We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP724: Key Insights From Coca-Cola's Golden Era

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. Coca-Cola might just be the most iconic business in history. Not only is Coke one of the most recognized brands in the world, but this is also one of the most consumed brands worldwide. Its products were drunk over 2.2 billion times yesterday, and that's not hyperbole. It just speaks volumes to the reach and staying power Coke is built over decades. When I started digging into Coke's rich history, strategy, and leadership, I began to understand why it's created so much value for shareholders, and how it's managed to embed itself into

Starting point is 00:00:32 everyday life in nearly every corner of the globe. In this episode, I'll examine Coca-Cola through a few key lenses. We'll explore the remarkable leadership of Roberto Goyzweta, the chemical engineer turned CEO, who helped right the ship when the business had lost its way. Under his tutelage, Coke became a more focused business. It scaled intelligently, and embraced capital allocation to its fullest extent. His use of economic value added to just guide decision-making is an absolute masterclass in financial discipline from which I think any investor or business owner can draw insights. Next, we'll examine Coca-Cola's enduring competitive advantages, from its untouchable brand and secret recipe to its economies of scale, and its network

Starting point is 00:01:14 effects that rival those of some of the world's biggest tech companies. We'll also examine why it's nearly impossible to replicate Coke's unique taste, distribution, or mental real estate inside customers' minds. Coke is the gold standard when discussing moats, and I'd like to help explore exactly why that is. And last, but not least, we'll revisit Berkshire Hathaway's investment in Coke to better understand Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger's obsession with it in the 1980s. We'll walk through Buffett's 12 tenets which he used to analyze the Coca-Cola business and investment opportunity.

Starting point is 00:01:45 Plus, we'll closely examine how Munger use a series of just brilliant metal models to imagine Coke as a $2 trillion dollar business. The thought process munger used here is a masterclass in multidisciplinary thinking. I know fans of metal models will thoroughly enjoy it. This episode is really for investors who want to sharpen their understanding of durable competitive advantages. So, if you're a curious stock investor researching legendary capital allocators or just a business owner looking for an edge, this one's for you.

Starting point is 00:02:14 Now, let's get right into this week's episode about Coca-Cola. Since 2014 and through more than 180 million downloads, we've studied the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected. Now for your host, Kyle Greve. Welcome to the Investors' Podcast. I'm your host, Kyle Greve, and today we'll be discussing one of the best known brands the world has ever known.

Starting point is 00:02:53 Coca-Cola. I'll be focused on looking at Coca-Cola through a few primary lenses, which are the Roberto Goizueta years, the Berkshire Hathaway Connection, and its competitive advantages that have been built out that still exist today. Now, I've spent considerable time reading about Coca-Cola over the years. While I admit, it's a well-entrenched strong-moe business, the potential returns just have never felt attractive enough for me to warrant an investment. And for that reason, my knowledge of Coke has always been focused on its competitive advantages, more so than the unit economics. The competitive advantages of Coke are pretty simple. The first one is the brand.

Starting point is 00:03:29 Every person listening to this podcast has heard of Coke. Very few businesses can make this claim, but Coke is one of the most recognized brands in the entire world. The second is intellectual property. While Coke has a mountain of imitators and competitors, nothing out there just tastes like Coca-Cola. The taste is very distinct, and I've yet to find an off-brand Coke that tastes nearly as good as the Coca-Cola brand.

Starting point is 00:03:52 The third one is economies of scale. Coca-Cola has unique scale advantages that just really aren't inimitable. their distribution system is nearly impossible to penetrate and they have set up the business to have tentacles in nearly every area of Earth. This share of people's mouths, as Goisweta put it, is sky high and few companies have the capabilities that Coke has. And the last one here is network effects. Most people associate network effects with, you know, tech companies.

Starting point is 00:04:18 And it's easy to see why. Several of the best companies on Earth have this competitive advantage. Businesses like Meta, Amazon, and Google have some of the strongest network effects in existence. But ask yourself, when was the last time that you walk into a grocery store, convenience store, or gas station, and didn't see a Coca-Cola product that was prominently displayed? The reason is that as more people want Coca-Cola products, it forces retailers to carry their products. Throughout this episode, I'll go a lot more in-depth into all four of these

Starting point is 00:04:46 competitive advantages. Now, like all businesses, Coca-Cola has grown into the behemoth that it is today. Throughout its history, it's had periods of great growth. And that is the period that I kind of want to focus on most today. And it just so happens that this period in which Coca-Cola delivered outsized returns to its shareholders coincided with a few keys. The most important one being Roberto Goy Sueta's leadership. We'll be covering many of his leadership skills and how he helped provide so much value to shareholders while he was the leader of the company. Business success can also be a function of being at the right time and place. And I think Goyzweta took over when Coca-Cola was just ripe for scaling. We'll go over some of the unique setups that Coca-Cola had

Starting point is 00:05:26 working for them as a tailwind that are now near fully penetrated. And then finally, it's no coincidence that Warren Buffett invested in Coca-Cola right as they were beginning their rapid growth trajectory. Warren and Charlie understood and might still understand Coke better than nearly anybody. So I would be amiss not to mention some of their great commentary on the business. While their ownership of Coca-Cola was excellent for the first 10 years, the returns faded, but they have been beating the index since a massive peak in 1998. We'll review why Buffett has held Coca-Cola for as long as he had. But let's start this episode by briefly discussing Coke's origin story and their business model.

Starting point is 00:06:05 So I'm not going to get too much in depth here on Coke's origin story, as there are just full documentaries out there on YouTube that you can watch for free, that does it at a very high level. But I do want to discuss a few things that I think are important. The first one is that Coca-Cola has been around for a really long time. So it was initially formulated in 1886 by a doctor named John Pemberton. Funny enough, it was originally an alcoholic beverage and was considered a Coca-wine alternative.

Starting point is 00:06:31 It was reformulated to avoid prohibition laws and the alcohol was removed from the recipe. At that time, it was just selling in an Atlanta pharmacy as a fountain drink in those early it is. Pemberton eventually sold the business, which was renamed Coca-Cola to a gentleman named Asa-Candler. Asa-Candler incorporated Coca-Cola in 1892. And from that on, you know, the company just grew like wildfire. Once Candler took over, he began expanding its distribution of marketing nationwide. By 18909, the first bottling agreement was signed, which was a major turning point for soda producers. Up until this point, all soda was offered as a fountain drink. Moving forward, bottlers would be taking care of a lot of the distribution, which would obviously allow for a mass

Starting point is 00:07:14 distribution. In 1919, Coca-Cola was sold to Ernest Woodruff for about $25 million. Now, that's important because Ernest's son, Robert Woodruff, later became the president of Coca-Cola and continued with a leadership role as part of the business for nearly 60 years. So Robert Woodruff was also integral into the hiring of Roberto Goysweta. Over the next few decades, the business expanded its products and offerings to things like Fanta. Sprite and Minutemate. International expansion was working, and therefore, their global marketing force was beginning to mold into the powerhouse that it became.

Starting point is 00:07:47 But, you know, as with all successful businesses, competition begins heating up. And that's exactly what happened in the 1970s. Pepsi had been a big competitor. And during this time period, Coca-Cola actually started losing U.S. market share to Pepsi. Now, I'll end the intro there, because the rest of it, I think, is going to take off once I can really get into Roberto Goyceweta. but before we transition here, I'd like to share Coca-Cola's business model. It might be a little different than you think if you haven't spent much time researching

Starting point is 00:08:13 the business. So Coca-Cola has two primary business lines right now, today. The first is the sale of its concentrates to its bottlers. This line of business is very attractive as its asset light and high margin. It's pretty simple. They literally just sell the concentrates and the syrup to their bottlers and to their fountain retailers. In the case of a bottler, they do a lot of the work by adding things like water, sweeteners,

Starting point is 00:08:36 packaging the product and handling logistics. The second business line is the finished product operations. This is a lower margin and more capital intensive business. For this business segment, Coca-Cola handles end-to-end product production. So, you know, they're basically doing what their bottlers do on top of offering the syrup and concentrates. So using this model, they make more in total gross revenue per unit, but the margins are a lot lower compared to the concentrates business model.

Starting point is 00:09:04 Now, when reading about Coca-Cola, I always wondered, you know, why do they have this other business line when it's an inferior business to the concentrates? But the reason is basically to solve a problem. And that problem is that Coca-Cola needs to have its bottlers working efficiently and preferably all around the world. And if they aren't, Coca-Cola is going to feel the brunt of it because that means that they can't sell as much syrup and obviously they don't want that. So in order to fix that problem, Coca-Cola has a long history of acquiring some of their bottlers to help assist them, get them back, on their feet, fix up the operations, and then either resell them or they just keep them in-house.

Starting point is 00:09:41 Now let's get back here to Roberto Goysuehsweta. So Roberto Goyoseweta's foray into working with Coca-Cola was pretty fascinating because he had a pretty comfortable job working for his father, Chris Pula Goysuehsweta, where he was making pretty good money. But after getting some experience under his father, he knew that he just didn't want to go the route of being the boss's son. So his education as a chemical engineer helped him find many different jobs, but he actually settled on a subsidiary of Coca-Cola that was located in Cuba, and he actually took a 50% pay cut just to take that job. Now, it's important to remember here that Roberto came from a pretty successful line of entrepreneurs. His grandfather instilled some powerful business principles

Starting point is 00:10:17 that Roberto brought with him throughout his entire career. These were to be hardworking, to be thrifty, understand the importance of cash, and abhor debt. And from his father, he really learned a lot about alignment. So his father actually suggested that he buy 100 shares of Coca-Cola when he got the job with them. He told Roberto, you shouldn't work for someone else. You should work for yourself. So his father suggested you buy the shares, which his father then lent him money for. And those shares were reportedly never sold until Roberto's unfortunate passing. Now, Goyswetto was forced to leave Cuba during Castro's uprising, but luckily, he had this job with Coke waiting for him once he landed in the U.S. Goyzweda settled in

Starting point is 00:10:57 Miami and was well known in the Cuban community there. He was even after a job that would double his salary outside of Coke, of course. And his wife wanted him to pursue it, but he replied, I love working at Coca-Cola so much that I'd do it for free if I could. This tends to be a great attitude to having a leader. And while Goy Suweta wasn't an executive at the time, you can tell that he clearly loved Coca-Cola very, very much. We now know that Goy Sweta loved Coca-Cola, but let's review why everyone else, like their customers, also love Coca-Cola. So Coca-Cola served 2.2 billion servings of its product yesterday. And this is all the brand under its umbrella and not just Coca-Cola itself, but ask yourself why that is. I'm going to take a few stabs at that

Starting point is 00:11:36 right now. So in his excellent book, Seven Powers, Hamilton-Helmer defines brand as an asset that communicates information and evokes positive emotions in the customer, leading to an increased willingness to pay for the product. He further breaks it down into two parts. The first part, he calls effective valence, which is just a fancy way of saying that strong brands build a good association with its customer. This association is so strong that it's distinct from the objective value of the good, which is why people are more willing to pay up for Coca-Cola than an alternative. And the second is uncertainty reduction. This is less applicable as you usually get certainty in any beverage you buy, but maybe you've had a bad bottle of Pepsi at some point in your

Starting point is 00:12:17 lifetime, which increases your uncertainty of Pepsi. And I've actually had this happen before specifically with Pepsi. In that case, you might prefer the Coca-Cola brand because you've never had a bad experience with the product, which also is true for me. Now, the final relevant part of a branding that Helmer mentions is something called hysteresis. So hysteresis means the longer a brand is around, the longer the period of reinforcing actions. This long-term reinforcement causes the brand to become stronger and stronger as it ages. Coke has been around since 1886, which is an huge advantage for the brand. I think Coca-Cola has been very intentional as well about how it's built its brand. And today, it has the money to continue building its customer relationships.

Starting point is 00:12:58 So in fiscal 2024, Coca-Cola spent $5 billion on advertising. This figure represents about 11% of the revenue. Spending that much on advertising can be seen as a negative for some companies. The reasoning behind that is that marketing becomes kind of this fixed cost. And if you're spending decreases, like let's say you decide to spend less on marketing, well, then in that case, sometimes your revenue will decrease and sometimes that even higher rate of that decrease in advertising spend. But in the case of Coca-Cola, I don't really see it the same way because the brand is just

Starting point is 00:13:30 so resilient that, you know, would it have decreased growth if it decreased its advertising spend probably? But I don't think that it would necessarily lose a lot of its customers, whereas smaller brands in a similar situation that obviously don't have that track record probably would get punished for decreasing their advertising. So, you know, the point is, is that. that fixed costs as a percentage of revenue are very valuable to this actual business. And this helps them avoid destroying shareholder value because they have this long, long history,

Starting point is 00:14:05 decades long of launching successful advertising campaigns. Now, speaking from personal experience, I like Coca-Cola as a king of cola because I just think it tastes the best out of all of them. Perhaps subconsciously, with all the advertising that I've been exposed to throughout my whole life, I'm also leaning their way due to the brand strength. It's pretty hard to say. Now, speaking of taste, this transitions pretty well to discussing Coca-Cola's intellectual property. Since I've already leaned on Hamilton-Helmer here, we'll be using the term cornered resources and intellectual property interchangeably. Hamilton defines cornered resources as a preferential

Starting point is 00:14:40 access at attractive terms to a coveted asset that can independently enhance value. One very valuable part of the corner resource equation is its ability to be transferable. So if we went through a little thought experiment here using Coca-Cola as an example, we know that the recipe for Coca-Cola is known by a very small group of people. As a side note, there's a myth that only two people know it, but it's a myth. It's not true. But we do know that the group that does know it is very, very small. Now, the important part is that if the Coca-Cola recipe were sold to another business,

Starting point is 00:15:12 they can then use it and sell the beverage. If they could sell it as Coca-Cola and not as a different brand, I would guess it would do very, very well. If the beverage had to be rebranded, it's hard to say if it would do as well because it wouldn't be able to take advantage of all the goodwill and trust that Coca-Cola brand has built with its customers over so many years. But as I mentioned before,

Starting point is 00:15:32 I personally like Coca-Cola because of its taste. So if there was another off-brand company that were to get its hands on the recipe, I would have no problem just switching to that brand because I think it's the best tasting cola out there. Whether it says Coca-Cola or not, it doesn't matter much to me. From a business sense, if another company were to buy Coca-Cola, the brand, and its recipe, I think it would probably do very, very well.

Starting point is 00:15:55 There's no reason to believe that this would happen as Coca-Cola has had so much success throughout the years. But let's just pretend it was acquired. You could argue that the acquirer would not manage the business as well as Coca-Cola has over all these years. And I don't have many arguments with that statement either. But, you know, maybe it would be the case of if a business like Coca-Cola were acquired, perhaps the acquirer would then just allow Coca-Cola to run as kind of an autonomous business unit,

Starting point is 00:16:20 which would keep Coca-Cola's strengths intact. Now, Coke has a few other competitive advantages, but we're going to touch on those later on in the episode. For now, I want to get back to visiting Roberto Goysweta's journey as Coke CEO and some of the amazing things that he did for the company. The business required pretty significant adjustments before Roberto Goysweta took over, as Coke CEO. In the Buffet Way by Robert Hagsrom, the author mentions domestic and global setbacks that Coca-Cola had to navigate. So there were two primary ones here. The first one was domestic issues. The company had to deal with legal challenges and reputational damage from some of its

Starting point is 00:16:55 disputes that it had with its bottlers. They had allegations of labor mistreatment at its minute made groves. And they had a backlash from some environmentalists who were criticizing the use of single-use containers. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission also accused Coca-Cola of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act due to its exclusive franchise system. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord, and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future.

Starting point is 00:17:32 That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is entering its 18th year, bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world, many of them operating on the front lines of history. This is where you hear firsthand stories from people using Bitcoin to survive currency collapse, using AI to expose human rights abuses, and building technology under censorship and authoritarian pressures. These aren't abstract ideas. These are tools real people are using right now. You'll be in the room with about 2,000 extraordinary individuals, dissidents, founders, philanthropists, policymakers, the kind of people

Starting point is 00:18:13 you don't just listen to but end up having dinner with. Over three days, you'll experience powerful mainstage talks, hands-on workshops on freedom tech, and financial sovereignty, immersive art installations, and conversations that continue long after the sessions end. And it's all happening in Oslo in June. If this sounds like your kind of room, well, you're in luck because you can attend in person. Standard and patron passes are available at Osloof Freedomform.com, with patron passes offering deep access, private events, and small group time with the speakers. The Oslo Freedom Forum isn't just a conference, it's a place where ideas meet reality and where the future is being built by people living it.

Starting point is 00:18:55 If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately. How do we make AI useful in the real world? Because the upside is huge, but guessing your way into it is a risky move. With NetSuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work today. NetSuite is the number one AI Cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It pulls your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is what makes your AI smarter. It can automate routine work, surface actionable insights, and help you cut costs while making fast AI-powered decisions with confidence. And now with the Netsuite AI connector, you can use the AI of your choice to connect directly to your real business data. This isn't some add-on, it's AI built

Starting point is 00:19:43 into the system that runs your business. And whether your company does millions or even hundreds of millions, Netsuite helps you stay ahead. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get their free business guide, demystifying AI at Nessuite.com slash study. The guide is free to you at netseweet.com slash study. NetSuite.com slash study. When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats. Starting something from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely.

Starting point is 00:20:19 That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance

Starting point is 00:20:53 your product photography. Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB. That's Shopify. com slash WSB. All right.

Starting point is 00:21:23 Back to the show. And then there are international setbacks. Coca-Cola's global expansion suffered a pretty significant blow when an Arab boy caught was launched after the company granted a franchise in Israel, which basically undid years of investment in that region. In Japan, a key growth market, missteps included exploding 26-ounce take-home bottles and consumers' outrage over artificial coloring in Fanta Grape. An attempted reformulation using natural grape skins led to fermentation problems resulting

Starting point is 00:21:52 in the product being discarded in Tokyo Bay. And, you know, Coca-Cola had other problems as well. The CEO, Paul Austin at that time, began diversifying some of the business's revenue you streams. Remember that investing back into Coca-Cola was an intelligent move, the direction that Goysweta and Coca-Cola's chairman, Don Quio, would eventually move towards. So the investments elsewhere were a little bit of a head scratcher. Under Austin, they invested money into things like wine businesses, water projects, and even shrimp farms. Now, by 1981, Coca-Cola's chairman, Robert Woodruff, who I'd already mentioned, was a legend at Coca-Cola for his lifetime of leadership.

Starting point is 00:22:26 He decided that a change was needed. So Hagsum points out, to some pretty significant numbers as to why this decision for change was needed. So between 1974 and 1980, when Austin was CEO, Coca-Cola's compounded annual growth rate was about 5.6%, which underperformed the index. And for each dollar that Coca-Cola retained, it only earned about $1.2 in market value, which is very low, as you'll see compared to what Goy Sueta was able to do under his leadership. Now let's turn to Goy Sueta. Under Goy Sueta, Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola as an investment, was a very intelligent one. But how was Goysuehswe da able to do this?

Starting point is 00:23:03 It came down to a few simple concepts that people like Buffett are always on the hunt for. So the first one was just creating shareholder value through intelligent capital allocation. The second one, widening competitive advantages, and the third focusing specifically on the long term. Goysweta also understood the company's key performance indicators. He said, solid unit case volume growth is a foundation for generating economic profit, which experience tells us is the key to increasing the value of our share owners investment. Now, I deeply admire this. As an investor in public companies, I usually have to determine which KPIs are most important

Starting point is 00:23:40 to generating shareholder value. So it's nice to see him point out that this KPI would drive the most value for shareholders. I mentioned earlier that Goysweta did not want to utilize too much debt to run the business. He made some intelligent capital allocation decisions to help avoid becoming over-leveraged. For instance, he lowered Koch's dividend payout ratio while raising the dividend to help increase internal investment without having to borrow capital from outsiders. Now, let's examine specifically how Goysweta looked at capital allocation. He had no problem reinvesting in the business, but he wanted the reinvestment to deliver

Starting point is 00:24:13 very specific returns. If the returns weren't there, he wasn't okay with investing. In Koch's 1986 shareholder letter, he wrote, we plan to reinvest a greater portion of our resources in projects and investments that strategically augment and leverage our operations. Investments where the long-term cash returns on invested capital exceed our overall cost of capital. Once again, widening the business's competitive advantage involved a capital allocation decision. Things such as geographic diversification was key to emerging markets, where Coca-Cola had a small market share at that time and were trying to widen

Starting point is 00:24:51 their moat in those areas. Advertising campaigns also fueled these emerging markets. Now, Goysuehsue definitely wasn't perfect with his investments, and we'll go over a couple of these later in the episode. But, you know, when we look at Goysuehue and his long-term thinking, I think he had some really, really good commentary on how he observed the investments in Coke. He was also transparent about performance and didn't attempt to, you know, hide or obfuscate operating results if they just weren't up to par.

Starting point is 00:25:19 For instance, he wrote, in 1993, we generated a total return to share owners of more than 8%, which came on the heels of 1992's total return of nearly 6%. Those returns fall short of both our track record of the past 12 years and our own long-term expectations. And we remain dissatisfied. And this is exactly how we should be, despite some of our significant accomplishments. Another great metric that Goysweta termed, which showcased his capital allocation skills, was economic value added, or EVA.

Starting point is 00:25:53 He came to use EVA because he felt that just too many managers inside of Coca-Cola simply didn't understand the financial impact of the investments that they were making. As a result, he educated them and created EVA to help them guide their decision-making. Here's what David Greising wrote on EVA in his book, I'd like to buy the World of Coke. Performance, he declared, would be judged on the basis of economic profit, the unit's operating profit after a deduction for the cost of capital. He had not put a name to it yet, but Goysuehsweda would later refine this notion into a concept

Starting point is 00:26:24 that became a trademark of his management approach. Economic value added, he called it. Strategic planning would be taken seriously, Goyesweta said, and objectives would be met. Don't even come to us with a project that doesn't yield more money than the cost of the money. So what exactly is EVA? EVA equals net operating profits after tax, no pat, minus the product of invested capital, and weighted average cost of capital. So it's pretty simple.

Starting point is 00:26:53 If the no pat didn't exceed the investment, he just wouldn't greenlight it. I like this because it really shows that Goysuehsweta understood capital allocation and investments. While many executives can, you know, increase profits by just spending a ton of money. It doesn't make any sense if the return isn't high enough. Goysuehue was searing Coke away from this and wanted to ensure that their investments were high enough to continue creating shareholder value while making Koka better and better business. Goyswetto was doing such a good job managing and improving Coke that the world's greatest investor, Warren Buffett, took notice.

Starting point is 00:27:25 For a period, Coca-Cola was one of Berkshire's most successful investments. From 1988 to 1998, the Coke investment 11xed, including dividends, reinvested. This results in about a 27% annualized return over a decade, which I think any investor wouldn't think twice about piling money into. But let's review why Warren and Charlie spent so much time and effort trying to understand Coke. That will reveal the keys to what we as value investors can search for in the future to unlock other life-changing opportunities. Keep in mind when looking at Coke, we'll attempt to look at it from Buffett and Munger's

Starting point is 00:28:00 view in the 1980s as the business was a little bit different in terms of the growth stage that it was at then versus what it's at today. Now, to do this, we're going to look at some of Buffett's investing tenants that were outlined in the Buffett way. So just to review what these tenants are, they are that the investment should be simple and understandable. The business should have a consistent operating history. The business should have favorable long-term prospects. It should have high profit margins. It should have a high and sustainable return on equity. Management should be candid. It should be rational. You should be able to understand

Starting point is 00:28:32 the business's owner's earnings. You should look at the institutional imperative of the business. You should be able to determine the value and you should be able to buy the business at an attractive price and a margin of safety. Now we're going to cover each one of these in relation to Coke. So as for a simple and understandable. Coca-Cola is just a beautiful business because it's just not overly complicated. They sell the syrup to bollers and retailers who in turn sell them to their customers. Now, the margins, as I've already said, are very high on the concentrate business and not overly capital intensive. So moving to consistent operating history, Coca-Cola obviously had been around since 1886, and they'd continued growing and chugging along that entire time.

Starting point is 00:29:13 Now, just to show you how far the business had come, it had sold only nine drinks a day, when Coke was first formulated. In 1890, the company had sold 250 gallons of their syrup a year, and today, they serve 2.2 billion servings a day. So it's quite clear that Coca-Cola had succeeded in growing its business very well over, you know, 130 years. Now, looking at favorable long-term prospects, shortly after it was reported that Buffett had taken a stake in Coke, a reporter asked him why he decided to purchase Coke now.

Starting point is 00:29:44 And here's what Buffett said. So he said, let's say you were going away for 10 years and that you wanted to make one investment and you knew everything that you know now, but you couldn't change it while you were gone. What would you think about? Of course, the business would have to be simple and understandable. Of course, the business would have to have demonstrated a great deal of business consistency over the year. And of course, the long-term prospects would have to be favorable.

Starting point is 00:30:09 If I came up with anything in terms of certainty where I knew the market was going to grow, where I knew the leader was going to be the leader, I mean world. wide, and where I knew there would be a big unit growth, I just don't know anything like Coke. I'd be relatively sure that when I came back, they would be doing a hell of a lot more business than they do now. Buffett also came to appreciate many initiatives that Goysweta and Kio brought into Coke. Buffett could see how Coke was strategizing for the future, looking at the right KPIs, had the right leader, and was making intelligent capital allocation decisions. These advantages just weren't available before Goysweta took over. It's interesting because Buffett has said,

Starting point is 00:30:45 I try to buy stocks and businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them because sooner or later, one will. And I think this is interesting specifically because before Goy Sweeta, you know, Coca-Cola's operations just had not been doing very, very well. And that just goes to show you that even a wonderful business like Coca-Cola can theoretically be derailed at least for a time by management making poor decisions. And I think that's really, really important to remember because I think it just goes to show you that there's not really a business that's so good that an idiot can really run it. I mean, obviously, Warren likes this as a mental model, but I think, you know, just knowing what I know now about Coke and how good of a business it is, it's really hard for me

Starting point is 00:31:29 to understand why it went through this period where it just didn't do very well. So the next area that Warren looks at is high profit margins. Now, Coca-Cola was a solid company and it was profitable for many years before Buffett took a position. But the margins had actually been pretty volatile there before Goyswe da came in and stabilized things. So in 1973, operating margins were 18%. By 1980, those margins dropped to just 13%. After Goyesweta's first year CEO, he increased them to 14%. And when Buffett bought shares in Coke, margins were at 19%. Now, just as rising capital efficiency denotes a moat, rising margins do as well. The beauty of increasing profit margins is that they mean that a business can grow its top line at a lower rate.

Starting point is 00:32:12 while increasing profits at a higher rate. I just love these setups as they're incredibly valuable when they occur slowly, but surely over long periods of time. So the next tenant that Buffett looks for is high and sustainable returns on equity. So depending on the business model, you can interchangeably use return on equity or return on invested capital. Since Buffett preferred businesses with no debt, ROIC and ROE tend to be pretty similar numbers. REO is just net income divided by shareholders' equity. Now, the beauty of ROE comes into play when discussing business quality. There are two big bonuses to having a high and sustainable ROE. If you're a low-growth company like COEC is today, having a high ROE means that business will

Starting point is 00:32:51 continue to gush cash, reinvest some of that cash into the business while paying a nice dividend, and probably even having some extra cash left over for buybacks. These investments can continue to earn reasonable total shareholder returns for a decent amount of time into the future. Now, the high ROE play that I personally find more interesting are when the company has no reason to use the cash on dividends or buybacks because the business can just plow everything back into the company. This means the business will earn a return equal to its ROE. So let's just say a business has an ROE of about 30 percent and the per share earnings are about a dollar. So if it puts all earnings back into the business the following year, then the per share earnings will be $1.30.

Starting point is 00:33:31 And when you can compound this for multiple years, the gains in per share earnings, become just staggering. While Coke wasn't putting all of its cash back into the company, Goysweta understood capital allocation well enough to stop growing the dividend in terms of payout ratio so he could put more money back into Coke. And he did an incredible job. His capital allocation initiatives paid off and he grew Coke's ROE to boot. During the 1970s, Cokes ROE was pretty high at 20%. But by 1988, when Buffett made the investment, Goyesweta had brought that up to 31%. The next tenant that Buffett looks for is candid management. Now, I think I kind of covered this already when discussing Goysuehsue.

Starting point is 00:34:10 He was a very candid person about the company mistakes that he'd made, and he clearly outlined things such as initiatives that he would use to try and repair those mistakes. And I think he just did an exceptional job of turning Coke around once he took over. I think candor is just so important because if a manager is willing to hide something small or, you know, deflect blame elsewhere, it's a good signal that they're hiding things. and that those things might be larger and more impactful things in the future. Now, the next tenant is rational management. Goyswetto was an incredibly rational capital allocator, as I think I've hammered home already.

Starting point is 00:34:44 He realized Coke had better opportunities reinvesting money into the business, so he decreased a dividend payout ratio from 65 to 40%. Once he realized that buying back his own stock was also an intelligent capital allocation decision, he also did that. Now, the whole buyback thing takes some nuance to understand. So Coke could have theoretically put all of its cash back into the business. But the problem is that very few business can actually do this successfully. And since Goizweta utilized EVA, he would not spend cash if an investment didn't earn

Starting point is 00:35:15 returns above that threshold. So this means that you just can't invest all the cash back into the business to keep the ROE high in Coke's case. So had he just dumped all the money in, he probably would have broken all of his EVA rules and that ROE also would have shrunk quite considerably. So I think the decision to allocate the money elsewhere was the next best step. Now, speaking of specifically when Goysweta did these repurchases, so these were in 1984, which was the first time he did it,

Starting point is 00:35:44 and Coca-Cola shares were trading at a price-to-earnings ratio of around 15 at their lowest point for that year. Now, this indicates a yield of about 7%, which is decent for buy-box. Now, the next tenant is to understand owner's earnings. So Buffett liked using owner's earnings to help him, with his equity bond and metal model. Owners earnings are simply net income plus depreciation and amortization, plus or minus changes in working capital minus maintenance cap X.

Starting point is 00:36:09 This number is generally higher than free cash flow because it retains growth cap X, whereas free cash flow minuses all cap X. If we look at the growth in owner's earnings before and after Goy Sueta took over, it's really obvious that he was making a tremendous difference. So from 1973 to 1980, owners' earnings grew only in. 8% compounded annually. This was before Gwesweta took over a CEO. But from 1981 to 1988, owners' earnings grew by 18% compounded annually. Now, if we compare the performance of the stock in those periods, we can see how an increase in the owner's earnings affects the stock price.

Starting point is 00:36:47 So from 1973 to 1982, the return of Coke stock price was just 6% compounded annually. But from 1983 to 1992, the average annual return of the stock was 31%. So if you can find a business that can compound its owner's earnings for a long period of time, you better hold on to it. Now, the next tenant here is understanding the institutional imperative. So many CEOs will just simply replicate the actions of other CEOs in their industry. In Goysweta's case, the age of the conglomerate was in full effect during his reign. So he mostly escaped partaking in it by divesting into Koch's wine and water business and avoiding investing in adjacent soft drink categories like Pepsi had done, which was to invest into things like snacks and restaurants. Notice here how I said

Starting point is 00:37:30 mostly. So, Goysweda invested in one business that was completely outside of Coke's circle of competence. So there was a period of time when Goy Swetta felt Coke needed to diversify its profit streams. And a colleague had mentioned Columbia, the media business. Coke would end up buying Columbia in 1982 for about five times book value at around $700 million. Now, to be fair, I said this was a mistake, but in reality, it was actually a pretty big win for Coca-Cola. So Coca-Cola ended up divesting of Colombia for $3 billion in 1989. So on purchase price alone, this was a return of 22% compounded annually, which was a very, very impressive investment. So the next tenant here is determining value.

Starting point is 00:38:12 Buffett's purchase of Coca-Cola was pretty deceptive to the market. It was trading at a premium to the market regarding the PE ratio, regarding cash flow, and regarding book value. Plus, the earnings yield was lower than that of shorter-term bonds. So when looking at Coca-Cola through this lens, it was kind of hard to justify exactly why Buffett made this investment. The only way to really justify the investment compared to bonds was to factor in growth. So Robert Hagsrom goes over various scenarios in the Buffett way, and he suggests that with future growth rates ranging between, say, 12% and 5% for the next decade, the business's intrinsic value was between $21 billion and $48 billion.

Starting point is 00:38:54 Now, when we look at the market cap at that time, it was only around $15 billion. And the interesting part was that the estimate of these growth rates turned to be overly conservative because Coca-Cola's actual market cap in 1998, which was a decade after he bought it, was $84 billion. Now, this just goes to show how much downside protection that Coca-Cola investment had. And given how conservative the growth numbers were, Buffett just left tons of room to the upside, which is what eventually happened. Now, the last tenant here is to buy at attractive prices. I mentioned above that his valuation of Coca-Cola indicated that the shares were heavily

Starting point is 00:39:30 undervalued. Using the numbers above, he bought Coca-Cola for a discount to intrinsic value of somewhere in the 25 to 70% range. So he was buying the business at a very, very large margin of safety. Now, I want to. examine the next part of Berkshire's Coke investment through the lens of Charlie Munger and a few of the mental models that he used to better understand the opportunity that Coke presented to them. Charlie has a wonderful write-up on Coca-Cola that I'll be sure to link in the description for

Starting point is 00:39:59 this episode. In it, he discusses how he would take a business from just $2 million to $2 trillion over 150 years terminating in 2034. So Charlie used five primary amount of models to help pitch this idea. Let's go over each one in a little more detail. The first one is to decide which no-brainer decisions have to be made to achieve a specific goal. Charlie came up with two. So the first one was to make sure a trademark protects the brand, in this case, Coca-Cola. The reasoning was that a generic brand will just never scale as well as a wholesome brand like Coca-Cola was. And the second one is to ensure that you follow the correct growth strategy.

Starting point is 00:40:40 Start small and then expand. Coke did this by starting first in Atlanta. then expanding to the rest of the United States and then to the rest of the world. Now, the second metal model that he used involved the use of basic math. And I mean very, very basic. So he would just look at a few key assumptions that would need to be made in the future for Coke to eventually be valued at $2 trillion. So the first assumption is world population.

Starting point is 00:41:07 So in order to understand what Coke would be worth in 2034, he wanted to understand how many people would be around in 2034. So Charlie thought 8 billion people sounded pretty reasonable. Now, as of April 2025, the population is actually 8.2 billion. So if Munga were still around today, he might be able to get a boost in his numbers based on this fact. From some of my research, the forecasted population for 2034 should be around 8.8 billion. So Charlie was directionally correct here. The second assumption is how many 8 ounce beverages the average person consumes daily.

Starting point is 00:41:40 He estimated that 8, 8 ounce beverages would be consumed on average to predict. From here, he estimated how much of the world market Coca-Cola would capture, and he said that they could capture about half of it. Now, of this number, Coca-Cola would take about 25% of that share. Then he just put those numbers together, and he figured out that Coke could supply about $3 trillion 8-ounce servings in 2034. Then he just applied a profit to each of those servings, which he said was around 4 cents, and he reached a profit number of about $117 billion. If you multiply that by 20, you get above $2 trillion. Now, as a side note to this math, Coca-Cola's market cap as of May 9th, 2025 is $304 billion. So in order for it to reach $2 trillion by 1934, the stock would need to compound at about 21%.

Starting point is 00:42:28 So I think that's very, very unlikely to happen. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. No, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation are ramping up. and customers now expect proof of security just to do business. That's why VANTA is a game changer. VANTA automates your compliance process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust together on one AI-powered platform.

Starting point is 00:42:54 So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, VANTA keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, VANTA gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy frameworks. Companies like Ramp and Ryder spend 82% less time on audits with Vanta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at Vanta.com slash billionaires. That's vanta.com slash billionaires. Ever wanted to explore the world of online trading, but haven't dared try?

Starting point is 00:43:38 The futures market is more active now than ever before, and Plus 500 futures is the perfect place to start. Plus 500 gives you access to a wide range of instruments, the S&B 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, gas, and much more. Explore equity indices, energy, metals, 4X, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right for from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity. You'll be able to trade it in just two clicks

Starting point is 00:44:14 once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets. Visit plus 500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500, it's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors, private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes thanks to the Fundrise income fund, which has more than $600 million

Starting point is 00:45:05 invested in a 7.97% distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the fundrise.com to invest in the fundraiser income fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8%, and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income fund fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement.

Starting point is 00:45:52 All right, back to the show. Now, there is obviously the case where dividends are going to decrease the rate at which the stock needs to compound in order to reach maybe some sort of value around $2 trillion, but I highly doubt it gets to that $2 trillion. You know, even a trillion seems maybe doable, but it would be tough. Now, the third metal model has to do with psychology. We need to generate several psychological influences to create a Lollapalooza effect on customers. So they continue coming back for another 150 years to consider. consume the exact same beverage. And this was no easy task, but Charlie went for it anyways. So he said that the drink needs sugar and caffeine, which will help stimulate consumers.

Starting point is 00:46:33 It needs to be a cold beverage because it's easier to maintain that temperature. And it must be something that leaves little to no aftertaste so that consumers can have more than one per day and still enjoy it. And finally, the taste needs to be so unique that customers can only replicate it by buying the exact same product again and again. Now, the cycle of the cycle. The technological angle here comes in two forms, which he called operant conditioning and Pavlovian conditioning. So operant conditioning was served by making a beverage with the above-mentioned factors. This was important because it also meant the consumer would consume the drink worldwide

Starting point is 00:47:07 and wouldn't be swayed to a different brand while, say, traveling or maybe even moving to another continent. For Pavlovian conditioning, you'll probably think of the dogs whose mouths would water when a bell rang because they associated that with eating. Now, in Coke's case, they need to have a drink associated with things that customers like and admire. This refers to proper marketing and keeping the brand's integrity as high as possible. Now, to add to the Pavlovian response, he layered on social proof. Using popular people, such as athletes or actors, would provide social proof to consumers of the advertising that they

Starting point is 00:47:40 produced. This would further strengthen the bond between Coke and its customers. Moving to the fourth metal model, Charlie mentioned something called auto-catalysis. So auto-catalysis means, In chemistry, a chemical reaction is said to be autocatalytic if one of the reaction products is also a catalyst for the same reaction. Many forms of autocatalysis are recognized. For Coke, the reaction involved just two things, which was the syrup and the distribution. As long as the syrup could be supplied to the bottlers, a reaction would take place to allow a never-ending stream of products to be available to all of Coke's customers.

Starting point is 00:48:15 The syrup part was pretty easy, but the distribution part would need to be solved by having worldwide bottlers who could mix this syrup to get the end product and then just sell that to customers. The final meta model that was classic munger that he talked about here was to invert. So when Charlie used inversion on a specific company, he was kind of thinking about how to destroy the idea. And he came up with a few keys. The first one is that the beverage needs a strong aftertaste, which is going to prevent consumers from having additional daily servings. The second is that the product should be easy to replicate while having a weak trademark that competitors can easily attack. The third is that.

Starting point is 00:48:50 that the product should have poor quality control and poor presentation. And fourth, that people inside of the company should mess around with the flavor to improve it even though they have a viable product. So this whole thought experiment is very good. I will say after learning more and more about Coke, there's probably a lot of hindsight bias here. It becomes easier to see what Coke did right versus what it did wrong after the fact. If we use Charlie's metal model, I think it's clear that you can make a winning beverage like Coke. But the real question is, could Charlie have thought of this exact scenario in 1886 before Coca-Cola was formulated?

Starting point is 00:49:26 And I'll leave that for you to decide. The last point that Charlie discusses in his talk is a new Coke fiasco, which is something that I want to focus on now. We mentioned just there that the fourth way that he saw that you could mess up Coca-Cola was to mess around with the flavor. And that's exactly what Coke ended up doing here. So in 1985, Goysweta made his biggest blunder as the CEO of Coca-Cola. He decided to mess with the recipe that it worked so well for nearly 100 years and pull the original

Starting point is 00:49:51 recipe off the shells to avoid cannibalizing the two flavors. But let's go a little bit more into the backstory of this because he thought a change was necessary for some good reasons. First off, during this time, Pepsi was starting to steal more of Coke's market share. Additionally, since Coyceweta was a chemical engineer, he had been taking steps to develop a new flavor that was now beating the classic recipe in blind taste tests. Now, in these blind taste tests, Ucoke beat out both Pepsi and Coca-Cola Classic.

Starting point is 00:50:22 To validate the test, he hired more than one firm to run them, and they found similar results. Now, oddly enough, when they surveyed a few focus groups to ask what they thought about the prospect of Coca-Cola classic being pulled from the shelves, the feedback was very, very negative, as in people wanted to keep their Coca-Cola, the classic version. Now, I think this plays very well into what Munger discussed

Starting point is 00:50:44 concerning the goodwill and trust that Coca-Cola had built with its customer base. Their consumers knew what to expect from Coke, and they just did not want the brand to pull off the shelves because of their connection with it. I won't go into some of the focus group's responses as they're full of expletives, but just know that people were very, very passionate about Coca-Cola. Now, during the lead-up to New Coke, Coca-Cola had a couple problems. It had issues with bottlers, which actually forced Coke to get into the bottling business, which they hadn't been beforehand.

Starting point is 00:51:13 competition was also fierce, and Coke had pricing power on its syrup that bottlers had to accept as part of the business. As a result of their market share going down to Pepsi, Coke also had to quadruple its marketing spent, and bottlers again were punished kind of for this indirectly because they had to contribute their share to the marketing expense, which further compress their margins. And then on top of all this, some Coke analysts believe that Coke's brand was just aging as other new product lines were released to the market. So Pepsi had Michael Jackson on its ads who was considered new, and Coke was kind of lagging in the advertising department.

Starting point is 00:51:49 So there were just many, many different forces at play that were acting to pressure Goysweta into making drastic moves to help improve Coca-Cola's fortune. Once new Coke was released, several more problems actually arose. So David Grysling in, I'd like to buy the World of Coke, wrote, Goysweda's unwillingness to level on the taste issue became the core of the outrage that would develop over Coke's new formula. Goysweda realized later that if he had simply announced that the formula was better than Pepsi, the public and press would have taken up the line and launched a series of challenge-style inquiries. And Stout's research clearly showed that new Coke should trounce Pepsi. Instead, by burying Coke's motivations, Goy Swetta unwittingly opened a second front in the Kola Wars.

Starting point is 00:52:32 Instead of competing against Pepsi, as it was designed to do, U-Coke wound up competing against the memory of the sainted original formula. That became the issue and we created it, Goysweta confessed. Now, it's interesting to think about what would have happened if Coke had released New Coke as just an additional product line. Since New Coke was perceived as a replacement rather than another drink such as, you know, cherry cola or Diet Cola, it very well might still be on the shelves today had it been positioned differently.

Starting point is 00:53:01 So here's an excerpt from the same book. So just to give you some backstory, this was when Goyesweta was asked about the flavor differences in New Coke versus Coca-Cola classic. So a reporter asked Goyzweta if he planned to reformulate Diet Coke if new Coke proved successful. No. And I don't assume that it is a success. It is a success. Goy Swetta harrumped. On the way out of the theater, reporters tasted new Coke that had sat warming in paper cups on tables during the press conference.

Starting point is 00:53:30 many visibly grimaced, and some even spit the stuff out of their mouths. So, once new Coke was released, the negative calls just began flooding their hotline, exceeding 1,000 per day. People were also writing letters to Coke, telling them their true feelings about the switch away from that classic taste. One letter was, it is absolutely terrible. You should be ashamed to put the Coke name on it. Another one wrote, I don't think I would be more upset if you were to burn the flag in our yard.

Starting point is 00:53:59 So clearly, this change targeted just visceral emotions inside of many of their customers. But as I hope I've illuminated in this episode, Gua Sueta was focused on one thing, which was creating shareholder value. If the news was bad from a few select customers but the economics were good, then he probably would have considered New Coke a success. But as you can probably guess, this wasn't the case. So one of Coke's bottlers in the South said that the sales had plummeted after the release of New Coke and that he knew that it was a disaster after only 10 days.

Starting point is 00:54:29 demanded that the classic syrup be distributed back to their warehouses, even though they would have to eat a loss on the new Coke syrup. But they just didn't care, as they new sales would normalize once the classic formula returned. This story is such a good representation of what Coke stood for. Its brand was strong, and people fully associated a very specific taste with that brand. It was also seen as a cultural icon, as you can see from the person's response about burning their flag. It also shows how resilient the Coca-Cola brand is. They overcame this debacle and carried on in pretty short order specifically because the brand was so strong and entrenched in their customers' minds.

Starting point is 00:55:05 Now I'll leave this section with an excerpt from Grisling's book. The world's most successful marketing company had misread its customers and risked the future of the world's most successful brand. But the salvation of Goy Sueda and his management team was a strength of the brand that they'd nearly destroyed. Despite all that Goy Sueda and Co had done to fatally weaken the brand, Coca-Cola was strong enough to save itself and, Oisweta too. Now, let's observe some of Coca-Cola's additional competitive advantages that they built over multiple years. So there's two more that I want to go over, which is economies of scale and network effects. Let's start here with economies of scale because even though Coke is mostly known for its brand, its scale makes it nearly impossible for new entrants to the market to compete with.

Starting point is 00:55:50 I see about five different scale advantages that Coke has that make it the behemoth that it is today. So I'll take you through a competitor's obstacles in terms of both of these competitive advantages. So to do this, we're going to imagine that we want to create a global soft drink brand. I'm going to say that I'm the CEO of this new brand and we're going to call it EcoC, which is just Coke spelled backwards. We have operations in only the US right now. But the problem is that we simply can't get our drinks outside of the US because we need to both fund and open new balling operations. We can't get deals with third party bottlers yet because our product is just so unknown

Starting point is 00:56:28 and the bollers don't know if they'll get a good return by partnering with us. Sure, we could open a bottler halfway around the world, but then we would have to deal with how we'd go about doing just that in a country that we lack competence in. Now, to get balder's interested in doing business with us, we'd have to spend money on advertising so that more customers know who we are. However, EcoC has only existed for five years. And while we turn a small profit and we're growing, we can only afford, you know, a few million dollars in advertising.

Starting point is 00:56:56 Coke spent $5 billion on advertising last year and we'd have trouble reaching just 1% of that spent. Now, we have taken some market share because we are small in the U.S. where we're based. But our margins are just nowhere close to Coke. EcoC has to spend CAPEX on ballers because that's the only way we can get our products to a few selected geographies in the U.S. Coke's operating margins in 2024 were about 21%. ECOCs are about 4%. Now, suppose ECOC could divest its entire bottling business and focus exclusively on just the concentrates in the syrup. In that case, perhaps we'd be able to meet or exceed Coke's

Starting point is 00:57:32 operating margins, but it would still probably be nearly impossible because we just have no hope of ever being as recognized of a brand as Coca-Cola is. Now, the next problem relates to the concentrate-only part of the business and the unit economics of it. So Coca-Cola has to procure large volumes of high fructose corn syrup to get its syrup to its bottlers. Additionally, Coke serves 2.2 billion servings per day, meaning that it needs to have a lot of high fructose corn syrup, and it has to take care of packaging all of that as well. Now, there's just no chance that a small competitor like EcoC would be able to buy similar volumes of either of those inputs at the same unit volume as Coke.

Starting point is 00:58:12 And then finally, Coke can continue improving its bottlers and improving their operations, helping them with decreasing their margins. EcoC can barely afford to open new ones. So the efficiency that Coke has and its ability to improve that efficiency will be just very hard for us at EcoC to compete with. Now, Coke doesn't disclose its research and development spending, but we can probably estimate that it's a small part of the revenue. Let's assume that it's just half a percent of revenue that they spend on R&D.

Starting point is 00:58:40 Now, even with that number, that still comes to $230 million. Therefore, it would be just incredibly challenging and pretty much impossible for ECOC to even improve its bottling operating efficiencies through R&D spend. Now, let's imagine that we fast forward five years and ECOC is a bigger company. It's done this by partnering with Pepsi, which is a strategy that Celsius has already taken. So ECOC learned a ton from the deal between Pepsi and Celsius and has decided to just clone it as close as possible. So we had ECOC accept capital from Pepsi to help build out ECOC. and in exchange, we're going to give Pepsi convertible preferred stock, and we'll also allow Pepsi

Starting point is 00:59:20 to have some board representation for our company as well. Now, we're more prepared to play with the big guys, but from here, there's going to be another problem that's going to arise. Yes, Pepsi can definitely help us get our product onto the shelves where customers are going to see it. But unfortunately, what we notice is that it's getting harder and harder to find new grocery stores, convenience stores, and gas stations to carry our product. Now, when we send out salespeople to try to convince everyone, whether that's just shop owners to multinational corporations to open up spaces in their fridges to carry ECOC, we're meeting a ton of resistance. And the reason is simple and its network effects.

Starting point is 00:59:55 So the more money that Coke puts into advertising, the more people know the brand. That means when someone goes out on, let's say, a hot day and needs a beverage, they're more likely to desire a Coca-Cola product. If they go to a convenience store that doesn't have Coke but has, let's say, ECOC, they're simply going to go to the C store's competitor across the street and get themselves a Coke. Therefore, the store that's maybe carrying only EcoC will need to open up space to carry Coke if it wants to continue selling soft drinks. And then on top of the soft drink only sales, there's still crossover. When people go into a convenience store or a gas station to buy a drink, they're also often buying

Starting point is 01:00:31 food. So if you're losing soft drink sales, that also means that you're probably going to be losing out on snack and food sales as well. So I think here with this example, I think you can tell that EcoC has a very steep hill to climb here regarding scale and network effects. Coke has also been in business for nearly 140 years, so they know what they're doing, have large amounts of trust built up with suppliers, customers, and bottlers, and can also put pressure on all these groups to create the most favorable terms for Coca-Cola. And this is an advantage that a smaller incumbent business like EcoC just wouldn't have. Now, to conclude today's episode, I want to discuss my opinions on Coke as an investment in very

Starting point is 01:01:07 broad terms. I know that I'm at a very particular point in life where I'm in wealth building mode. That means that I want investments that resonate more with building wealth rather than purely wealth preservation. Now, I think Coca-Cola fits nicely into the second category. If we look at the last 10 years of Coke's share price and operating history. First, as aside, Coke is an exceptional business. As I've highlighted today, it's simply one of the best businesses out there because competitors have attacked it for decades and it still manages to come out on top. And I have no arguments with investors who say Coke is an exceptional business because it is. But the stock's return looks a lot less exceptional over the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, the stock's

Starting point is 01:01:46 capital appreciation is compounded at only 5.5%. Yes, you can add a 3% dividend, bringing the total to about 8.5%. Coca-Cola's stock returns are below the S&P 500 compounded annual rate of 12% over that same time period. Now, you can make the argument that Coke is something like a Berkshire Hathaway. Just an exceptional business that might not outperform the index, but you're happy to have it in your portfolio because you admire the company, the industry that it's in, and you know that it's just a very resilient company that's still going to be chugging around here for decades to come. I can see the argument for that. I know many investors want great businesses that they can easily understand in their portfolios, even if it's maybe a little bit below their hurdle rates.

Starting point is 01:02:27 Now, I don't take the strategy personally, but I can see it's validity. Certain businesses are much closer to my hurdle rates in terms of my expected compounded annual growth rates compared to others that might be higher. So by the same rationale, I should probably sell those positions for positions with higher compound annual growth rates, as that would be the rational decision if I were attempting to maximize my returns. But this is where the art part of investing comes in. Investors need positions that will help them sleep at night.

Starting point is 01:02:53 If you have 15 positions and all 15 of them make you worried 24-7, your quality of life is just going to suffer. But if you have, let's say, 15 positions, 10 of them barely require much thought or thinking about because they're just such good businesses while five of them maybe sometimes keep you thinking, but don't do it 24-7 and your quality of life is obviously going to be a lot better than that first scenario. I have certain businesses that are likely to grow faster than others, but many of these businesses that might deliver lower returns are positions in which I built a ton of conviction

Starting point is 01:03:23 in and know them very, very well after holding them for long periods of time. So even though it could make sense for me to sell them and buy more of the faster or growing once, it makes investing just much more enjoyable for me to just keep them. I don't have to worry much, and they just keep producing for me, and I can enjoy the steady gains that they'll deliver. During Monish Pabry's chat in Omaha in 2025 during the Berkshire GGM, he gave an excellent presentation titled, You Only Have to Get Rich Once. In part of the presentation, he discussed why holding great businesses is so important. He mentions that even if you keep just one business, Walmart, in this case, you can get incredible returns, even if everything else in the portfolio

Starting point is 01:04:00 doesn't work out. So, people like Warren Buffett might look at something like Coke and see a wonderful business that will continue to grow at moderate rates. While it won't grow as fast as something like Apple, Buffett knows and understands Coke at such a deep level that he's developed a sort of comfort with it. When you get to this stage of investing, it becomes just easier to hold the business. I don't think anything is wrong with this strategy as long as you don't allow the investment to be a massive drag on your performance over a long period of time. So if I were retired and wanted a business that would give me a nice dividend for the foreseeable future and some modest capital gains, perhaps Coke would interest me. Or even if your goal is just to match the index with a few businesses

Starting point is 01:04:37 that you really admire and understand, I can see how Coke might be an interesting investment. For now, I'll stick to admiring Coke from afar and learning from its strengths and weaknesses. That's all I have for you today. If you'd like to interact with me on Twitter, please follow me at Irrational MRKTS or on LinkedIn under Kyle Grieve. If you enjoy my episodes, please don't hesitate to let me know how I can improve your listening experience. Thanks again for tuning in. Bye bye. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on episodes.

Starting point is 01:05:12 To access our show notes, transcripts or courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only, before making any decision consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network. Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.

We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP724: Key Insights From Coca-Cola's Golden Era

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.