criticism or negativity where there isn't any

The first team to French

In between the brother

Came when Harry introduced William to Megan

37

The first time she came to stay at Kensington Palace

Once she left

William reportedly warned Harry

But they didn't know her intentions in her back

According to the paper

Harry then reportedly went mental

And accused his brother of trying

To finish their relationship

Before it started

Other whales are thought to have it

Express their concerns to the Duke of Sussex

Kensington Palace refused

To comment when I approached by mail in line

It comes after The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Failed to attend the board meeting of the royal Foundation this week amid rumors of a royal Rift with the Duke and Duchess

Joseph Sussex

William and Kate leave the foundation together with Harry and Meghan

But while the Duke and Duchess of Sussex both attended the meeting

As well as a staff Christmas

Miss party afterwards

The other two members of the

So cold Fab Four didn't show up

Kensington Palace inside

That the cambridges were not expected

But a source admitted

That it was a shame they didn't attend the meeting for the subject

Compartir

Rumors of a rift

Between the Cambridge

And the Sussex is hats

Spread like wildfire following the announcement

Harry

34

And Megan

37

Are set to move away from Kensington Palace to Frogmore cotton

And the latest chapter of the rumored rivalry saw Harry and Meghan attend the board meeting alone

A source revealed

Not only were Harry and Meghan there

But they went to the staff Christmas party after

It was a very jolly affair

It's a shame

That William and Catherine did not turn off

Kensington Palace inside

Did the cambridges had not been

Expected

Their Royal highnesses attend these meetings in turn

A spokesman said

This session was focused on programs led by the Duke of Sussex

Although the rift has mostly focused on the relationship

Between Meghan and Kate recent reports suggest

That the issue is actually between William and Harry

That according to the Sun

A royal Source claims that Harry is accusing William of trying

Direct his relationship

With Megan

William is believed to have voice

This concerns about Megan to his brother

And Harry's overprotectiveness of his wife

Has apparently driven a wedge between the two brothers

One-party or told the Sun

It's my opinion

That Perry feels he couldn't protect his mother

So he's going all out to protect his wife

This is his way of atoning

He will broke absolutely no criticism of Megan

And he is so sensitive he often sees criticism or negativity where there isn't any

The friction between the two apparently started when William tried to give Harry some brotherly advice about the Canadian

Back when there romance was still fairly new

However the chat went down badly with one friend saying that Harry went mental

The friend added

That the relationship

Between the two brothers

Has never really recovered since

The Source also revealed that Megan felt rebuffed

When she tried to befriend Kate

And that the brothers are competing against each other over Palace

Appointments

. Megan apparently tried to approach K to learn the Rope

But the Duchess of Cambridge

Was preoccupied with her children Prince Lewis

George V

And Charlotte

3

The Duchess of Sussex

This is also said to be surprising the Royal household with

Just how clean her mind is

Dark Harry and Meghan are set to move out of Kensington Palace

And away from William and Kate to make a new home at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor

Officially

The couple are moving to have their own space for their new child who is doing the spring

However rumors have spread since the announcer

That a secret Family Feud is the real reason for the move

What do you think

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

Thank you for watching

Please like and share if you feel the video is useful

The truth is coming out

Harry and Meghan Markle

A week later reports emerged about a rest between the two couple

Including

So it would appear the problem lies within the to bother

The Daily Mail

The report continues he believed his big brother wasn't doing enough to welcome Megan into the Royal Family

Apparently Prince Charles was at

To step in

Telling his eldest to make more of an effort

Need not worry too much

Another pill close to the brothers advice

They are still Incredibly Close

Closer than most siblings

But he has married was about to become a father so it's a good time for him to be planning his own future

Meanwhile

There might be something in the sister-in-laws not quite

Kate

36

37

Appearance

But it is said they were very different women

Despite their similar circumstances

A source told the Daily Telegraph

Megan is an extrovert

What does Candace quite shy

Why there is a rumored feud between Prince Harry and William

A feud between angry princess

Just before the holidays

No

It's not Netflix original Christmas movie

Are Prince Harry and Prince William

The truth is

We have no idea

The only thing we know is what people are saying about this alleged which is that tensions between

Very have to do with the letters

This week

A spokesperson for Megan and Harry told the Daily Mail

The pair would be leaving Kensington Palace for a different home

The Duke and Duchess of

Sussex will move to Frogmore early next year

Child

The spokesperson for the royal couple

Windsor is a very special place for the Royals

The Duke and duchess's office will continue to be based at Kensington Palace

The couple previously lived at Nottingham Cottage

Which is on the ground

Kensington Palace

A place that Harry reportedly has very little interest in being anymore

Fairy Tail Fairy in prison

Can't wait to get out

But the seventies that it was tensions between Harry and brother William that led to the split from Kensington Palace

Purse was for the Sun

Originally planning on living apartments

That due to some

Harry and Meghan don't want to live next to William and Mandy Moore clothing

Strike out on their own

Does this really mean that Perry and Williams

Harry wants to be his own person

That doesn't exactly scream

More like healthy family boundaries

Which isn't

To say that real tension isn't possible

Vanity Fair

A source allegedly a mutual friend to the princess claimed that Harry was annoyed last year when William wasn't

Carpet for Megan

Out of the Vanity Fair Star Wars

They had a bit of a fall out which was only resolved when Charles

Steps to make an effort

Was allegedly resolved when Kate and William invited Harry and Meghan to spend Christmas

17 with them

Yes

Unfortunately

Of which there is approximately zero evidence

Recently gushed to about Megan

It's such a special time to have little kitties

If an investor in a video that

Was posted to

To Twitter

George

Charlotte and Lewis as well

It'll be really special

A food

Honestly

For more infomation >> Palace Confirm: Prince Harry furious after William of trying to wreck his relationship with Meghan - Duration: 10:12.

-------------------------------------------

Why We All Owe a Debt to the Late, Great Corporate Gadfly Evelyn Davis - Duration: 5:35.

Robert Brokamp: So, Alison, what's up? Alison Southwick: Well, kind of some sad news.

The world recently lost what Jena McGregor at The Washington Post called, "a theatrical

but persistent thorn in the side of corporate executives," by which I mean Evelyn Nesbit.

She was a colorful character and an indefatigable shareholder activist prior to her passing

on November 4th, so let's take a look back on her life, shall we?

Brokamp: Let's do it! Southwick: Were you familiar with her?

Brokamp: I've never heard the name before so I'm in for a treat, I think.

Southwick: Here we go.

Evelyn Yvonne De Jong was born in 1929 in Amsterdam.

She was the daughter of a neurologist father and a psychologist mother.

She grew up, as she put it, on the wrong side of the Atlantic Ocean but the very right side

of the track so, yes, they were wealthy.

However, in 1942, while her father was lecturing in the United States, the Nazis arrested the

family because they were half-Jewish and sent Evelyn, her mother, and her brother to a series

of concentration camps, eventually in Czechoslovakia.

She was there for quite a while.

After the war she ended up in the U.S. and started investing with the money she got from

a divorce settlement and her father's will.

She did pretty well and she started asking tough questions at shareholder meetings.

In 1965 she started publishing her annual newsletter called "Highlights and Lowlights"

of annual meetings with her views on business, politics, travel, and shareholder activism.

As she proclaimed, "Institutional investors get treated like royalty, individual investors like peasants."

Brokamp: She was a real Fool! She was the original Fool!

Southwick: Well, let me tell you about some of the things she did and see if you aspire to this.

According to The Washington Post, Evelyn would attend roughly 40 shareholder meetings a year

crusading for many goals, including democratizing corporate governance.

She would love to lambast errant CEOs and she admits to attracting attention to Evelyn Davis.

She told People magazine in 1996 that advancing corporate democracy and educating her readers

was not her sole mission or even her primary objective.

"The main thing," she said, "is to keep my name out in front."

She loved to cause a scene at shareholder meetings, including stripping down to a bathing suit

demanding the CEO, himself, come move the mic closer to her chair [and sure enough,

the CEO got down on his hands and knees, unplugged the microphone, and moved it to where she wanted.]

This kept coming up in articles. She wore hot pants to a shareholder meeting.

I don't even know what hot pants are. Brokamp: I was going to say.

What are hot pants? Southwick: But they are controversial.

She wore a batman mask to ABC's shareholder meeting after they premiered the campy Batman

show back in the '60s.

Brokamp: Was she supporting it or protesting it?

Southwick: I have no idea. Brokamp: I hope supporting it.

Southwick: She wore an aluminum dress to a U.S. Steel meeting.

Brokamp: What? Southwick: She told Lee Iacocca he was fat.

She also told someone else, "You're no threat to me. You're too fat."

She informed the chairman of Citigroup that she had him by the "things" that people sometimes

say they have men by. Brokamp: Hm, interesting!

Southwick: She did all of this in front of shareholder meetings. Rooms of people.

Rooms of, let's be honest, men in suits. Stuffy men in suits, who would jeer, sometimes cheer.

Some of the issues she fought for were high CEO compensation, increased transparency,

and ending the system of staggered terms for directors.

I need to look into why that's not a hot topic.

In 1996, People magazine called her, "the nation's most obstreperous corporate gadfly,"

in 2002, Vanity Fair called her the most famous and least-loved shareholder activist in the country,

and in 1993 Washingtonian magazine named her one of the 25 most annoying Washingtonians.

But, let's be honest. That's saying something.

Brokamp: That is saying something. How do you choose?

Southwick: When Peter Carlson of the Post wrote a profile on her in 2003, she called

him up and suggested the headline herself, which was, "I was gifted with both extraordinary beauty

and extraordinary brains, and I've used them both to my utmost advantage."

Even though she passed away this week, she already had her gravestone [although it was

more like a monument] installed in 1981 in Rock Creek Park.

Brokamp: Wow! That is estate planning right there.

Southwick: It lists her resume, her many marriages and divorces [I think there were four],

and the phrase, "Power is greater than love and I did not get where I am by standing in line

nor being shy," which is very true.

One of her ex-husbands is also buried there, but it only lists his accomplishment as being her ex-husband.

Nell Minow, who listeners of Motley Fool Money will recognize [she's also a big shareholder activist]

was quoted in the 2002 Vanity Fair piece and sums it up nicely.

She was quoted as saving, "The Evelyn Davises of the future are on the Yahoo message boards."

Remember this is 2002.

Minow says, "It used to be that you had to be financially independent and willing to

be very controversial in order to confront corporate management.

Now you can sit in your bedroom at your computer and be a shareholder activist.

This is going to create a million new Evelyns."

So shareholder activism has become easier because of the internet, but let's be honest.

I wouldn't even expect Bro to wear hot pants to a shareholder meeting...

Brokamp: Is that a challenge? Southwick: … whatever they are.

And that, Bro, is what's up.

For more infomation >> Why We All Owe a Debt to the Late, Great Corporate Gadfly Evelyn Davis - Duration: 5:35.

-------------------------------------------

Michael Shearn: Invest in Leadership - Duration: 27:04.

Andy Cross: I'm Motley Fool chief investment officer, Andy Cross. At our recent member event

in Denver, Colorado, Motley Fool CEO Tom Gardner interviewed author and investor

Michael Shearn. Michael has racked up an impressive track record

thanks to his deep focus on culture and leadership.

Tom Gardner: Michael is one of my favorite investors to follow. I first met him in at

Conscious Capitalism. He has an incredible focus on leadership principles and culture

and has done a lot of original research in how to evaluate whether you have an authentic

team that's trying to solve an important problem that has long-term prospects that matter vs.

something that might be a little bit more superficial of an effort. I've learned a lot

from Michael, and I look forward to getting to share some of his insights with you today.

The first question I have, Michael, is, could you share a little bit of your journey in

becoming an investor? When did you start? When did it take hold with you? And when did

you really get to feeling that you're in the zone of mastery? I know you're so humble that

you won't suggest that you're there, but, a little bit about the journey?

Michael Shearn: I started to read about Warren Buffett when I was 17. That first spurred it.

And I liked process-oriented things, so I've been doing it for 20-plus years now.

I started off investing in discounts, bankruptcies and special situations. Slowly, I started

seeing this pattern that leadership is actually what I should be looking for. I would say that

I've evolved a lot. I used to look for bankruptcies and have a completely different mentality.

Today, I'm purely looking at leaders. That's how it's evolved.

Gardner: And why did that happen? Was there an "Aha!" moment that you weren't getting

the returns you wanted from distressed equities or deep turnarounds? That can be a very profitable

way to invest. What unlocked focusing on leadership? Shearn: I'd say, I like to invest in chefs now.

I was investing in a lot of cooks. And what happened is that I'd have a lot of multi-bagger wins,

but I'd also have a lot of losses. Over time, you're breaking even. Something about

losses is, in 2008, I was down 40%. The following year, I was up 82%. And everybody thought

I was a genius. And I was like, if you do the math, I just broke even for two years.

I've always liked a certain type of leader. I felt icky with a lot of different kinds

of other leaders. But I gravitated to one, it just took me a long time to get rid of

my old value investing roots.  Gardner: Awesome. We'll talk a little bit

more about that. I want to hear the icky qualities that you identify. But before we do,

because you manage money, I know we have a disclaimer page that must be shown. Or, did it --

it was already shown, OK. You were all able to read that insect print, very rapidly assess it?

Good, awesome! You have a really interesting portfolio structure today.

You own, I believe, four or five companies. A very concentrated portfolio.

And you're maybe around 30% in cash. Can you talk through

how you made the decisions to run such a concentrated

portfolio and have so much cash on the sidelines as a money manager? And then, what those companies

are that you're invested in? Shearn: I'm concentrated because there's

just not that many great ideas. I've always followed the concentrated approach. The cash

is just a function of actually, we have a lot of cash on the sidelines. The way we run it,

it's 30% of the portfolio, but we have a lot of cash. It's just dependent on how

the opportunity set is. I'd love to buy a lot of these companies, but they're just not

hitting my target price. I own Shopify, Arista, which I actually got the idea for from Motley Fool,

Appian is in there, and Brookfield Asset Management has been a long-term holding

for me. I'm looking for compounding machines. The name of the fund is Compound Money Fund.

That's companies that can reinvest and grow, that you can own for super long periods of time.

Gardner: I know in 2017, you earned

more than 40%. How much were you in cash during that year to have generated those returns? Ballpark?

Shearn: Over 25% or something like that.

I'd like to be fully invested. I'm overthinking that this cash position was from my fear of 2008,

and not having any optionality. I was fully invested in 2007, and when it hit,

I had to make two decisions -- what to sell so I could buy something else. So, I'm rethinking this decision.

Gardner: I want to talk about each of those

companies a little bit, then really spend our time talking about how you evaluate leadership

and culture. It'll be embedded in your answers, I'm sure, as well. Let's start with Brookfield

Asset Management. Why? Shearn: It was Bruce Flatt. One of my criteria

-- I have a very simple acronym I use, it's IP. One of them is, it's somebody that's intrinsically motivated.

That means that they're process-oriented. Bruce is super disciplined. When I'd read

articles about Bruce Flatt -- and that's how we do a lot our research. We get historical articles.

It'd be articles about him passing on a company when the rival bid $0.50 more.

He had this track record of this extreme discipline, and not being emotionally involved.

What I like about him is, Bruce has $250 billion under management, in a way, and he treats

everyone the same. This is a pattern I find with great leaders. He doesn't differentiate, like,

"This person's important, therefore I'm going to include them." It doesn't matter

who you are, he's going to treat you the same. That makes him very accessible. That's one

of the beauties I liked about Bruce. Gardner: How about Arista?

Shearn: Reading about Andy Bechtolsheim, and how he took his own money to develop a product.

That story is what turned me on. Basically, he funded it with his own money

for years before he actually started bringing outside money in. I think that says a lot.

He really wanted to get a good product before he brought in other stakeholders.

Gardner: I think they were offline for four years before launching their first solution.

What about Appian? Shearn: The other pattern is,

most of these CEOs I'm invested in are introverts in a way.

They think in terms of patterns. They create environments.

When I was reading about Matt Calkins, he's trying to create an environment

where his employees are highly engaged. Kind of the same story, he self-funded it,

bootstrapped it. The one article that, I said, "This is our person," is when he walked away from his

large option package when he was like 23 years old. That told me that he's not motivated

by money. That's what got me really interested to look into him more.

Gardner: We know that story of Jeff Bezos walking away from his big bonus at D.E. Shaw.

He just had to wait a few more months, and he would have had a seven-figure bonus.

And he decided, "Listen, that's not the priority for me." For Jeff, it's the regret minimization

framework, as I'm sure you know. His view is to simulate lying on his deathbed and to

ask himself whenever he's facing an important decision, what will I be proud that I chose to do,

in that moment when my life is towards its end? And he said, "It won't be that

I waited around for four months for a bonus when e-commerce was growing at 1,000% a month

or something extreme in the very early period." He's like, "I don't want to miss those four months,

so I'm going to go." So, you have Matt Calkins at MicroStrategy with a big bonus

of equity, sitting out there and saying, "Nope, I'm going to leave and start my business."

What about Shopify? Shearn: This is one of my favorites.

The reason is because I like CEOs I can learn from.

That's another pattern. And every time I hear Tobit speak,

it changes my way of thinking about how businesses should be run. With Tobi,

I think what got me is that his higher purpose is that he wants to lower the barriers to entrepreneurship.

This is not about a product, this is about making it easy for people to

compete with an Amazon, and being able to do it on equal terms, and also taking away

all the problems that entrepreneurs face that actually causes them to fail. Like the payments,

starting from there. That's a huge problem. He wants all entrepreneurs to be able to focus

on their product, which is going to give them a bigger chance for success. That's very much

his purpose, is lowering this barrier for entrepreneurship. I just think that's a really cool thing.

I do own Alibaba, too. That's one I forgot.

Gardner: Of course, Jack Ma.

Shearn: Yeah. Gardner: What happens for you when Jack Ma decides --

Shearn: I sell. It's just a discipline thing. Yeah, I sell. It's like a chef and a cook.

Daniel Zhang is kind of a cook. He's not the chef. Same thing with Cook at Apple. The thing

about a chef is, it looks like they're not doing much, but if you watch a chef in the kitchen,

it's just those little details that really make the company better. And they have

a different mentality than the cooks.

Gardner: Tim Cook at Apple has been an incredible performer.

He's certainly delivered. But what is it about that that caused you to say,

"Still, my discipline would, even looking back, suggest that I not buy that stock?"

Shearn: I think Apple's gone from being highly innovative to efficiency-oriented. That's

one of my filters. If you look at Apple products today, there really hasn't been insane innovation.

They've kind of made things better or added a couple of features, but there's nothing like

what you saw under Jobs. Not to criticize him, he's just got a different mentality than Jobs.

At Apple, his role was always efficiency, how to make things more efficient.

So, that's what he's doing now as CEO, vs. Jobs, who was, "Let's get great products out there."

Gardner: So, of course, you're not suggesting that someone

couldn't succeed as an efficiency-focused investor.

But why do you focus on the chef and innovation vs. a series of awesome cooks

and great efficiency? Shearn: I think you just have lower risk.

When I invested in Jack Ma, I watched a documentary called Crocodile In The Yangtze. It's out there

on Amazon. This is beautiful, because they're filming Jack Ma when he was a young guy,

and he's talking to a group of 20 people, like, "Our purpose is to raise China,

the small businesses of China on a worldwide scale." Here's a guy being filmed -- he had no idea

who he'd become. It's just something about these purpose-driven people. Their decision-making

framework is way different. When every decision is framed, "how do we make life easier for

an entrepreneur to start a business" vs. "how do we create a product?"

One of the things I look at is, a lot of these efficiency people talk about, "How do we sell

more to a customer?" So, I was looking at looking at GoDaddy. In the conference call archive,

they're talking about selling more products to their existing customer base,

"How can we do that, and if we sell $2 more... " That's a whole different mentality than

Tobi, who comes at it like, "How do we solve the shipping problem for entrepreneurs on

their online business?" It's a whole different viewpoint.

Gardner: Could you give us a checklist by which we could evaluate a leader of

one of the companies that we're invested in? I know you wrote the book The Investment Checklist.

What would be some items for somebody who's sitting out there saying, "I really have no

idea how I would determine whether the CEO of Appian is amazing, decent, or going to

be a problem for that company?" What are a few items that we should focus on?

Shearn: I use the acronym IP. First, I want them to be intrinsically motivated. I have

an acquaintance named Mike Lombardi. He used to work with Bill Belichick. One of the stories

I love that he told me about Belichick was, he said, "If you watch him carefully in films,"

and I'm not a big football fan, but he said, "if you watch him in films, if they score

a touchdown and he didn't feel they did a good process, he would frown. And if the other

side scored a touchdown, but they did good, he would smile." And he always would convene

the coaches after a Super Bowl win to go over what they did right or wrong. He was motivated

by the process. Outcome-oriented is the opposite. These people

are the ones that are motivated by money, prestige. You could simply sometimes google their lifestyle.

It's out there. Gardner: Yacht. The word yacht next to your CEO.

Shearn: Yeah. Most of the CEOs I'm invested in,

some live well. Bruce Flatt is now a billionaire, he lives in the same apartment he's had in

Toronto and New York for 20 years. Hasn't changed his lifestyle. There is a pattern.

Tobi has changed a little. It's more like, if they're out doing the charity circuit,

or the art markets, those kinds of things tell me that they're more extrinsically-focused.

The coaches in football, they're out for a win. They're not going to convene their coaches

after a Super Bowl win and say, "Hey, what'd we do wrong and right?" They're going to go

drink champagne and get drunk. There's something to that.

Gardner: It's pretty interesting how you've traveled around and met with a variety of CEOs.

How do you get those meetings? And what is happening in those conversations? Are you

meeting with them in their office? How do you spend the time that you get with leaders?

Who are a few people you've met, and what impression did they make on you?

Shearn: Good people are accessible. Most people don't go to shareholder meetings.

I haven't gone to Amazon's, but I hear there's like 40 people that go. I have a friend that

goes every year. The thing is, if you find out that they're on a board, and there's another

company there that's presenting, they're not the star of the show, you could go.

They're accessible. Sometimes, I'll send ideas or write them.

Gardner: You'll write an idea to the CEO or investor relations?

Shearn: About what they're doing. Not their investor relations, never. I usually meet

them at the end. Good people are accessible. You can go to Brookfield's investor day.

It's open to anybody. They don't say, "You have to be a certain size." They just say, "Whoever

shows up, shows up." You can have some one-on-one time there. What's accessible.

Gardner: One of the findings of your work that I've shared at a couple of talks in

the past is what you discovered about the impact of parenting on some of the best chefs

in the public markets. What was it that you found? Do still believe that to be true today?

Shearn: I do. What happened is, my partner and I, we were studying the best of the best.

I've been around a lot of CEOs. Their intensity is insane. They're always on. They never chit-chat with you.

They just have this extreme level of intensity. So, we were like, "Why are they

different than others?" I was talking to another CEO, and we had a three-hour conversation,

and he was like, "Well, I had good parents." And it was like, "Yeah, but you're also retired

and enjoying life and traveling." Why is it that that person over there just keeps going and going?

And we kind of stumbled upon it. It's basically,

they've all had very bad childhoods, very traumatic. It's an extreme. All of us could

say we had, maybe, a bad parent or something. I'm talking very extreme. Warren Buffett's

mother would constantly belittle him. That came out, Warren Buffett said, "I have great parents,"

and then when the book Snowball came out, his sister openly said,

"No, she would belittle us, tell us we were worthless." If you look at history, I was just looking

at Pope Francis' background. His mother did not want him to be a priest. In fact,

she didn't even go to his seminary when he was in seminary school. To her dying days,

she did not want him to be a priest. She was disappointed in him constantly.

The other side is, they do have a mentor. It was his grandmother that gave him the positive reinforcement.

They're wired differently. You look at the siblings. Warren Buffett responded

one way, his sisters responded in a completely different way. We just found, if you start

paying attention, Leonardo da Vinci, you name it, you start seeing this pattern.

Gardner: That one of their parents pushed them or doubted them or treated them as incapable

in important ways relative to what it is they wanted to do?

Shearn: Not doubted. I think, there was something wrong with the parent, intrinsically wrong.

Like, they had psychological issues. There was something wrong with Warren Buffett's

mother that was psychological. You can't manufacture it. I can't raise my kids, and one will

become a drug addict and the other one successful. It's got to be sincere. Walt Disney, his father

would walk around the parks and go, "This just shows me how stupid people are,

that they go to this." And Walt put his dad's name in Los Angeles, and the dad was like, "I don't

want my name on this. This is insanity." Gardner: How do you evaluate that with your

five companies? Who are you talking to about that? Do you go directly to the CEO and ask them?

Do you give a phone call to their parents? Do you talk to people around them, their friends and family?

Shearn: I hate saying, unless it's public,

then I'll talk about it, but they all definitely have a function of this,

for sure. I'm partnered with a research librarian, and it's unbelievable what she's able to find.

Gardner: I wanted to talk about that. It's very interesting what Michael did in his money

management practices. Instead of hiring a financial analyst to work with him, who has

a background in studying businesses, you went and hired Anne. Her background, why did you

make that hire? What's the implication of that?

Shearn: The thing about librarians is they're into the fact business. Analysts want their

idea in the portfolio. But with Anne, she just stated matter-of-fact. It was more fact-based,

more rational. It wasn't about selling, it wasn't about a story. It was just, this is

what happened. I think, that different mentality, we can be a lot more rational. She's a great thinker.

I'm a black-and-white thinker. We complement each other quite well.

Gardner: How many companies do you look at a year?

Shearn: We've looked at every publicly traded, but, we have a pass list. We look at them quickly.

When I was reading about GoDaddy, it was on my list, I read a conference call archive,

and I said, "That's all I need to know." We have a very high bar. That's the beauty

of a concentrated portfolio. If you have really high comparisons, you're just

basically like -- and this is a term I stole from your brother -- a Mount Rushmore type CEO.

This is something I learned recently that brought all our research together in some ways.

Gardner: How many are familiar with David's Mount Rushmore idea? Good. Let's hear about it.

Shearn: David basically made the comment, they were asking him about Tesla, and he said,

"Well, he's a great CEO, but he's not on my Mount Rushmore list." And Anne and I were like,

"Wow, who's on our Mount Rushmore list here in our own portfolio?" And we ended up

selling two companies based on that alone. [audience laughs]

If you have better criteria -- I used to call it the perfect spouse theory. The better your spouse,

the less you're looking around. You've got it good. The grass is green on my side.

Same thing happens with portfolio companies. It's a form of comparison. Is this CEO like

Tobi? No? Gone. So, we're able to filter through a lot of ideas based on that comparison.

Gardner: I want to give you a minute just to advocate for Shopify. How many Shopify

shareholders are in the room? Great! Shopify makes up what percentage of your overall portfolio? Ballpark?

Shearn: I think it's 20% now, but that's

been through appreciation. We never sell them. I've learned that.

Gardner: Maybe a little bit about the company, but also maybe dig a little deeper about Tobi,

and some things that you've observed about him.

Shearn: I talk to a lot of the people that work at Shopify. Once we really get to know

a company, we talk to people internally. Little stories you hear about Tobi...

One, Tobi's always trying to ruin his own company. There are these stories of, he goes out into the

server farms and pulls a server to crash the system. Tobi's always thinking about,

how can I destroy Shopify? And in a lot of ways, when you're partnered with somebody like that,

I think good things happen.  That's actually how I got to meet him.

I said, "I'm a shareholder," and he walked away from me. Then I said, "Tobi, I actually know how

to destroy your company," and he turned around and started engaging. I had to come up with

something very quickly about culture and engagement. I was like, "Oh, uh, uh, I didn't think he'd turn."

But, he's constantly thinking through this. There was a recent interview that Tobi

did where he was talking about autonomy and what that means. What he was talking about is,

he wants people to bring themselves to work. He contrasted that to Alphabet. He said,

"I'd hate to be Google-y. I'd hate to be in a place where I'm Google-y." Like, on the

Google-y scale. I don't know if you know about Google, but they have this Google-y scale,

how Google-y are you. And Tobi's like, "I just want them to bring who they are."

He creates the environment for that.  He has this thing called trust battery.

You've had interviews with him where he talks about it. Basically, when you get into Shopify,

you're at 50%, and your actions and your peers get you to 80% or 90%. And when you get there,

Tobi is like, "What do you want to run? What area do you want to run?" And there's something

very empowering about that. That's why that organization is able to scale so quickly,

grow so quickly, solve problems more quickly. Rather than having the structure, he creates

an environment. That's the beauty of Tobi. Gardner: I remember Tobi telling us that,

like pulling the plug out of the server farm, for example, that they have challenges -- for

the next two weeks, everyone must move the mouse to the other side of their computer.

He just wants to create discomfort, get you out of your seat. John Mackey, move around,

don't be sedentary. Tobi's constantly doing that to all of the people that work at Shopify

to get them to think and act differently than they're accustomed to, or their habits are formed.

My final question for you. You're 30% in cash.

Raise your hand if you're more than 10% in cash. Awesome! So, that's your tribe.

There's your tribe. Talk to your tribe about reallocating that capital. What are the triggers that will

cause you to reallocate it? Is it the finding of a next Mount Rushmore CEO? Or is it about

the market's valuation? What are one or two factors that cause you to say,

'I'm going to cut my cash position in half. I'm going to go from 30% to 15%." Or, out here, we're

going to go from 14% to 7%. Shearn: We prepare in advance, is our whole thing.

We know what we want to pay for a company. Atlassian, we'd like to pay a price that's

40% below, I don't know what it's trading at now, I haven't watched it in the last few days.

But, 40% below what it was when I came into this conference. We prepare in advance;

the decision has already been made. There's a lot of companies where we have these price

targets that we're just waiting for. And when it hits that price... we start at a 5% position,

so it really has to be at a price where we feel we can double our capital.

Gardner: So, you'll never have more than 10 or 12 companies in your portfolio?

Shearn: I'd like to. But it's just a function of, again, opportunities. But, sure,

I'd be happy to have that many opportunities of Mount Rushmore. There's just not that many of them.

Gardner: I recommend Michael's book, The Investment Checklist. It's published in 2011.

How much of that seven years later is current thinking of yours? What percentage of that book has

changed in how you think? Shearn: Yeah, I don't recommend it.

Gardner: That's so good! He does not recommend his book!

Shearn: If you really want to get bored. Gardner: I definitely recommend the idea

of an investor checklist. Why don't you recommend it?

Shearn: I wrote it for me when I was 21 years old, somebody entering the business.

From that standpoint. It's just looking at a business holistically. But I would say a lot has changed.

There were some patterns in there, but they weren't fully-formed beliefs. I think leadership

is the biggest -- leadership, to me, is the one thing that, if you study, you can predict.

It's the only thing that's predictable. The actions that the leaders take today is what

creates value two or three years from now. Tobi doing the shipping, it doesn't look like

a lot, but it's going to create a lot of value down the road once he solves this problem.

We're looking at leadership decisions today. That's where it's changed. It's all about

leaders for me, and less about studying the footnotes and these other things.

Gardner: Well, that book got you to where you are today, and it could help others get

to where you are today with great investment returns and a discipline that has us learning from you.

For more infomation >> Michael Shearn: Invest in Leadership - Duration: 27:04.

-------------------------------------------

Why Tiffany & Co, J.M. Smucker, and Chico's All Tanked - Duration: 26:45.

Chris Hill: It's Wednesday, November 28th. Welcome to MarketFoolery! I'm Chris Hill.

Joining me in studio today, from MFAM Funds, Bill Barker. Happy Wednesday!

Bill Barker: Thank you! Hill: Thanks for being here!

Barker: Thanks for having me! Hill: We've got some earnings.

Barker: Yes.  Hill: And what I say we've got some earnings...

Let's face it, not everyone's earning money, as we'll see from the actual stocks.

Barker: Some earnings are better than others. Hill: Some are better than others. Let's start with Tiffany.

Help me to understand this. Third quarter revenue for Tiffany was light,

the same-store sales were lower than expected. I wasn't expecting that Tiffany's stock would

have its worst day in nearly four years. This wasn't a good report, but is it,

"Wow, this is the worst day in nearly four years" bad? Barker: No, it's not that bad. The reason

for the weakness in the top line specifically was China. Whether it's tourists coming here

or selling in China, if the Tiffany brand is not resonating either because of a perspective

on the United States currently by Chinese consumers or something else, that is a big

chunk of where you want your growth to be coming from in future years. I don't know

if you start subtracting that from your growth equations or whether you just say this is

a blip caused by current politics or what. But I think that's the question the market

is asking by selling the stock off today.  Hill: This was not, as we've seen in some cases,

a situation where Tiffany shares had been run up to some enormous degree. I'm wondering

when you look at the stock now, do you see it as a value play? Is this a cheap stock

right now? That always seems odd to say when you're talking about a company that's known

for selling diamonds. Barker: I don't know that I would call it

a cheap stock right now. Then again, there are a lot of companies that I would say,

even after a significant decline, are not cheap. At 22X earnings, no, not really. It's doesn't

have the sort of growth story that would make me especially interested in it at that price,

especially if you've got questions about how things are going to play out with China,

maybe not over the long-term so much, but I don't have any good read on what's going to happen

there over the next couple of years. Hill: Also falling today, shares of JM Smucker,

the consumer brand giant. Second quarter profits came in lower than expected. They cut guidance.

You could look at Tiffany and say, "Well, they didn't do as well as they wanted to."

Smucker's quarter was bad all over. Barker: When you take the top line,

which was only up a couple of percent for the quarter, and net sales were up 5%, that's OK. That's

a little bit better than inflation. But one of the reasons it was up 5% all was because

of an acquisition. They got Ainsworth, which is a pet food company, a gourmet pet food line,

and they sold off the Pillsbury baked goods. We've gone over that Pillsbury exists

in a couple of different actual companies. It's the baked goods part that Smucker wound up with.

They sold that off. A couple of different things there. The top line is a little bit misleading.

Really, a bigger problem for them is the margins came down. They're finding

that there's a lot of competitive pricing in coffee, which is good for some of us,

the drinkers of coffee. Always happy to hear that people are competing on price there.

They still have, surprisingly, the No. 1 coffee brand in America, Folgers.

Hill: Still No. 1. Barker: Still No. 1. They've also got Dunkin' Donuts,

the beans that you buy off the shelf, not the coffee that you're buying in Dunks.

They also have Cafe Bustelo and a couple of other coffee brands. They're really, at this point,

much more of a coffee and pet food company than jams and peanut butters,

which is what you associate the name with more. Hill: Looking at a stock which is where it

was five years ago, long-term shareholders of Smucker have not really been rewarded at all.

You look at all of the brands they have, I'm wondering if they need to start taking

a very serious look at selling off more of their brands. I went to their website,

and one of the first things you see on their website is "Hey, we're hiring." Not that I was looking

to take a job at Smucker. Barker: You weren't looking for one, but, hey!

Hill: I thought, "Hey, I'll click on that

just to see." They've got over 200 jobs listed. I get that it's a big company.

But I look at the fact that they're doing all this hiring, that the stock hasn't moved anywhere,

they have all these brands... it really seems like someone, an activist investor, perhaps, needs

to come in and give Smucker a fresh set of eyes. It does not seem like a company that

should be hiring hundreds of new people. It looks like a company that should be seriously

thinking about getting strategically smaller. Barker: A lot of openings in the podcast

division over there? Hill: None whatsoever.

Barker: None?! Well, that thing is firing on all cylinders. The Smucker podcast, legendary

daily discussion of Jif peanut butter. They had to devote a month to the Pillsbury Doughboy

leaving and all that. Hill: Yeah, sure.

Barker: They've got a lot of different things going on. They're actually a very, very large player,

I think the No. 7 player, in terms of the center aisle, in terms of packaged foods,

store-stable things, the things you put in boxes and cans and stuff and just leave

there for however many years it takes to move that product. They do have a direction,

and that is coffee and animals, much more so than --

Hill: Jams and jellies.  Barker: -- jams and jellies, and even peanut butter,

which was a much bigger part of the equation. Specifically within pets,

going more and more high-profile, deluxe sort of stuff. The Nutrish brand, Rachael Ray is one

of their big acquisitions. I can tell you, it does cost more and more to feed your pets.

They had some interesting details about all of this on a recent investor presentation.

There are significantly more people shopping for their pets than for babies, and things

like that. There's just a lot of money spent there. That's where they're going.

Hill: Wasn't that the case during the Great Recession? The only part of consumer spending

in the United States that did not drop, that actually went up during the Great Recession,

was spending on pets? Barker: Well, you don't want to punish the

pets for a housing collapse. It's not their fault!

Hill: No. They're no they're not out there with credit default swaps. Or are they?

Because that would be amazing! Barker: It would be one of the greatest conspiracies

all time, if they pulled that off without our realizing it. That is, I think, a better

place for them to go. And, of course, devoting a large chunk of their present and future

to coffee makes all the sense in the world because as the nutritional and health abilities

of coffee get more and more publicized, they're going to be more and more in the right place with that.

Hill: Oh, yeah. They're absolutely on the

right side of history when it comes to coffee. Since Smucker is doing all this hiring,

I should also mention that we here at The Motley Fool are doing a lot of hiring, as well.

You can check that out at careers.fool.com. We're hiring for here in our office in Northern

Virginia, also for our office in Colorado. Just like I spent a few minutes this morning

checking out the hiring possibilities at the Smucker corporation, check out careers.fool.com.

Our e-mail address is marketfoolery@fool.com. Just want to say a quick shout out to Carlos,

who works at Sheraton's finance group in Sweden. Another listener from Sweden.

Thank you for listening, Carlos! Shall we move on to the bloodletting?

Barker: Sure. Why the shout out to Carlos? Hill: He sent an e-mail, so I'll give him a shout out.

Barker: We're not going to go over the e-mail?

It doesn't have a question? Hill: No, there was no question. It was just

a brief, "Hey, listen to the podcast. Love it. Thanks for what you do." Thanks for the note!

Barker: "Thanks for pronouncing a few things right

once in a while." That's where you got into trouble with one of your Swedish listeners.

I mean, they were very polite about it.

Hill: Very polite.

Barker: "Just, for next time, here's how you would pronounce that word completely differently."

Hill: [laughs] "Here's how you pronounce it if you want to pronounce it correctly."

Barker: "I'm not saying you have to." Hill: I shouldn't be glib when I say bloodletting,

but I was stunned to see what is happening to Chico's stock today. The third quarter

results for Chico's resulted in the stock dropping close to 40% today. They've got

at least one executive leaving. Chico's has been public for 25 years. Probably not surprising

to anyone that the stock being down 38% this morning represents the biggest single-day

decline in that time. How bad is this? Because this is now a $550 million company with a

40% drop in one day? [laughs] Is this a business that now needs to, as they say, consider strategic alternatives?

Barker: First of all, for those that don't

know Chico's, the full name of it is Chico's FAS. I would have, before today, said,

"For some reason, the name is Chico's FAS." But I went to all the trouble of looking up why that is.

Originally, it was Chico's Folk Art Specialties, which is the very first store

that they had. After they expanded and franchised, they reduced it to FAS. They're now much more

just doing fashion, which was only a small part of the original store.

As you mentioned, they've been around for a while. They had a phenomenal growth trajectory

in the 90s and 00s, really right up through about 2008, when the growth basically stopped.

Now, we're looking at a contraction. I talked last week about the golden equation for retailers,

which is you've got good same-store sales or comps, and that allows you to build more stores,

so your total sales are growing faster than either your comps are growing or your

store square footage is growing. They're both growing. They combine to give you a top line

that's growing, hopefully, in the double-digits. Because you're getting bigger, your margins

get better, because you have to spread your costs over more. Then, maybe you've got enough

money left over after doing all that to buy back some shares, so your earnings per share

grow even faster than any of those other things. And it's all great. That was the Chico's equation

when things were going well.  They've got three brands: Chico's, White House Black Market, and Soma.

All of them are seeing same-store sales declines, and have seen for

every quarter of the last five, except in the most recent quarter, Soma, which is the

smallest element, grew 2%. Chico's, which is the biggest, same-store sales were down 10%.

You can't do that for very long. So, that's why the Chico's CEO -- that's the Chico's

brand CEO, not that Chico's FAS total holding company CEO -- was shown the door, I would say.

They believe they've gotten the fashion wrong and they need to do things differently

with their fashions. Hill: On the flip side, Burlington Stores,

which once upon a time was Burlington Coat Factory,

is up on their third quarter report.

As you mentioned to me this morning, that stock's done really well over the last few years.

I went back and looked -- Barker: Because you didn't believe me.

Hill: I didn't believe you. Over the last five years, shares of Burlington Stores --

which is a basic retailer that sells, among other things, coats -- I was saying to you right

before we started taping, I think the closest Burlington Store to where we're sitting right

now is up Route 7. It's a few miles from here. I went there a year ago.

Barker: Did you need a coat? Hill: I didn't need a coat. I'll just say

that walking into that traditional bricks and mortar retailer, I would not have left

that place thinking to myself, "Boy, this is a well-oiled machine. They are probably crushing it."

Quite the opposite. So, the fact that over the last five years, shares

of Burlington Stores have done better than shares of Amazon or shares of Netflix

is astonishing to me. What are they doing? Barker: They're doing that equation,

with the comps. And they're doing it to a degree that allows you to have a 10X on your stock

over five years. For the most recent quarter, they had comps up -- let me get the number right,

because it's not that impressive -- 4.4%. Then you get down to the bottom line,

and their earnings per share grew 73%. Well, how do you line up those numbers?

Because they're adding stores. They're still small enough that they can add stores. They're not saturated.

Their total sales were up 13.7%, almost 10% more than the comp numbers. Margins improved everywhere.

And they bought back a few shares. Earnings per share up 73% sounds better than

it really is because a lot of that has to do with reduced taxes. Still, earnings per

share were up 73%. That's a number that is going to drive your stock price higher.

Hill: I'm still baffled. [laughs] I'm still baffled that this very basic, largely clothing retailer --

yes, they sell some home goods and that sort of thing, but Burlington is,

I would say first and foremost, a clothing retailer, a pretty basic one at that.

The fact that the stock has done this well for five years is still mind-blowing to me.

Barker: Yeah. I wish I had owned it for the last five years, [laughs] because it's quite

a surprise. It's really grown the top line at a much slower pace than you would think

must be the case for a stock that has done as well as it has. It has $6.6 billion in

last 12 months sales. That's up from $4.4 billion in the year that ended in February 2014.

They've grown sales less than 50% over that time, but they've grown their earnings

a lot more. They were pretty cheap as a stock. They weren't really making much. The first

year, I think they made $0.13 a share. Now, they're making $5 a share. $6 a share was

the guidance for the rest of the year. Hill: Do you think they want to take some

of their cash and buy Chico's? [laughs]  Barker: No. [laughs] No. I mean,

it's hard enough to get one retail store right. You can diworsify by getting another brand,

as many companies have learned. Look, Burlington is on the right side. It's off-price fashion,

so it's not as fashion-sensitive as a lot of other things. People there are buying more

for the price than being on track with the fashion. But still, they'll get it wrong at

some point. Things won't look as great as they do today. That happens to every fashion

retailer sooner or later. Hill: That's true. You just reminded me of Gap.

You look at a company like Gap, which has Gap, Old Navy, and Banana Republic,

and it seems like clockwork, every quarter, at least one of those three is not doing well.

And lately, it's been the namesake Gap stores that have been underperforming, and it's Old Navy

doing the heavy lifting, making up for Gap's lagging.

Barker: Yeah. It's very tough, year after year after year, to be right on the fashions.

Chico's very much pointed out that their fashion choices -- I thought this was at least some

small bit of something to hold on to from their report -- they spotted up the mistake

that they made with the fashion. Didn't just blame it on market circumstances or anything.

They said, "We overemphasized boho styles." I don't know, it's not my style, particularly,

but I would say any emphasis is overemphasis there.

Hill: Boho? Barker: Yeah.

Hill: Buy one half off? Is that what that is?

Barker: [laughs] Bold colors and original, artisanal prints. They were wrong on that.

Hill: I'm in favor of any business using the word artisanal in any situation. I know

it's generally reserved for bread or certain types of food, but I would love to see more businesses,

particularly ones that have nothing to do with food or restaurants, start to use

the word artisanal. Barker: I came across a place recently,

unfortunately closed, but they were doing artisanal donuts. That turned out to be a useful application,

maybe not of the term, but of the concept. Hill: Yeah, those generally worked out. I'm just saying

I would like to see maybe some construction companies talk about their artisanal

concrete, just to make people do a double-take. We should get out of here. We have to do

a little prep for Apropos of Nothing. Barker: What are we going to talk about?

Hill: Well, those who choose to listen later this week will find out.

Barker: Those that came in today hoping to hear you talk about Rudolph and your live-tweeting

last night of the show, and your coverage in the mainstream media today. Are you going

to promise a little Apropos of Nothing about that? Or do you want to touch on Rudolph before we go?

Hill: We could touch on that. Thank you to

Jay Labonte, who tweeted at me right before we started taping today's episode that someone

at the Huffington Post did an article about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer last night.

The article was entitled Viewers Noticed Some Very Disturbing Details in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.

A bunch of people were tweeting about the show and some common themes.

Some that I touched on, and others did, as well, mainly Santa being kind of a jerk, and Comet,

the coach of the reindeer games, being an awful coach, and all that sort of thing.

And one of the tweets that was featured was one of mine. That was very nice. So, thank you to Jay!

Barker: Unfortunately, it was the one that had a typo in it. Hill: [laughs] It actually had a couple of typos in it.

Barker: You were really nailing the rest of the show. But that one was focused on.

Hill: So be it.

Barker: And yet, you know how to spell. Hill: I know how to spell most of those words.

But yeah, it didn't show up in that one tweet. Since I've already spent a few minutes today

looking at jobs at the Smucker Corporation, I'm going to spend a few minutes on Twitter

just to see if anyone else was pushing the idea that I've had for a couple of years now,

which is I really want the Yukon Cornelius origin story. I want it to be live action.

It could be a movie. Look, Solo. Disney made a Han Solo origin story into a movie.

And that was fine. They made some money off that. I feel like a two-hour gritty --

Barker: It's a little gritty. Hill: It's got to be gritty. He's packing a gun.

Barker: What's the right mix of comedy and violence that you're suggesting for your first iteration of this?

Hill: Only that both need to be there. Barker: Is it sort of an Indiana Jones level?

Or is it a little bit more hard-edged than Indiana Jones?

Hill: I think that's the opening bid. "We want it to be like Indiana Jones." And then,

if someone wants to push the envelope, make it a little grittier, particularly if it's for Netflix.

If it's going into movie theaters, I'm looking for a PG-13 here.

Barker: But you pitched it to CBS, didn't you? Through your communications with them on Twitter?

Hill: Yeah, but they didn't they didn't bite.

Barker: Not yet! Hill: I don't know that they're interested in this.

Barker: If it's on CBS, you have to tone down

the violence a little bit. Hill: So it's more of a PG-13.

Barker: But if you can get R-level violence, that's what you think corn Yukon Cornelius

really deserves? Hill: I mean, it's rough out there!

He's basically by himself. He's got his sled dogs. He's got his corn meal, ham hocks, and gunpowder

that he has to buy. He's packing a gun. He's got a knife. It's a tough world out there.

So, yeah, of course it's going to be violent, because his world is violent!

Barker: [laughs] Is he looking for the peppermint mine in this? I mean, this is a reimagining.

Hill: I want a reimagining. I'm taking the character, I'm taking certain elements of it.

No, we're not doing the peppermint mine thing.

Barker: Is the snow monster in there? Hill: Of course!

Barker: But he's a little bit more terrifying than he is in Rudolph.

Hill: This was one of the things that I tweeted last night, and this is absolutely true. Even

though it's Claymation, if you're a kid, the first time you see this, The Abominable Snow Monster

is terrifying. It's a little bit like Jaws, in that you don't see the monster.

You see him walking by, you see his feet, you hear his roar, that kind of thing.

They keep him off-screen for a while. The first time you see that thing, as a kid, it's terrifying.

Barker: In your version, are there more of him? There have to be. That's biology.

They don't just magically appear from space. There's got to be a mom and a dad. Maybe that's

a little bit of the backstory there, some of the bad blood that we see in Rudolph.

Hill: It could be, although now you've given at least some of our listeners an idea that

The Abominable Snow Monster comes from space. Which wouldn't be a bad idea, either. A pod lands, and --

Barker: That's ridiculous! Let's keep this

a little bit more realistic. Hill: That's true. Gritty realism.

And it's violent, just like the world that Yukon Cornelius inhabits.

Barker: I think we've made people suffer enough.

Hill: I think we have. Barker: Until Apropos of Nothing,

when your suffering will be quintupled! Hill: Yeah, it'll be much worse then.

You can read more from Bill Barker and his colleagues,

you can read more at their artisanal website, mfamfunds.com.

Thanks for being here! Barker: Thank you!

Hill: As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about,

and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell stocks

based solely on what you hear. That's going to do it for this edition of MarketFoolery.

The show is mixed by Dan Boyd. I'm Chris Hill. Thanks for listening! We'll see you tomorrow!

For more infomation >> Why Tiffany & Co, J.M. Smucker, and Chico's All Tanked - Duration: 26:45.

-------------------------------------------

Arsenal legend expliains why Lacazette-Aubameyang partnership failed - Duration: 2:46.

 Arsenal struggled to find a way past Huddersfield at the Emirates on Saturday.  Only an 83rd minute goal from Lucas Torreira spared their blushes as the Gunners appeared to be heading for a dismal goalless draw against the Terriers

 But Torreira popped up unmarked in the box to fire home an overhead kick late in the day to secure another precious three points in the battle for the top four

 Head coach Unai Emery started with a frontline of Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang and Alexandre Lacazette, but while they are firm friends, it did not work against the Terriers and Lacazette was hooked at half-time, replaced by Henrikh Mkhitaryan

 And Arsenal legend Martin Keown explained why the front two failed to fire against Huddersfield during his analysis on Match of the Day

 He said: "Arsenal found a way to win. They didn't seem to be able to find a way to get out, we know they like to pass the ball out from the back, but often it was the keeper kicking it long

 "They played with two strikers, Lacazette and Aubameyang and you think that would form a good partnership but not if you've not got the creativity in wide positions

There was no one really looking for the ball.  "The two strikers were basically looking in on the game and not taking part and in the final third they couldn't find the necessary passes

 "Credit the manager, this is where I think he's different class, he recognises 'I need more creativity on the pitch' and 'I wants Mkhitaryan and Iwobi in those little areas'

 "Guendouzi then has options, they can get forward in those little pockets and that's when these two show that imagination

All it was was a change in personnel, wide players coming into central positions and then offering that little bit extra

"   Keep up to date with the latest news, features and exclusives from football.london via the free football

london app for iPhone and Android . Available to download from the App Store and Google Play

For more infomation >> Arsenal legend expliains why Lacazette-Aubameyang partnership failed - Duration: 2:46.

-------------------------------------------

Странный объект похожий на инопланетный корабль найден на картах гугл - Duration: 1:08.

For more infomation >> Странный объект похожий на инопланетный корабль найден на картах гугл - Duration: 1:08.

-------------------------------------------

The AIY Challenge: Winner - Duration: 1:14.

Hi everyone, as you might know, we did the challenge to make the coolest AIY project.

If you have no idea what we're talking about check out these videos

that will appear here somewhere!

Over to you Dane. Yeah! With that we also have a clear winner.

So some drumroll...

Nicole's backpack!

Whoohoo, my backpack won the challenge!

With a staggering 10 more likes? 11 more likes? Something like that yeah...

So step one: you get this

non-brand champagne. Congratulations! Ooooh, thank you, fancy non-brand champagne!

Very good, very good! And of course the main part of the award

is that I admit that you are the best creator person / robot of this challenge.

Well, thank you very much! You're very welcome.

High five!

That concludes it.

Thank you for voting and watching and we'll see you with the next project. Bye!

Dane whispers: I think we have it in one take!

Oh my god! Did we just do it in one take???

For more infomation >> The AIY Challenge: Winner - Duration: 1:14.

-------------------------------------------

Nieuwe Bus EBS Voorne-Putten Eerste Dag 9 dec. 2018 - Duration: 1:21.

Spijkenisse Centrum

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét