RealMoney

Maybe you should not emulate the Oracle after all.

A potential 'opening up' of North Korea could be a needle mover for these names.

* In my portfolio and at the Olympia Diner they are not serving Coke "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger...Pepsi, no Coke." - John Be…

Here's what KO investors need to know now.

High above the Alps my Gnome continues to hear that Procter & Gamble's (PG) Board of Directors is looking at a spinoff into two or three separate companies. Don't know if it's true but this notion was part of my investment rationale, "I am Double Upgrading P&G" when I turned from short seller to long buyer in the name: On August 31, 2017, I placed Procter and Gamble on my Best Ideas List (short) at $92.56/share (along with two other consumer packaged goods companies, Unilever and Mondelez). PG's shares closed yesterday at $72.37/share, declining by over -20% in a generally advancing stock market. Several days later, in early September, 2017 I wrote a column (I was very proud of) entitled, "Buyer Beware of Consumer Staples Sellers Amid the Emerging Retail Monopsony," in which I outlined my view that the competitive landscape for consumer packaged goods companies was deteriorating post haste and that the sector no longer represented models of safety that would produce an assured and steady stream of profits and cash flows - as has been the case in the past. In early January, 2018 I followed up with a lengthy negative assessment of Procter (which I am similarly proud of), "P&G No Longer King of the Forest - It's The Cowardly Lion" in which I argued that the shares of PG (then trading at $88.30) were vulnerable to continued disappointments reflecting the changing business landscape for consumer packaged goods companies -- and that in the fullness of time activist Nelson Peltz (who's Trian Fund owns a large stake) would ultimately sell the shares for a loss. Here is a summary of that analysis: For many years Procter & Gamble possessed a deep moat that shielded it from competition and elevated the company's market share, sales, margins, profitability and share price. It might be difficult to believe, but working at P&G (three decades ago) was a glamorous gig -- the equivalent of working at Goldman Sachs (GS) , Action Alerts PLUS holding Alphabet's (GOOGL)  Google or Action Alerts PLUS holding Amazon.com (AMZN)  today. (I had 15 -- representing 5% of the class -- of my fellow Wharton MBA graduates join the company in 1972!) In the 1970s PG was the most admired company in the U.S. In 1996 PG was the second most admired company, behind Coca-Cola (KO)  , according to an annual study by Fortune Magazine. Even in 2009 PG was the sixth most admired but today PG is not even in the top 20 rankings. Over time that moat has been penetrated -- at first by generic and peer competitors. The company's moat has now been flooded in a post-Amazon world. Procter & Gamble was once one of the greatest companies in American industry. But, much like IBM (IBM)  , Eastman Kodak (KODK) , Sears (SHLD) and others -- PG is no longer king of the forest -- rather, it is a victim of competitors' progress (Henkel (HENOY) , Unilever (UL)  and Colgate Palmolive (CL) ) , the advent and proliferation of generic competition and the changes that they (and most recently Amazon) have inflicted on an industry that was vulnerable to attack. Importantly, the company (perhaps because of its complex organizational structure and accelerated outside competition) has lost its innovation edge (which produced/invented Tide, the first synthetic and best selling global detergent). Innovative product introductions have gotten more and more rare. Indeed the last two breakthrough products introduced by PG were Febreze odor eliminators and the Swiffer line of mops and dusters -- both were introduced 17 years ago! As a result, all five of the company's product groups have consistently lost market share and Procter's growth has slowed considerably over time. This has been manifested in tepid organic growth -- adjusted for inflation -- which has been basically zero for the last few years. PG has consistently missed its management targets and forecasts -- even though those goals, as one PG executive said, "was to lose market share." Though the company denies it, PG's culture favoring dedicated lifers provided past successes but is not adaptable to a changing environment -- becoming a brake, and not an accelerator in a world of digital disruption and broad shifts in consumer tastes. And so does a nearly impenetrable organization chart (known internally as "the thicket") make change difficult and reaction time too lengthy. It is my view that PG is in the fifth inning (of a nine inning game) in which its price earnings ratio (both absolutely and relatively) is being compressed. While PG is treading operating water (now), its competitors are bulking up with skilled players from their farm team. Its a lopsided ball game in which Procter & Gamble is falling way behind its opponent. Stated simply, Procter & Gamble faces little momentum (as mentioned in recent company commentary) -- an uncomfortable position for a company trading at 20x-21x forward earnings and a PEG rate of over 3.0 (based on 6% to 7% EPS growth). (By contrast a smaller Campbell Soup (CPB)  has the flexibility to significantly change its mix (towards snacks with the recent acquisition of Lance Snyder, and will have a more meaningful benefit from the new tax bill). Nelson Peltz undertook the most expensive proxy contest in corporate history late last year -- spending over $25 million to get on the Board (while PG spent over $35 million to keep him off the Board). The battle will no doubt continue in the Board room in the year ahead. But, even with Nelson Peltz (with only one Board seat out of 12) acting as an agent changing influence, as stated above, there are few levers left to pull for the company to get out of its current challenges. PG current entrenched management contends that it is already attacking the secular and product specific problems (and pegging the right combination of categories and countries) with a sense of urgency, but the company is a big battleship that is difficult to navigate and make quick strategic moves. (Here I respectfully disagree with Jim "El Capitan" Cramer who believes with Nelson Peltz added to the Board of Directors "a stretch of far greater margin improvement than imaginable" may lie ahead). At best I see PG as "dead money" -- at worst more guidedowns may lay ahead and the already projected slow growth rate (in sales and profits) may prove too optimistic. My guess is that Nelson Peltz ultimately sells out for a loss. Procter's Shares Plummet in 2018 Since then, PG shares have collapsed from the low $90s into the low $70s and I covered my short position on the price decline. My core belief back then was, with the PG Board unwilling to split the company up (as wanted by Nelson Peltz), was that there were few levers (as PG was then constructed) left to mitigate against the unfavorable corporate headwinds. I now believe (based on my contacts and research), that the magnitude of the share price degradation in PG's stock may be instilling a new sense of urgency on the part of the company and its Board of Directors - aided and abetted by activist and large shareholder Nelson Peltz. Indeed, Procter may now be in the very early stages of reassessing Peltz's original recommendation that it reorganize itself into three standalone business units (home-care, beauty and family-care) in order to resuscitate top and bottom line growth through more timely product innovation and with a more disciplined and intelligent R&D strategy than has been seen in the last decade. Low Expectations Are Now Discounted Today, sales, profit, and market (investor sentiment)

I like KO to make a run at $45 as the summer rolls along.

All of these stocks are standard go-to names when inflation is peaking.

The media software giant now seems eager to grow the reach of its marketing software platform, and in doing so better exploit some big industry trends.

These stocks are like spewing volcanoes. You do not want to get hit by one of them.