Having worked for a long time in global megacap companies, I can assure you that a local subsidiary has no say in such decisions. NYC dictates who to buy the drinks from.
2 Likes
Yesterday, when once again in a restaurant after asking for “Coke,” I was asked once again if Pepsi was okay. While waiting for my food, I started thinking about the market shares of these drinks in Finnish restaurants. According to my own experiences, Pepsi’s market share in restaurants is absolutely dominant. Whether it’s due to customers’ presumed preferences, price, or marketing, I don’t know.
My own fridge currently has Max and Zero, and which one I take depends on what I plan to drink it with. Currently, my direct stock investments are only in Coke.
2 Likes
Probably all the aforementioned things affect, but the biggest significance seems to be the deals chains make with suppliers. The best unit price wins. Additionally, Pepsi is a tad sweeter than Coke, so on average, it goes down better in a restaurant for the average consumer who doesn’t care about the brand. Because sweeter == better == better customer experience.
2 Likes
Here’s a short Twitter thread about Pepsi, quite good, but nothing too special. 
https://x.com/srn_wealth_89/status/1875568331706507563
3 Likes
According to the tweet thread, Pepsi currently appears very affordable. Based on FastGraph analysis, the stock may have the potential to yield over 15% annual returns.
Several prominent investors own a lot of this company, but there’s nothing particularly unusual about that. The company is challenged by declining sales volumes and health-centric policies, which weigh on market sentiment. According to the tweeter, this has created a narrative that the company is reaching its “saturation point,” but on the other hand, a contrasting view emphasizes the continuous demand for beverages and snacks. The company follows consumer trends, for example, with the Siete acquisition.
Technical analysis shows the stock is oversold.
https://x.com/ftorre104/status/1876607041248346323
Rest of the tweet thread
10 Likes
The price per liter of Pepsi Max has risen from 0.6 euros before inflation to 0.84 euros per liter, a 40% increase (Prisma). People’s earnings have not risen similarly, and Pepsi’s sales volumes are under downward pressure. I myself switched to a more affordable brand.
Is PepsiCo an affordable stock? Here are the facts:
Shares outstanding (October 1, 2024): 1,371,989,025
Share price: $142.82
Market cap: 195,947 million.
Debts (Q3): 38490 + 6524 = 45014 million
Liquid assets: 7308 + 743 = 8051 million
Enterprise value (EV): 195,947 + 45014 - 8051 = 232,910 million.
What about cash flows?
The balance sheet’s equity ratio is 19.5%. Pepsi cannot endlessly incur debt to pay dividends, and on the other hand, after paying dividends, not much money is left for investment. I believe that the expected return based on the stock’s fundamentals will remain around 3.5% before dividend taxes.
2 Likes
Here’s a concise analysis of Pepsi.
Referring to:
Pepsi’s growth slowdown has been predictable due to the company’s maturity, but its long-term growth potential is reasonable in any case. Young consumers still consume a lot of snacks, even though the health boom poses a challenge. Competition is intensifying, but the company remains a stable investment, offering an excellent dividend yield. 
4 Likes
Pepsi’s earnings exceeded expectations in terms of profit, but revenue and organic growth fell slightly short of forecasts.
In North America, Frito-Lay’s and Quaker Foods’ revenue decreased, while international markets, particularly Europe and Asia, grew strongly. Exchange rates negatively impacted the earnings. For the 2025 outlook, moderate growth and continued investments in international markets are expected, while strategically strengthening the North American business.
https://x.com/CmgVenture/status/1886779674904174833
8 Likes
The company’s first quarter was stable despite the uncertain global situation.
In the future, however, the development of global trade may increase delivery costs, and the consumer situation is weak in many places. The company aims to manage costs, develop its international business, and particularly improve results in North America.
Revenue for 2025 is expected to grow slightly, but on the other hand, profit is expected to remain at the same level. The dividend will be increased by five percent.
https://x.com/Earnings_Time/status/1915347758870913412
This tweet contains important highlights:
7 Likes
In the Bloomberg article, it is highlighted how the company has lowered its full-year earnings outlook due to uncertain trade policies and weakening consumer confidence, which raise costs and reduce demand for products.
The company now expects its results to remain at 2024 levels instead of previous growth forecasts; furthermore, the Ministry of Health’s plans to ban certain food colorings and restrict the availability of sugary products may affect the company’s business.
7 Likes
Earnings probably quite flat this year and Pepsico will likely raise its dividend. I idly looked at the FCF / dividend ratio for the last 5 years:
We are pretty much maxed out with free cash flow and dividend. Pepsi will surely turn over every stone to continue the 53 years of rising dividends.
9 Likes
Interesting company and valuation, but the continuation of operations in Russia despite the brutal war of aggression is quite too shameless for my taste.
2 Likes
Pepsi, with its Russian connections, is perhaps the most interesting company one can find. The company has been in Russia almost from the beginning. It managed to avoid Stalin’s mass murder periods but was involved in all other mass murder periods starting from the 70s. The logo can be found in the background of a Soviet military parade:
Why is this so? There has been some speculation that the CIA contributed to obtaining the export license, in order to bring a breath of capitalism and freedom to the heart of Mordor. (But this was, of course, at a time when the Americans still had the ability for soft power and complex thinking.)
This eventually led to Pepsi having a large amount of receivables from the former Soviet Union after its collapse, which was paid with what the state had, and the only thing the Soviet Union was not short of was military equipment. So, for a while, Pepsi eventually had the world’s sixth-largest navy.
Generally, the operations of Western companies in the current Mordor are highly reprehensible. But especially in Pepsi’s case, there are interesting subplots in this scenario.
6 Likes
Here’s a video about Pepsi’s army.
The history of Pepsi-Cola dates back to the 1890s, when North Carolina pharmacist Caleb Bradham developed a new drink called Brad’s Drink. The goal was to create a refreshing beverage that would promote health and aid digestion. Five years later, the drink was named Pepsi-Cola, and it quickly began to gain popularity. The official Pepsi-Cola company was founded in 1902.
Pepsi grew rapidly, but World War I brought challenges. The rising price of sugar and Bradham’s strategic error led to the company’s bankruptcy in 1923. After that, Pepsi came under the control of several different owners. In the 1930s, the company made a strong comeback by selling larger bottles at a lower price, which helped it gain a foothold in the beverage market and compete with Coca-Cola.
In the 1950s, Pepsi expanded its operations internationally and managed to break into the Soviet Union market during the Cold War. In 1958, the Lacy-Zarubin Agreement was signed, which opened cultural exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. Pepsi became the first American brand to enter the Soviet market. The brand was seen as a symbol of the Western lifestyle and capitalism. Pepsi achieved great popularity among Soviet citizens.
By the late 1980s, the economic situation in the Soviet Union had significantly deteriorated, and the country’s currency, the ruble, was not internationally usable. The Soviet Union could no longer pay for Pepsi products with vodka, as in previous barter agreements, and had to find a new solution. In 1989, the Soviet Union offered Pepsi military equipment as payment, including 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer. The value of this unusual deal was approximately 3 billion dollars.
The agreement was not only economically significant but also symbolically important. The Soviet Union was forced to sell its military equipment to pay for Western products, which reflected the country’s economic crisis and the final phase of the Cold War. Pepsi CEO Donald Kendall played a key role in the negotiations, and after the agreement, Kendall joked that Pepsi “disarmed the Soviet Union faster than the U.S. government.”
Pepsi did not keep the naval fleet for itself but sold the vessels for scrap, which brought significant financial benefits to the company. This exceptional agreement attracted international attention, and Pepsi was momentarily called the world’s sixth-largest military power. The agreement symbolized the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union’s economy and system in the final phase of the Cold War.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 complicated Pepsi’s operations, but the company maintained its position in Russia and other former Soviet countries, even though Coca-Cola took over some of the market.
Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:51 Where Pepsi originated 3:52 Cola drinks and vodka 8:22 The Soviet Union paid for its drinks with military equipment 11:56 Pepsi sells its military equipment 13:12 What happened to Pepsi when the Soviet Union collapsed?
10 Likes
Pepsi is getting the most important thing in order. 
https://x.com/finchat_io/status/1924881065803710479
Does one have to look at anything else than the dividend yield? 
2 Likes
With the expected growth, it could still drop by ~30%. A PE of around 20 is quite steep to pay almost entirely from the yield coming from that dividend.
Only if the dividend % is below 8. =P
2 Likes
Pepsi’s P/E ratio, and perhaps the company itself, has partly fallen along with its stock prices.
3 Likes
At this valuation level, Pepsi is a worthwhile investment to consider for the first time in a long time. The company is very well managed.
10 Likes
Pepsi Number Fever – the most expensive typo in history?
What was it about?
Pepsi Number Fever (“Pepsi 349”) was a raffle campaign launched by Pepsi Philippines (PCPPI) in February 1992. Numbers 001–999 were printed inside bottle caps, and a winning number was announced on television every evening. The smallest prizes were 100 pesos (~4 USD) and the grand prize was 1 million pesos (~40,000 USD). This amount was equivalent to 611 months of average salary in the Philippines at the time. Sales immediately rose: Pepsi’s market share jumped from 19.4% to 24.9% and monthly sales from 10 million → 14 million USD.
The “Winning” Number 349
On May 25, 1992, the news broadcast TV Patrol announced number 349 as the winner. The problem was that only two grand prize caps with security codes had been produced, but 800,000 regular caps, also bearing the number 349, had already been printed in an earlier stage of manufacturing. Calculated, Pepsi had “promised” to pay 32 billion dollars.
Pepsi’s Initial Reaction & “Goodwill Compensation”
The company quickly announced that caps without a security code would not be valid for redemption. This led to a crisis that quickly escalated, eventually Pepsi offered each holder of a “fake cap” a settlement sum of 500 pesos (approx. 18 USD). 486,170 people accepted the offer, which cost the company 240 million pesos (8.9 million USD).
Riots and Violence
Not everyone agreed to the compromise. A group called “349 Alliance” organized boycotts and demonstrations. A series of attacks targeted warehouses and Pepsi trucks, where 37 trucks were stoned, burned, and bombed. A bomb attack in Manila killed a teacher and a 5-year-old child, a grenade in Davao killed three Pepsi employees. At least 5 people died and several were injured.
Lawsuits and Courts
Approximately 22,000 people took Pepsi to court (689 civil lawsuits, 5,200 criminal complaints). Lower courts awarded small damages to the company, but the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in 2006 that PCPPI was not obligated to pay the amounts printed on the caps. Pepsi paid a $6,000 error fee to the Philippine Department of Trade and Industry.
Reputation & Market Share: The company became so hated in the Philippines that they had to rename their basketball team from Pepsi Hotshots to 7UP Uncola.
Sales temporarily plunged to 17% after the crisis, but recovered to 21% by 1994.
The campaign was awarded the Ig Nobel Peace Prize for its “ability to unite different factions” – everyone hated Pepsi.
In the Philippines, the saying “349ed” still lives on, meaning to be cheated.
30 Likes
This reminded me of my own memories of Pepsi’s marketing stunt, which dates back to around the turn of the millennium. At that time, Pepsi launched a campaign where collecting labels from Pepsi bottles earned various prizes. The best prize was a laptop with a list price of almost 2000 euros, which required collecting 1000 bottle labels during the campaign period.
At that time, 1.5-liter Pepsi bottles were priced in 4-pack bundles such that by buying 1500 liters of Pepsi, pouring the drinks down the drain, removing the labels, and returning the deposit bottles, the prize laptop would have been obtained cheaper than buying it from a store. So, for an enterprising student, a real no-brainer.
At that time, social media was still undeveloped, but information about this pricing error still spread. Eventually, I also went and bought a few shopping cart loads of bottles from Citymarket, whose labels I soaked off in the washroom. I sold the label-less bottles cheaply, first to friends and later on someone’s created “label-less Pepsi bottle sales website”. Pepsi redeemed the labels, and according to my memory, some received a newer model of computer when the older models reserved for the campaign ran out.
Similar clear and more easily exploitable pricing errors in campaigns were also common during the peak boom of online poker.
As an investment case, I have quite passively followed Pepsi and Coke, of which I own a bit of Coke. When comparing the stock performance of these two companies in recent years, it probably reminds me too much of Telia vs. Elisa, of which my portfolio has always held more of the seemingly cheaper Telia, which feels like an eternal promise.
So far, my only more permanent Pepsi ownership is a bottle of Pepsi I bought from the Soviet Union in the late 80s. It hasn’t paid dividends, but it has likely appreciated in value.
13 Likes