Green Infrastructure - Green Chip StocksLatest Articles with topic 'Green Infrastructure'2015-07-08T13:52:19ZIs Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) Overpriced?I like Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK), but not at these levels. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/28/31982/sahki.jpg" border="0" alt="sahki" width="203" height="152" />Morgan Stanley analysts gave a big thumbs-down to Shake Shack in a recent client note, saying that the stock is simply overpriced.</p>
<p>While a powerful emerging brand executing on all its early commitments to its investors, [the] stock is overpriced, in our view, potentially reflecting both technical market dynamics as well as 'brand'-related optimism that is not supported by fundamentals.</p>
<p>Morgan Stanley noted three warning factors …</p>
<p>1.) Only 5.75 million shares are trading out of a share count of 37 million.<br />2.) More than 2.5 million are being sold short<br />3.) Media hype over the IPO has died down. And this was definitely a high-profile IPO. It was marketed brilliantly.</p>
<p>Last week, I told you that if SHAK kept falling, the next level to watch would be $54. It has broken below $54. With continued broader market pressure, SHAK could be well on it’s way to breaking below $50.</p>
<p>Bottom line: The stock continues to be overvalued, but at the right price, I’m definitely a buyer.</p>
<p>As a side note, there was a piece this morning in Business Insider entitled: <em>Shake Shack just launched a Chick-fil-A killer — and it looks amazing</em></p>
<p><strong>Huh?</strong></p>
<p>First of all, this was a pretty sad attempt at taking the focus off the Morgan Stanley downgrade. Second, this simply isn't true.</p>
<p>Chick-fil-A is very much like a cult company. The food isn’t particularly mind-blowing, and certainly the restaurant isn’t bending over backwards to find high-quality sourcing for its ingredients. But its customers are some of the most loyal you’ll ever find.</p>
<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/28/31981/chicki.jpg" border="0" alt="chicki" width="254" height="162" />One reason is that a lot of folks actually like the food. There are a bunch of people in my office that come back to their desks at least once a week with a Chick-fil-A sandwich and a side of waffle fries.</p>
<p>The second reason is more the result of social identity, which was put on full display a few years back after the restaurant battled a major PR headache.</p>
<p>While Shake Shack does have a loyal following, it’s nowhere close to what Chick-fil-A has.</p>
<p>And as far as how amazing it looks, I don’t care if this is organic, free-range chicken served in a golden clamshell. Chick-fil-A customers are not going to abandon their favorite fast food chicken joint for a Shake Shack chicken sandwich. And if anyone did an ounce of research into fast food culture, this would be a very obvious observation.</p>
<p>The reason I’m pointing this out is not to opine fast food trends, but rather to point out what is obviously an attempt to distract investors from the bigger picture: That Shake Shack is overpriced. And it is.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean I don't like the stock. It just means I don't like it at these levels.</p>2015-07-08T13:52:19Z2015-07-08T13:52:19Z2360Jeff SiegelIs Donald Trump just a Dick?In case you were looking for the exact opposite of a socially responsible investment opportunity. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/27/31889/trumpgolf.jpg" border="0" alt="trumpgolf" width="246" height="164" />He’s portrayed as a villain …</p>
<p>An evil billionaire with no respect for history, culture or the will of the people, Donald Trump makes good on this image in his reluctant appearance in the movie, <em>A Dangerous Game.</em></p>
<p>Directed by investigative journalist Anthony Baxter, <em>A Dangerous Game</em> explores Donald Trump’s hard-on to build “world-class” golf courses on some of the most beautiful and culturally significant sites in the world.</p>
<p>From the pristine shores of Aberdeen, Scotland to the mountain tops of Dubrovnik, Croatia, overlooking the Adriatic Sea, Trump battles local residents as he uses his wealth and influence to bully those who dare oppose his plans to turn their backyards into tacky resort complexes.</p>
<p>After watching the movie, it’s easy to see how folks would be quick to condemn Trump for his actions, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. Kind of …</p>
<p>As a libertarian, I found myself quite fascinated by how local politicians helped facilitate Trump’s wants and needs.</p>
<p>Interviews with local politicians and eager developers clearly show how those who were elected to protect and serve the interests of “the people,” were instead protecting and serving the interests of foreigners who likely came bearing generous and expensive gifts.</p>
<p>It’s a classic tale, and one that often illustrates how politicians tend to be the worst guardians of liberty, freedom, and personal sovereignty.</p>
<p>In the case of Trump’s golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland, locals claim they were met with loss of road access, disruptions in water supplies, and crop disruption. If such claims were valid - and I’m going to assume they were - then clearly this would be a violation of their property rights.</p>
<p>Although Trump has the right to develop his property as he sees fit, in the presence of strong property rights laws (or as some would suggest, natural law), he would still have to answer to and compensate those whose property rights have been violated by his development. But that wasn’t the case.</p>
<p>Instead, local politicians chose to only protect the property rights of the highest bidder. And that, dear reader, is a tragedy that tends to play out over and over again.</p>
<p>So the question is, is Donald Trump responsible for violating the property rights of locals, or is the government responsible? Or better yet, are the people themselves to blame? After all, they were the ones who voted these folks into office under the assumption that, as lawmakers, they would be the guardians of the will of the people.</p>
<p>I don’t pose this question to offer you an answer. Instead, I pose this question to initiate a conversation about the role of government as it pertains to the protection of property.</p>
<p>I also don’t pose this question to excuse Trump’s behavior.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t understand how some folks can be so dismissive about bulldozing cultural sites and ecological treasures. Sure, I get that the quest to create wealth can sometimes overshadow the quest to just be a decent human being. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing anyone who seeks to create wealth.</p>
<p>Truth is, the one thing about this documentary that bothered me was how often “the rich” were vilified. Mocking and blindly criticizing a group of billionaires because they like to golf or spend ridiculous amounts of money on golf outings and resort vacations does a disservice to those who seek to protect their land from robber barons.</p>
<p>The fight should never be against the rich, it should be against the unethical and illegal actions of individuals - rich or poor.</p>
<p>It would also be in the best interests of those who seek to protect the environment from overzealous golf course developers to pool their capital, purchase environmentally, historically, and culturally-sensitive land, and place it in a land trust. This serves as a much more reliable mechanism of protection than a politician.</p>
<p>Still, overall, I did like the movie.</p>
<p>It was inspiring to see “the people” rise up against injustice. It was inspiring to see that even against one of the most influential billionaires in the world, “the people” still do have some power. I just hope the folks in Scotland and Croatia are now able to use that power to rid themselves of the forked-tongued politicians who were so eager to service Trump like truckstop hookers along a deserted highway.</p>
<p>So here’s my takeaway …</p>
<ol>
<li>Trump is kind of a dick. But I’d sooner criticize him for his lack of ethics and compassion than for his wealth.</li>
<li>Injustice is not the result of wealth, it is the result of relying on government to protect you and your property.</li>
<li>Turning culturally and historically-significant land into environmentally destructive golf courses is in poor taste, and really, just a shitty thing to do.</li>
<li>Libertarians should applaud the actions of the folks who fought to protect their land, as they did so in a fearless, yet non-violent fashion.</li>
<li>Watching this movie provided a strong reminder as to why I embrace socially responsible investing. There is no honor in investing in a project that trivializes the importance of nature, culture, and the will of the people.</li>
</ol>
<p>If you have any interest in the cause for liberty, property rights and the ability of sovereign individuals to protect their culture, I strongly suggest checking out <em>A Dangerous Game</em>. You can <a href="http://www.adangerousgamemovie.com/#watch-now"><strong>download it here</strong></a>. </p>2015-07-01T19:31:14Z2015-07-01T19:31:14Z2359Jeff SiegelChina's Quest for Organic FoodThe recent meat scare in China has Chinese consumers searching high and low for safe, organic food. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/26/31777/keegan.jpg" border="0" alt="keegan" width="221" height="166" />We laid Keegan to rest in late 2010.</p>
<p>She was very healthy throughout most of her life, and only fell ill after eating tainted dog food that was sourced in China.</p>
<p>You may remember the news reports back in 2007 when the FDA found melamine in vegetable proteins that were imported from China and used as ingredients in pet food. That’s what our dog ate.</p>
<p>Sadly, our beloved Icelandic Sheepdog (mix), which my wife rescued from the pound while living in Los Angeles, was one of the many victims of that Chinese dog food scare.</p>
<p>I actually remember Keegan cowering in the corner one morning after urinating in our bed - something she had never done before. Something was clearly wrong, and after a quick visit to the vet, we found out that her kidneys were failing.</p>
<p>Fortunately, we were able to save Keegan in the short-term. With a cocktail of medications and a flushing of her system, Keegan survived a few more years. But she was no longer that vivacious friend we came to love.</p>
<p>To be honest, I felt a little guilty. After all, we rarely ate any food that was not grown or produced in the United States. Except for certain tropical fruits and imported meats and cheese from Europe, most food items cooked and consumed in our house have been sourced from U.S. farms.</p>
<p>Yet when it came to our dog, we never thought twice about imported dog food.</p>
<p>Of course, since that episode, any dog that calls our house a home isn’t fed anything from China. Just as we don’t feed ourselves anything from China.</p>
<p>Now understand, I don’t say this to be critical of China in general. It’s really just a matter of trust. When it comes to the food we put in our bodies, I prefer to know exactly where my food came from and who touched it. This is why I’m so adamant about going directly to our local farms for most of our food.</p>
<p>That being said, I know I’m in the minority. Truth is, most folks in this country don’t think twice about where their food comes from. But I do believe this is starting to change.</p>
<p><strong>Unfit for Human Consumption</strong></p>
<p>It’s one thing when dog food from China is unfit for consumption. It’s another entirely when our food is unfit for consumption.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence in China. And it’s why more and more wealthier Chinese are looking to source their food from outside the Middle Kingdom.</p>
<p>Last week, there was a piece in the New York Times that described the latest Chinese food scandal. Here’s a snippet from that article:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From rat meat masquerading as lamb to tainted milk to exploding watermelons, Chinese consumers have become inured to stomach-churning food scandals. But on Tuesday, countless people were forced to ponder the benefits of vegetarianism after news reports emerged that unscrupulous meat traders had been peddling tons of beef, pork and chicken wings that in some cases had been frozen for 40 years.</p>
<p>The Chinese news media announced that the authorities had seized nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of smuggled frozen meat this month across China, some of it dating to the 1970s. The caches of beef, pork and chicken wings, worth up to 3 billion renminbi, or $483 million, were discovered in a nationwide crackdown that spanned 14 provinces and regions, the state news agency Xinhua reported.</p>
<p>Typically, the meat was shipped from abroad to Hong Kong and then brought to Vietnam, where traders would smuggle the product across the Chinese border without declaring it to customs officials or going through required inspection and quarantine procedures. From there, criminals would often transport the meat in unrefrigerated trucks to save costs and refreeze it several times before it reached customers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/27/31830/chinameat.jpg" border="0" alt="chinameat" width="630" height="419" /></p>
<p>According to a close contact of mine, who brokers deals with dozens of high-net worth Chinese, many of his clients come to the U.S. for three reasons:</p>
<p>1.) To get their money out of China<br />2.) Clean air<br />3.) Access to better food</p>
<p>Better schools are often included in this list, but I did find #3 to be particularly interesting.</p>
<p>It’s no secret that Chinese folks with money want to park it outside of China’s borders. And certainly clean air is a luxury not afforded to many living in China’s most populated cities. But “safer and better food” - something that many of us take for granted - was never something I gave much thought to until a few years ago when I started hearing about organic farms on the west coast of the U.S. and Canada being offered top dollar to ship their bounty to distributors in Hong Kong.</p>
<p>Truth is, the Chinese are so desperate for quality food, they’re searching out every possible lead they find. From small Canadian organic farms to larger organic beef producers in California and New Zealand, nothing is off the table.</p>
<p>From the perspective of overall sustainability, it would make more sense for the Chinese to focus on building up their own reputable organic food network. However, that’s not what they’re doing right now. At least not to any great degree. Instead, they’re looking to import, and this will create continued opportunity for organic growers in other parts of the world - in particular the U.S., Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Australia.</p>
<p>As this trend continues, expect to see more demand for quality, organic farmland in North America, where some is still available.</p>
<p>Now there are two ways to play this …</p>
<p>1.) Buy into an active, revenue-generating organic farm.<br />2.) Buy organic farmland and either work it (or have it worked, organically so as to maintain the credibility of the soil) or sit on it and wait for bigger organic farmland developers to come calling. And mark my words, they will.</p>
<p></p>2015-06-29T17:03:31Z2015-06-29T17:03:31Z2358Jeff SiegelBob Lutz is Wrong about Tesla Batteries When it comes to Tesla and battery backup, Bob Lutz just doesn't get it. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/24/31416/tbl.jpg" border="0" alt="tbl" width="223" height="149" />Does Bob Lutz like Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) or not?</p>
<p>The bigwig car exec who probably knows more about the car industry than practically anyone else, has certainly tipped his hat to the electric car-maker and to Elon Musk, but when it comes to the stock, he's perpetually bearish.</p>
<p>Of course, I've yet to find anyone who can really make sense of the stock.</p>
<p>On a technical basis, it's pretty much always been valued at levels that never really coincided with the reality. But the Tesla story has never been about just the technicals.</p>
<p>Tesla's valuation has always been attached to two things: A necessary disruption in the auto manufacturing space, and Elon Musk.</p>
<p>Some folks seem to think it's ridiculous to base the value of a company on its CEO. I disagree.</p>
<p>The way I see it, when you invest in a company, you're investing in its people.</p>
<p>Elon Musk has the intelligence, the charm and the “take-no-prisoners” attitude you want in a CEO.</p>
<p><strong>Building an Empire</strong></p>
<p>In my line of work, I come across dozens of new companies every month. Companies that are run by folks that have great ideas and great enthusiasm. But even if those folks had the greatest product on earth, if they don't know how to run a successful company – particularly in the alternative energy space – then the company will fail miserably. It's pretty simple, really.</p>
<p>So when people say, “Oh, Tesla's only been so successful because of Elon Musk,” my response is, “well, yeah.”</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. It takes more than a great leader to build an empire. Like-minded individuals are necessary as well. Employees, investors, customers – all are paramount.</p>
<p>But getting back to Bob Lutz …</p>
<p>Apparently, in a recent interview with Squawk Box, Lutz said …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think [the battery] is greatly overvalued because having batteries as backup storage has been around for hundreds of years. I can't understand the fascination with this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He said those words before Elon Musk gave a speech at the Edison Electric Institute convention in New Orleans.</p>
<p>I suspect this was a swipe at Tesla and its recently unveiled backup battery system, the Powerwall.</p>
<p>While I have no illusions about the knowledge this man possesses when it comes to cars, I think Lutz is dead wrong about batteries.</p>
<p>He said that he thinks batteries are overvalued because having them as backup storage has been around for hundreds of years.</p>
<p>While it's true that backup storage has been around for hundreds of years, the battery chemistries utilized today are far superior than anything that was developed hundreds of years ago. Hell they're far superior than anything that was developed just twenty years ago.</p>
<p>Take a look at this …</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/24/31414/oldbatt.jpg" border="0" alt="oldbatt" width="480" height="360" /></p>
<p>This is what a “modern” backup battery system looks like for an off-grid home that's powered primarily by roof-mounted solar panels.</p>
<p>Now look at Tesla's backup battery …</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/24/31415/tpw.jpg" border="0" alt="tpw" width="565" height="375" /></p>
<p>Beyond just the aesthetics, the power-to-weight ratio and energy densities make the old backup systems nearly superfluous. And don't forget, this is the very first version.</p>
<p>As technologies continue to develop rapidly, and as costs continue to plummet, backup batteries will become ubiquitous, and Lutz will be right – why the fascination with batteries?</p>
<p>Do we have a fascination with microwave ovens?</p>
<p>Do we have a fascination with indoor plumbing?</p>
<p>Do we have a fascination with email?</p>
<p>Of course not. Because these days, this stuff is just part of our everyday lives.</p>
<p>Mark my words, the same will happen with battery backup systems. And Tesla will lead the way.</p>
<p></p>2015-06-09T13:22:54Z2015-06-09T13:22:54Z2356Jeff SiegelInvesting in CoffeeInvesting in coffee can come with both financial and ethical rewards. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/23/31307/pacha.jpg" border="0" alt="pacha" width="203" height="203" />Three pounds of raw coffee beans from Ethiopia just arrived at my doorstep.</p>
<p>Thanks to the good folks at <a href="http://www.pacha.coop/">Pachamama</a>, I was able to buy my beans direct from the farmer, thereby ensuring that the folks who did all the hard work are compensated properly – without the interference of corporate hustlers and middlemen.</p>
<p>Now I'm told that I'll enjoy the subtleties of honey and apricot in this coffee, which is grown in the Yirgacheffe region. Certainly I'm excited to roast some up tonight. And in a few days, after taking my first sip, I have little doubt that my senses will be sending orgasmic cartwheel signals to my gustatory cortex.</p>
<p>Although plenty of folks enjoy coffee as little more than a morning pick-me-up, I treat it a bit differently. To me, drinking a quality cup of coffee is a privilege, and I'm honored and humbled by the farmers who provide me with my daily dose of euphoria.</p>
<p>It's not as if I couldn't survive without it, but damn life is a lot better with good coffee.</p>
<p><strong>Respect the Bean!</strong></p>
<p>As a loyal subject of the almighty coffee bean, it should come as no surprise that I'm very protective of those who make their living cultivating this heavenly plant. For the most part, I only buy direct from the farmer, and I spend a lot of time (probably too much time), researching various producers, regions, and wholesalers.</p>
<p>I want to know that my coffee is pure. That it was grown in a responsible and sustainable manner, without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. And I won't buy my coffee from a producer that treats its farmers like peasants and their children like afterthoughts destined for a life of illiteracy and poverty.</p>
<p>Does this cost me more? Of course it does.</p>
<p>But the ethical cost of doing business with those who don't respect the bean or the farmer is much greater.</p>
<p>Of course, when it comes to coffee, there's a much bigger threat than those who don't do right by this magnificent gift from God.</p>
<p><strong>Coffee Futures are going to Soar</strong></p>
<p>Last year, I published a piece about a 50% spike in coffee futures, writing …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Increases in global temperatures are cause for serious concern among coffee growers, and experts have already published their warnings.</p>
<p>Dr. Tim Schilling of the World Coffee Research program at Texas A&M University noted that the rise in global temperature is of great concern for the coffee industry because it will — and has already started to — put the supply of quality coffee at great risk. This will have a very negative effect on production and, over the long term, will definitely cause prices to rise.</p>
<p>At most risk is Brazil, which supplies roughly one-third of the world's coffee. Severe droughts have been predicted in the region, and coffee plants don't like dry weather.</p>
<p>In fact, back in January and February, a drought resulted in the destruction of about 25% of the nation's crops. Fortunately, warehoused product from the prior year provided a necessary hedge.</p>
<p>Warmer weather also carries with it the coffee berry borer beetle. It actually migrates with warming weather and, according to researchers at Yale, is the most costly pest affecting the coffee industry today, causing more than a half billion a year in damages.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When I wrote those words, coffee futures had already spiked, and coffee ETNs were crushing it.</p>
<p>Check out this chart that shows the iPath Dow Jones UBS Coffee ETN (NYSE: JO) and the iPath Pure Beta Coffee ETN (NYSE: CAFE).</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/23/31308/cfetns.png" border="0" alt="cfetns" width="760" height="451" /></p>
<p>Since then, coffee futures have plummeted, and both of these ETNs are trading at record lows.</p>
<p>But mark my words, as the heavy hand of global climate change smacks us on the ass like the disrespectful children we are, coffee futures are going to soar again.</p>
<p><strong>A Good Deal</strong></p>
<p>According to a recent report in the journal, Science Direct, rising nighttime temperatures in the coffee growing region of Tanzania are leading to a drop in Arabica yields.</p>
<p>Check it out …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Coffee is the world’s most valuable tropical export crop. Recent studies predict severe climate change impacts on Coffea arabica (C. arabica) production. However, quantitative production figures are necessary to provide coffee stakeholders and policy makers with evidence to justify immediate action. Using data from the northern Tanzanian highlands, we demonstrate for the first time that increasing night time (Tmin) temperature is the most significant climatic variable responsible for diminishing C. arabica yields between 1961 and 2012. Projecting this forward, every 1 °C rise in Tmin will result in annual yield losses of 137 ± 16.87 kg ha−1 (P = 1.80e-10).</p>
<p>According to our ARIMA model, average coffee production will drop to 145 ± 41 kg ha−1 (P = 8.45e-09) by 2060. Consequently, without adequate adaptation strategies and/or substantial external inputs, coffee production will be severely reduced in the Tanzanian highlands in the near future. Attention should also be drawn to the arabica growing regions of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia and Kenya, as substantiated time series evidence shows these areas have followed strikingly similar minimum temperature trends. This is the first study on coffee, globally, providing essential time series evidence that climate change has already had a negative impact on C. arabica yields.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who will seek to discredit this report. And in all fairness, that's how science is supposed to work. But I maintain that just like pretty much everything else that Mother Nature has provided us, a continuation of extreme temperatures and weather events is going to strike a serious blow to global coffee supplies.</p>
<p>As a result, I recommend making a conscious effort to buy your coffee from growers that already implement sustainability strategies that tend to provide a lot more flexibility when it comes to adapting to new challenges.</p>
<p>Doing so will result in the ability of these operations to further invest in these strategies and the natural capital required to maintain healthy soil and plants.</p>
<p>Conversely, those growers that rely heavily on chemical and synthetic inputs, thereby degrading the soil and the viability of the plant, are likely to get hit the hardest. Buying your coffee from these folks will primarily result in these growers seeking more chemical and synthetic inputs that'll only further liquidate the natural capital required to grow healthy coffee plants.</p>
<p>And if you're an investor, but want to look beyond just those two ETNs I mentioned above, we continue to search the globe for new coffee operations in which to invest through private deals. Although these deals tend to be available only for accredited investors, the opportunity to do right by the planet and by the bean can also result in some ethical profitability. Not a bad deal!</p>
<p>To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth …</p>
<p><img src="https://images.angelpub.com/2011/25/9080/jeff-siegel-signature.gif" border="0" alt="Jeff Siegel Signature" width="150" height="63" /><br />Jeff</p>
<p></p>2015-06-04T13:08:13Z2015-06-04T13:08:13Z2355Jeff SiegelInvesting in Organic FoodHere's the real deal about organic food and why it's so expensive.<p>Ever wonder why organic food is so expensive?</p>
<p>One of Silicon Valley's top angel investors gives his take.</p>
<p>Check it out …</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe height="315" width="560" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LS6TWtYWaPA" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>2015-05-29T13:42:25Z2015-05-29T13:42:25Z2354Jeff SiegelInvesting in the Death of CoalWant to make money? Invest in solar. Want to lose money? Invest in coal.<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/22/31139/coaltrain.jpg" border="0" alt="coaltrain" width="283" height="188" />Do you want to see the renewable energy industry grow and flourish?</p>
<p>Then invest in renewable energy companies.</p>
<p>Want to make fossil fuel companies scrounge for loose change?</p>
<p>Then divest from fossil fuel companies.</p>
<p>That's what the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund is about to do.</p>
<p><strong>This ain't Pocket Change</strong></p>
<p>According to Business Insider, Norway's state pension fund, which is valued at around $885 billion may soon be required to divest its holdings in companies that generate more than 30 percent of their output or revenues from coal.</p>
<p>Although the proposal won't become law unless approved by parliament on June 5, those close to the issue are confident that it's going to pass.</p>
<p>Business Insider reports …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The sovereign wealth fund, which at the end of December controlled the equivalent of 1.3 percent of world market capitalization, has in recent years divested its holdings in several dozen companies, including coal and cement producers, whose business models were deemed no longer tenable because of climate change or environmental costs -- moves that were made for strictly financial reasons.</p>
<p>The fund is already bound by strict ethical regulations that bar it from investing in "particularly inhumane" weapons makers, the tobacco industry and companies that are found guilty of violating human rights, causing serious environmental damage, or corruption.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although divestment isn't new, the enormity of Norway's state pension fund divesting from coal cannot go unnoticed. Again, this is the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund. This ain't pocket change!</p>
<p>Now if you're a regular reader of these pages, you know that I'm often in favor of relying on personal decision making instead of government intervention to combat environmental burdens. Divestment is a great example of how this can work effectively.</p>
<p>Moreover, when it comes to coal, divestment also makes practical sense.</p>
<p>The reality is, the days of King Coal are numbered. Investing in coal is not only a questionable endeavor from an ethical standpoint, it's also just a really bad investment.</p>
<p>Want a reality check on coal investing? Take a look at the Market Vectors Coal ETF (NYSE: KOL):</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/22/31137/kol.jpg" border="0" alt="kol" width="700" height="530" /></p>
<p>Renewable energy, on the other hand, is not only a great sector in which to invest, from an ethical perspective, but it's also a great sector in which to invest from a purely financial perspective.</p>
<p>In the world of energy, there is no greater opportunity than renewable energy. Solar in particular has eclipsed all fossil fuels in terms of growth rates and competitiveness. And the results for investors cannot go unnoticed. Consider my favorite solar stock, SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE):</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/22/31138/sunne.jpg" border="0" alt="sunne" width="700" height="530" /></p>
<p>The bottom line is that we are at the beginning of a massive transition of our global energy economy. Coal will continue to lose market share as renewable energy continues to gain market share. So the choice is actually pretty simple …</p>
<p>Make money in solar and wind or lose money in coal.</p>
<p>It's not rocket science.</p>2015-05-28T13:11:09Z2015-05-28T13:11:09Z2353Jeff SiegelGreen Chip Stocks Mid-Day Update: FSLR, SHAK, YUMShake Shack and First Solar are taking it on the chin today, while Taco Bell makes a ridiculous announcement. <p>Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) is down about 10 percent right now on a decent amount of volume.</p>
<p>Of course, the stock was also sitting above $90 this morning, which is absurd.</p>
<p>I actually recommended this stock shortly after it went public. I think it's a great company, and at the time was a great investment opportunity. But as you know, we dumped the slick burger chain last week after the stock broke above $75. Although the company has a great future ahead of it, the stock flew too high, too fast. At least for my risk-averse taste.</p>
<p>Since selling the stock, it climbed another 28% - giving me a little pain in my belly, as that's a lot of cash we left on the table. But the truth is, the stock was just getting too top-heavy, and I didn't want us to lose the gains we already locked in. Better to be safe instead of sorry.</p>
<p>In any event, the stock is selling off a bit today. Some of this may have to do with the broader market, though, so it's hard to determine right now whether or not SHAK is at the start of a correction. We'll find out shortly.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I have no intention of trading the stock on this dip. At $85, it's still trading well above what I think it's worth.</p>
<p><strong>First Solar</strong></p>
<p>First Solar (NYSE: FSLR) is also taking it on the chin today, down about 8 percent right now.</p>
<p>The stock was recently downgraded by RBC Capital, having its price target moved from $54 to $34. Analysts noted …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the company's high exposure to utility scale projects and the long lead-time and development cycle of those projects, we do not see upside surprise to our project revenue estimate.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the past, First Solar was able to win large utility-scale project contracts with lower efficiency Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) due to its lower cost. Driven by significant decline in polysilicon price and manufacturing efficiency improvement... First Solar may lose its cost advantage for the whole system compared to competitors using multicrystalline silicon technology.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I actually think RBC is underestimating the company's ability to thrive in a more competitive market.</p>
<p>I maintain the FSLR is solid play in the solar space, and a $60 price target is not out of the question. That being said, I have no intention of picking up new shares on this dip. It's just not significant enough. If the stock continues to fall, I may reconsider, but would be unlikely to make a move unless we see it break below $45.</p>
<p><strong>No Quiero Taco Bell</strong></p>
<p>In the world of food, Taco Bell made an interesting announcement today …</p>
<p>As reported by Bloomberg:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Taco Bell, which won over younger customers with unorthodox creations like Doritos-shelled tacos and fried cinnamon-bun balls, is now trying to appeal to millennials in a different way: cutting unnatural ingredients.</p>
<p>Taco Bell will remove artificial colors and flavors, high-fructose corn syrup and trans fats from 95 percent of its menu by the end of the year, Brian Niccol, the chain’s chief executive officer, said in an interview. The upgrade won’t result in higher prices.</p>
<p>“I want people to know that when they choose a chalupa, they can feel great about choosing that chalupa because it’s affordable, it’s craveable and we put the highest-quality food out there for them to enjoy,” Niccol said. “People just assume that in order to do this, things have to become more expensive. That’s a myth.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sheesh, this is so stupid!</p>
<p>If someone orders a chalupa, he's not ordering it because he wants something made with high-quality food. He wants something cheap and tasty. That's it.</p>
<p>I don't understand why so many of these fast food joints are trying to compete with companies like Chipotle (NYSE: CMG) and Panera (NASDAQ: PNRA) by offering “better ingredients.”</p>
<p>Look, just because Taco Bell, which is owned by Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM), will remove artificial colors, flavors and high-fructose corn syrup from its menu, doesn't mean the food is particularly healthy.</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/22/31043/tacobizel.jpg" border="0" alt="tacobizel" width="396" height="296" /></p>
<p>The meat the company uses is still some low-quality, industrially-produced toxic slop. Nearly everything on the menu contains GMO corn or soy, and I'd be willing to bet that any vegetable the company uses as toppings or in its sauces was bathed in pesticides.</p>
<p>I also love how the CEO of the company assures folks that the “upgrade” won't result in higher prices. Well, yeah, because it's not really an upgrade in food quality. Use better quality ingredients, and it'll cost more. Use garbage, and you can still get yourself a couple of cheap, tasteless tacos for a bit of pocket change.</p>
<p>Of course, I should note that YUM stock has actually been on a tear this year. Check it out …</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/22/31044/yummchart.jpg" border="0" alt="yummchart" width="700" height="530" /></p>
<p>Since Yum Brands does not align with our values, certainly this is not a stock we'd ever recommend. However, while the “food” YUM peddles is beyond disgusting, and likely incredibly dangerous to eat on a regular basis, the stock has performed quite well since early January, moving from around $70 to nearly $96.</p>
<p>I suppose the silver lining would be that you could use those fat gains to pay for your coming medical bills.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I maintain that YUM management is wasting a lot of time, energy, and money trying to create the illusion that it's offering healthier options.</p>
<p>Health and sustainability efforts can't be faked as easily as they used to be. And if a company is the antithesis of health and sustainability, it should just own up to it, instead of trying to be something it's not.</p>
<p></p>2015-05-26T16:25:10Z2015-05-26T16:25:10Z2352Jeff SiegelInvesting in Sustainability with Shake Shack Profits (NYSE: SHAK)If it's time to take profits on Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK), here's a great way to invest your winnings. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/21/30926/grassfedd.jpg" border="0" alt="grassfedd" width="255" height="170" />The bears came out swinging last Thursday after Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) nose-dived, closing the day at $65.50, after opening at $75.34.</p>
<p>Before 4:00, the smart money loaded up!</p>
<p>Today, I'm sitting here watching shares cross $72. Those in it for a quick one have likely locked in their gains already. After all, it's hard to beat a 10 percent gain in two days.</p>
<p>And of course, those in it for the long-haul are feeling a sense of vindication today, after valiantly defending the stock on message boards and twitter.</p>
<p>As for me, I've liked Shake Shack from day one, and recommended the stock not long after going public. However, I'm definitely feeling like the stock is a bit top-heavy right now. The fact that we've crossed $70 this fast is starting to weigh on my left brain functions.</p>
<p>As much as I like the company, I think it might be time to take some profits off the table. After all, you know the saying …</p>
<p>Pigs get slaughtered.</p>
<p>That being said, I'll continue to look for any new opportunities to pick up shares on a worthwhile dip.</p>
<p>In the meantime, for those choosing to lock in those gains, but still see higher-quality, more sustainably-produced burgers as a solid investment opportunity, I suggest taking your winnings to your local grass-fed cattle farmer and purchase a whole butchered cow.</p>
<p>This is not only a financially-attractive investment, as buying wholesale can always save you a few bucks, but an investment in your health, too.</p>
<p>Compared to conventionally-raised, grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef tends to be:</p>
<ul>
<li>Lower in total fat</li>
<li>Higher in beta-carotene</li>
<li>Higher in vitamin E</li>
<li>Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium</li>
<li>Higher in total omega-3s</li>
<li>A healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids</li>
<li>Higher in CLA, a potential cancer fighter</li>
<li>Higher in vaccenic acid, which can be transformed into CLA</li>
<li>Lower in saturated fats linked to heart disease</li>
</ul>
<p>You can either buy it all for yourself or go in on it with some friends. Perhaps split it up in quarters. You'll be well-stocked with quality, grass-fed beef while saving a few bucks, feeding your body a healthier meat option, and supporting your local economy. A win-win-win! Just make sure you have a decent-sized chest freezer for all that mouth-watering protein.</p>
<p>For more on grass-fed beef, check out this short video of one of my favorite people: Joel Salatin – known to many as the lunatic farmer. Enjoy …</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe height="315" width="420" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5nIcfh2UqV8" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>2015-05-19T01:02:53Z2015-05-19T01:02:53Z2350Jeff SiegelInvesting in Sustainable MarijuanaThe legal marijuana industry will breed huge profits!<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/15/30264/legalpot.jpg" border="0" alt="legalpot" width="233" height="132" />Would you take policy recommendations from iconic stoner Tommy Chong?</p>
<p>The National Cannabis Industry Association is betting that most politicians won't. And that's likely the reason the marijuana lobbying group recently dropped Chong from its latest lobbying effort.</p>
<p>While it may seem petty to some supporters of marijuana legalization, I get it.</p>
<p>Look. The days of patchouli-scented hippies sporting ripped Bob Marley t-shirts while begging random folks to sign petitions to legalize marijuana are over. And I say good riddance!</p>
<p>I maintain that one of the biggest hurdles of legalization over the past forty years has been the lack of smart, strategic communications efforts. But clearly, that is changing.</p>
<p>Today, legalization is a huge movement gaining an enormous amount of momentum. As it stands, 23 states and Washington D.C. have some form of legalization on the books. Some are better than others, but consider where we were just ten years ago. The acceptance of marijuana for both recreational and medicinal purposes has grown rapidly, and it's not likely to stop. And this is fantastic news for investors.</p>
<p><strong>Don't Give them an Excuse</strong></p>
<p>As an analyst and investor, I'm always looking for ground-floor opportunities in new markets. And without a doubt, I haven't seen this much profit potential since I first started reporting on the renewable energy sector back in 2005.</p>
<p>The end of marijuana prohibition – which, mark my words, is coming – is going to usher in a wave of opportunity for those who have the stones to ride it. And part of the reason for this is that the movement to legalize is being spearheaded by professionals – doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, entrepreneurs, and yes, even some politicians.</p>
<p>So when I heard that Chong was being asked to “sit this one out,” I wasn't surprised.</p>
<p>The marijuana industry doesn't want the public viewing this movement as something being run by this guy.</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/15/30263/chong.jpg" border="0" alt="chong" width="461" height="259" /></p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I think Tommy Chong is brilliant. The Cheech and Chong comedy team was one of the most ground-breaking of its time, and I've always been a fan.</p>
<p>However, for the sake of the movement, we must not give any rhetorical ammunition to the minority wings of holier-than-thou moral do-gooders. Whether its former drug czars or drug war-loving bureaucrats like Andy Harris, they're all looking for any excuse to derail legalization. And if that were to happen, it would be a huge blow to individual liberty, personal sovereignty, and the ability for law-abiding investors and entrepreneurs to create wealth.</p>
<p>Now some folks may wonder why a letter focused on renewable energy and organic agriculture would chime in on this. The reason is simple: The marijuana industry represents an opportunity for ethical investing. Something I've always championed.</p>
<p>Depriving a sick person his medicine is unethical. Plain and simple. And it is for that reason that I support, and continue to profit from the burgeoning legal marijuana industry.</p>
<p>Now we began covering this market at the start of the year in our premium publication, and plan to continue this coverage here, in our free newsletter, going forward. As a side note, we only look to focus on those marijuana businesses that seek to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. So this would exclude operations that rely heavily on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.</p>
<p></p>2015-04-10T14:46:44Z2015-04-10T14:46:44Z2344Jeff SiegelWhole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM), Sprouts (NASDAQ: SFM), Love Humanely Raised EggsInterstate trade wars over egg regulations are harmful to economic growth. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/14/30015/humaneeggs.jpg" border="0" alt="humaneeggs" width="284" height="213" />California is a land with lots of laws and lots of regulations.</p>
<p>It's actually become the proverbial “go-to” state for politicians who want to warn of the evils of taxation and socialism.</p>
<p>It's true that California is a state where the tax burden is heavy and dependence upon the state is excessive. But I'm not writing about California today to talk about my own hangups with the Golden State. I'm writing about California to talk about a backlash against the state's new regulations that require the space allocated for every egg-laying chicken in California to be increased by nearly 70%.</p>
<p><strong>California's Liberal Agenda</strong></p>
<p>When these regulations were first revealed, the egg industry lost its shit. There were all kinds of grave warnings about the cost of eggs rising almost 50% as a result of the new regulations. And you know what? The cost of eggs has risen considerably. And this has affected more than those just in California.</p>
<p>As it is, about 20 million eggs are imported to California every single day. And those imports need to come from companies that comply with California's strict regulations.</p>
<p>Of course, whether or not you agree with California's regulations, the fact is, voters in that state have accepted this regulation along with the increase in egg prices. Those who live outside of California can mock or argue the morality of these regulations, but the bottom line is that this is what California decided. And if you still want to sell eggs in California, then you're going to have to jump through some hoops. Either that, or just stop selling eggs to California altogether.</p>
<p>Although I agree that these chickens should be treated more humanely, there is nothing stopping egg producers outside of California from maintaining the status quo and cutting California out of the supply chain.</p>
<p>But that would be too much to ask. You know, because California is trying to force its liberal agenda down the throats of others. Or at least that's how it's being pitched.</p>
<p><strong>By Force?</strong></p>
<p>If you're a regular reader of these pages, you know <a href="http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/food-pioneers-and-ethical-investors/2341">I favor free market solutions to animal cruelty</a> over those issued by regulatory regimes. I'm pleased to know that chickens in California and other states are now being treated a little better, but I would argue that there were probably better ways to go about it.</p>
<p>In any event, there are some lawmakers in Arkansas that are so fired up, they're now looking to strike back against California's evil plan of hippie domination.</p>
<p>As reported in agweb ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An Arkansas lawmaker said Wednesday that the state should ban California wine as retribution for the West Coast state's law requiring egg-laying hens to be able to stand up, turn around and fully extend their wings.</p>
<p>The House voted 57-19 to advance to the Senate a bill that outlaws wine imports from any state that imposes a "substantial burden" on the Arkansas agriculture industry. The Secretary of the Arkansas Agriculture Department would determine what is burdensome under the bill. The Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division would be able to sanction or revoke a license of a business that broke the law.</p>
<p>Republican Rep. Dan Douglas of Bentonville said California's voter-approved 2008 egg law has created a "nightmare" for Arkansas producers. The California Legislature in 2010 extended those requirements to all eggs sold in the state — which has barred some Arkansas eggs from cooped-up hens.</p>
<p>"We have to show the state of California they cannot force their standards on us," Douglas said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And there's the rub …</p>
<p>No one has forced a standard upon anyone.</p>
<p>Egg producers in Arkansas are not forced to sell their eggs in California.</p>
<p>Don't want to abide by the new standards? Sell your eggs someplace else.</p>
<p>Also worth noting – who do you think would be hurt worse from this kind of attack?</p>
<p>California would feel a pinch, but folks in Arkansas would be screwed over far more. If egg producers are relying on the state to fix this problem, they're going to find themselves sitting in the corner in a year or two, wishing they had just give the customer – California – what it wanted, instead of running to their nanny. After all, isn't that how you get and keep valuable contracts? You give the customer what he wants, and you will be compensated. Pretty simple, really.</p>
<p>And rest assured, while Arkansas politicians fight a pointless uphill battle, there are plenty of other egg producers more than happy to fill the void. It's hard enough to keep humanely-raised eggs on the shelves. This is a huge opportunity for farmers that know how to spot an opening in the marketplace. And rest assured, even outside of California, there are plenty of Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM) and Sprouts Farmers Market (NASDAQ: SFM) outlets that are always looking for new suppliers that meet their own strict guidelines for egg production.</p>
<p>In the meantime, while egg prices continue to rise, I'm paying close to what I've been paying for years, because my eggs come from a local farm, where chickens run around happily, eating things God intended them to eat, instead of being cramped in dimly-lit industrial death camps, feeding on toxic cocktails while suffocating in their own filth.</p>
<p></p>2015-03-30T16:40:57Z2015-03-30T16:40:57Z2342Jeff SiegelFood Pioneers and Ethical Investors When you're disconnected from your food, you are disconnected from the sanctity of life. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/13/29909/happyhogs.jpg" border="0" alt="happyhogs" width="259" height="164" />When I go fishing, I like to clean my catch the minute I reel it in.</p>
<p>While some of my fishing buddies think I'm crazy for wasting valuable fishing time by doing this, I find it in line with my desire to cause the least amount of pain and distress for the fish.</p>
<p>It is my intention to prevent any unnecessary suffering while ensuring no part of the fish is wasted. This animal is being sacrificed so that I can eat. The least I can do in return is ensure this sacrifice isn't trivialized.</p>
<p>Of course, I know I'm in the minority on this one, but that's OK. There's no harm in following your own path. Although for those who claim to honor all God's creatures, it's worth noting that there is no honor in being disconnected from your food. In fact, I would argue that many of us in the United States are particularly wasteful because of the fact that we are not connected to our food.</p>
<p>If we had to grow, raise, and slaughter our own, I suspect there would be a huge decrease in the amount of food that ends up in the trash.</p>
<p>That being said, the market has enabled most Americans to enjoy the privilege of buying their food without having to get dirty. And this is a good thing. It has allowed for economic efficiencies, convenience, and prosperity. But with this privilege comes responsibility. And this is where we have fallen short.</p>
<p>How did we get here?</p>
<p>By not taking the time to know where our food comes from or how it's raised, grown or slaughtered, we have become numb to the sanctity of life. We no longer hold food to be sacred, and that in itself is a tragedy of epic proportions.</p>
<p>Most folks spend more time choosing a color for their smartphone cover than they do investigating where their food comes from. And this is really bizarre when you consider that without a smartphone cover, your smartphone could get scuffed up and dirty. But without food, you die.</p>
<p>So how did we get here?</p>
<p>How did we get to this place where aesthetically-pleasing electronics have taken priority over that which fuels are bodies and nourishes our souls? It's hard to say, but one thing is certain: Any efforts taken to re-connect us to the food we eat should be met with great applause and humble gratitude.</p>
<p><strong>A Freezer full of Protein<br /></strong></p>
<p>Last week, I read a story about a slaughterhouse in Vermont that has public viewing windows which allow visitors to watch how animals are turned into food.</p>
<p>The name of this operation is the Vermont Packinghouse, and as reported in Civil Eats ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...for those who want to observe it—an act that can require courage and vulnerability, but that can ultimately spark greater respect for animals, for meat, and for meat industry workers—Vermont Packinghouse quietly offers the opportunity, and with some degree of pride.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While some may find such a thing horrific, I find it to be quite respectful. Particularly because this slaughterhouse seeks to ensure that the animal isn't mistreated or forced to suffer a painful death.</p>
<p>As Civil Eats writer Caroline Abels describes …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Anyone who calls in advance or stops by during business hours can be let in to observe, through the two small windows, the process by which live animals become food: the quick shot that renders the animal desensitized to pain; the hoisting of the animal by its legs, so it can bleed out; the splitting of the carcass; the removal of the hide and the insides.</p>
<p>No animals were being slaughtered on the first day I visited, but on a second visit I watched a large veal calf from Lisa Kaiman’s Jersey Girls Farm going through the process.</p>
<p>It took less than 30 seconds before the kill floor foreman, Cory LaCroix, managed to quiet the animal enough to place the captive bolt gun to its forehead and immediately desensitize it to pain. The animal did writhe, but Arion explained that this is because the cow’s cells and nerves in the individual muscles can remain active for two hours after death. (Workers confirm whether a stun was successful by touching the animal’s eye—if the animal doesn’t flinch, the stun was a success.)</p>
<p>The calf was then shackled by its hooves and hoisted upside down. As “Sweet Home Alabama” played on a radio, Cory and other workers bled out the carcass, split it in two, and removed the hide. Arion likes to say the Packinghouse uses “everything but the moo,” so the hide would go to JC Rendering out of New York State, the organs would be turned into offal, and everything else not given back to the farmer would be rendered and turned into pet food.</p>
<p>Outside, there are holding pens for the animals that were designed by Temple Grandin’s firm, so they meet the high standards that Grandin, a pioneer in humane livestock handling, has set. High walls and a horseshoe design keep animals calm as they walk through. The entire plant has been positively reviewed by Animal Welfare Approved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It may sound harsh, but the way I see it, if you don't have a problem eating meat, then you shouldn't have a problem watching the sacrifice that results in a freezer full of protein. Anything less is a complete disconnect that shields us from truth and trivializes the life of the animal.</p>
<p>Interestingly, most slaughterhouses go out of their way to ensure no one sees what's going on inside. And there's a reason for that. Most slaughterhouses are houses of horror, where animals are handled like soulless widgets, mistreated from birth until death by a system that rewards violence. Of course they don't want anyone to see that.</p>
<p>So kudos to the Vermont Packinghouse. And kudos to investors who are smart enough to invest in these types of operations, as not only are such investments good karma, they're fantastic profit opportunities if you know what you're doing and how to best structure a deal the rewards both parties.</p>
<p>The future of agriculture in the U.S. will look remarkably different than what plagues us today. And this transition will be facilitated by food pioneers and ethical investors. Which are you?</p>
<p></p>2015-03-25T15:14:05Z2015-03-25T15:14:05Z2341Jeff SiegelA Libertarian Perspective on Food WasteWhy waste food when you can sell it? <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/12/29845/denapples.jpg" border="0" alt="denapples" width="230" height="153" />We usually start picking around late August. That's when the Ginger Golds come in.</p>
<p>Then, throughout September, the Honey Crisp and Jonagolds are ready, and we can usually pick a few bushels of Fujis, Braeburns, Mutsus and Staymans in October.</p>
<p>We've been going out to the orchards to pick our own apples for years. And I suppose I'm pretty spoiled, because I can barely stomach apples from the grocery store these days. Although I will give some credit to Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM), which does actually come through if the local season peters out faster than normal.</p>
<p>But the fact is, once you've eaten fresh, sustainably-produced apples – picking them while they're in season – it's hard to go back to slumming it in the produce aisle.</p>
<p>Sure, most grocery stores display the shiny, perfectly-shaped Red Delicious and Granny Smiths throughout the year. But looks can be deceiving.</p>
<p>While most consumers run to grab the most aesthetically-pleasing apples, they're unlikely to know the true joy that comes with visual imperfections.</p>
<p><strong>A Proper Home for Ugly Fruit</strong></p>
<p>The apples we pick don't look like the apples you find at the grocery store.</p>
<p>Most are oddly-shaped, speckled with insect nibbles and visible scars and blemishes. None of these would ever get passed a grocery store buyer, yet the flavor and nutritional value of these apples is superior to anything offered at the food store.</p>
<p>Of course, even the orchards that source most grocery stores don't exclusively produce “perfect visual specimens.” And in many cases, the apples that don't meet the prerequisite for observable perfection are often wasted or used in a capacity that devalues the product, leaving the farmer with produce that can't command a decent price.</p>
<p>In some states, groups of volunteers often show up to the orchards at the end of the season, scoop up all the “unwanteds,” and deliver them to food banks. Certainly this is an honorable endeavor. But by the time this happens, the shelf-life of these apples is extremely limited.</p>
<p>However, thanks to a wonderful free-market idea, “ugly” fruits and vegetables are finally finding a proper home.</p>
<p>As reported in SFGate …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We waste 40 percent of our food, and the National Resources Defense Council reports that 20 percent of produce is wasted at the farm. Fruit and vegetables that don’t meet strict supermarket standards for size and appearance usually go to waste. Or, if the value of a crop suddenly drops and it costs more for the farmer to harvest it than to sell it, it rots in the field.</p>
<p>Palo Alto’s Bon Appetit Management Co. has now started a program that could make a dent on some of this waste on the farm, since it feeds vast numbers of people at the corporate, university and museum cafeterias it runs across the country, including at Google locations.</p>
<p>Called Imperfectly Delicious Produce, the program connects with produce aggregators and farmers to bring items like just-barely scarred apples and broccoli fines (loose broccoli florets) into Bon Appetit kitchens.</p>
<p>Since launching in May, Bon Appetit’s Northern and Southern California sites have purchased 35,000 pounds of produce that might have otherwise been thrown out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I love this!</p>
<p>Eliminating food waste while honoring free market principles – without the assistance, demands or objections from government.</p>
<p>It'll be interesting to see if this idea catches on. But if the economics work (which I'm sure they do), I can easily see a lot of higher-end restaurants utilizing this model to provide quality ingredients while improving margins.</p>
<p>As for us, when apple-picking season starts again this year, we'll be out in full force. Because there are few things more enjoyable in the fall than picking apples with your family, then heading back to the house to eat them and can, and dehydrate them for the coming winter.</p>
<p>Oh, and of course it's a necessity to bang out a few apple pies, too. They don't last long, but there's definitely something magical about a warm piece of homemade apple pie on a chilly fall evening. I prefer mine with a bit of cinnamon and a glass of fresh, raw milk.</p>
<p></p>2015-03-20T14:54:44Z2015-03-20T14:54:44Z2339Jeff SiegelThe Russian Anti-Fracking ConspiracyHarold Hamm thinks the Russians are funding the anti-fracking movement. Is he right?<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/11/29696/antifrack.jpg" border="0" alt="antifrack" width="247" height="164" />Harold Hamm, the fracking king who recently wrote his ex-wife a check for $975 million to settle a divorce, is back in the news.</p>
<p>This time, though, it has nothing to do with a nearly $1 billion divorce settlement.</p>
<p>No, this time Hamm is causing a stir because of something he said in a recent interview with Christopher Helman of Forbes Media. Check it out ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Russia’s spent a great deal of money over here to cause a panic in the United States over fracking to stop it, because suddenly their market share is going away. There was a lot of money spent in the U.S. to send people into a panic over fracking because they wanted to stop what we were doing. They saw this coming,”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While I don't doubt the Russians would be happy to finance any movement that hurts the U.S. oil production boom, you can't blame Vlad Putin for this one.</p>
<p>The truth is, environmentalists, for the most part, just hate oil.</p>
<p>Sure, they still use it in their daily lives, but that doesn't stop them from lashing out against the “Big Oil” machine. And certainly some of their hostility is justified.</p>
<p>You know, it wasn't the Russians that discharged 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.</p>
<p>It wasn't the Russians that built the fracking disposal wells in Ohio where 400 earthquakes were triggered over a 3-month period.</p>
<p>It wasn't the Russians who contaminated thousands of people's wells that happen to be located close to fracking operations, and it wasn't the Russians that were cited for spilling oil and brine into two streams in North Dakota. No, that was actually Hamm's company, Continental Resources.</p>
<p><strong>Stupid Environment</strong></p>
<p>Understand, I'm not writing this today to criticize fracking or oil production in general.</p>
<p>Certainly there are plenty of companies that are trying to produce domestic oil in a manner that causes the least amount of environmental damage possible. And quite frankly, it's really just been a handful of bad apples that have dismissed the value of natural capital in an effort to squeeze a few more bucks out of their operations.</p>
<p>Of course, that doesn't mean I'm a fan of our continued reliance on oil. I maintain that the internal combustion engine is a dinosaur and unless we all want to live as knuckle-dragging Luddites, we would be wise to embrace alternatives to internal combustion.</p>
<p>However, in the meantime, guys like Hamm need to realize that not everything is a fucking conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, people are sick and tired of the government and unethical corporations treating the planet like their own personal toilets. And if unethical oil producers want environmentalists to back off, they should just stop vilifying them and start taking the appropriate measures to ensure they respect the environment instead of shitting on it.</p>
<p>And for environmentalists that are fed up with the way some of these oil producers do business, trade your old car in for an electric vehicle, start taking public transportation, or walk more. Kicking and screaming only pisses people off, but taking personal responsibility for your actions will deliver immediate, and much better results.</p>2015-03-13T15:08:28Z2015-03-13T15:08:28Z2337Jeff SiegelShake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) Buying OpportunityShake Shack has loads of potential, but a long, hard road ahead. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/11/29673/shakk.jpg" border="0" alt="shakk" width="223" height="167" />I must admit, even I was blown away by how high Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) catapulted on its debut back in January.</p>
<p>Prior to the IPO, I actually shared my enthusiasm over SHAK, but warned investors to hold off on picking up shares until Q4 numbers came in.</p>
<p>The company's got a good thing going, but it's also embarking on a very aggressive growth strategy that will likely limit its ability to deliver stellar results in the near-term.</p>
<p>Yesterday afternoon, we got a look at those Q4 numbers.</p>
<p>Total revenue and same-store sales numbers impressed, but a net loss of $1.4 million spooked analysts, which were expecting a less corrosive loss. The low end of projected revenue also fell short of Wall Street estimates.</p>
<p>Overall, I actually like the company, and think the net loss wasn't quite as bad as some are making it out to be, considering much of that came from expenses related to the IPO. And it looks like SHAK is actually starting to shake off the stench of weak hands that ran for the hills this morning.</p>
<p>Still, I remain very cautious as we head further into 2015. I'm not confident that the broader market is going to survive this year without a few violent sick days that'll vomit up overzealous bulls like a dog with a bad case of worms. And with SHAK trading over $48 right now, I do think it's a bit top-heavy.</p>
<p>For now, I'll remain on the sidelines. But if we do see a purge in the broader market, and SHAK loses some of its mojo, it could be a great buying opportunity.</p>
<p></p>2015-03-12T14:19:46Z2015-03-12T14:19:46Z2336Jeff SiegelStarbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) Going to $100Waiting for a dip to buy some more Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX)<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/11/29650/sbuxx.jpg" border="0" alt="SBUXX" width="236" height="132" />Never complain about a gain.</p>
<p>That's what they always tell you after you sell a stock for a small gain, then watch it climb higher and higher and higher.</p>
<p>I've done this plenty of times throughout my career. Mostly because I'm just not that big of a gambler.</p>
<p>If I can lock in a nice gain in a short amount of time, I consider it a gift, and don't wait around for a bigger gift.</p>
<p>Some have suggested this is my downfall, claiming that if I had a bigger set of stones I'd be much wealthier. And perhaps that's true. Certainly this is the case with Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX).</p>
<p><strong>Unreasonable Expectations</strong></p>
<p>Back in April of 2013, I scooped up a few shares of SBUX when it dipped below $70. I figured it was a decent price given the fact that my analysis indicated the stock could touch $82 within a year. Certainly nothing wrong with a 17% gain with a small dividend to boost.</p>
<p>Well, earlier this year, Starbucks crushed earnings with Q1 same-store sales growth coming in at 5% and average purchase prices rising 3%. Analysts chimed in that Starbucks was proving its worth as a long-term core holding for investors.</p>
<p>On the news and analyst upgrades, the stock surged, hitting a new 52-week high of $94.83 on February 25.</p>
<p>As luck would have it, I bugged out at around $86.</p>
<p>Deep down, I knew the stock would touch $90, but I didn't trust the broader market. Still don't. But none of that matters.</p>
<p>What matters is that instead of walking away with a 28% gain, I walked away with a 22% gain.</p>
<p>I know, I know. What's 6%, right?</p>
<p>Well, what can I say? Greed breeds unreasonable expectations.</p>
<p>Now since the stock hit that new 52-week high, it's adjusted a bit. But long-term, I still like Starbucks. Especially after seeing the company's latest commercial.</p>
<p><strong>The Power of Advertising</strong></p>
<p>I'm a big believer in the power of advertising.</p>
<p>You get yourself one solid ad campaign, and you're golden.</p>
<p>GEICO Insurance is a great example of this.</p>
<p>With the help of some incredibly creative ads, GEICO ultimately became the second largest auto insurer in the U.S.</p>
<p>Warren Buffett has actually gone on record stating that if he could, he would spend $2 billion on GEICO ads. Berkshire Hathaway is actually the parent of GEICO, so clearly Buffett's got some skin in this game.</p>
<p>In any event, I never doubt the power of a solid marketing campaign. And I think Starbucks landed one when it launched its documentary-style “Meet Me at Starbucks” campaign last October.</p>
<p>Boy does this thing sing to the Starbucks customer base. It not only does an excellent job at making them feel all warm and squishy, but I'm pretty sure it helps a lot of people to forget the fact that they're ponying up a lot of scratch for a cup of coffee.</p>
<p>Of course, for Starbucks, it's not really about coffee. It's about a lifestyle that the company has successfully created. It's a lifestyle that most Americans embrace, and it's a lifestyle that will continue to make Starbucks a crap ton of money.</p>
<p>You can see the ad below.</p>
<p>Check it out for yourself, and mark my words …</p>
<p>It's this kind of advertising that's going to help Starbucks become a $100 stock.</p>
<p>I don't know when it's going to happen, but I do know that if the broader market gets sideswiped this year and takes Starbucks down with it, I'm going to be ready to pounce. Because I would love another shot at this one on it's way to $100.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe height="315" width="560" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n9coHX45Cvk" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>2015-03-10T14:50:53Z2015-03-10T14:50:53Z2335Jeff SiegelShake Shack (NYSE: SHAK): Get Rich and Eat a Burger!The burgers are pretty good, but the profits will be fantastic.<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/08/29414/shackmo.jpg" border="0" alt="shackmo" width="259" height="146" />I arrived at Shake Shack (NYSE: SHAK) two minutes before an enthusiastic crew of workers started their shift.</p>
<p>A line had already formed, and the sweet smell of meat and grease floated like cotton clouds below my wind-chapped nose. Although I had devoured a massive bowl of organic steel cut oatmeal three hours earlier, my body was sending me a signal that it needed a healthy dose of B-12. Certainly a burger would do the trick.</p>
<p>The new Shake Shack in Baltimore hasn't even been open for a week, but it's as if the entire working population in the downtown business district heard they were giving out free gold coins and full release massages.</p>
<p>Even in this weather, while the mercury stubbornly sticks below 20 degrees Fahrenheit, folks are actually waiting in lines that stretch outside of the restaurant and into the polar vortex.</p>
<p>This is why I decided to show up before the zombies of the apocalypse showed up with their company cards and salivating mandibles.</p>
<p>It was a simple order: A ShackBurger and a small blueberry pie custard dessert. I went with this sugary treasure because the blueberry pie was sourced from local pie maker <a href="http://dangerouspiesbalt.com/">Dangerously Delicious Pies</a>.</p>
<p>The burger hit the spot, as did the custard, and my soul felt OK.</p>
<p><strong>Quality and Ethics</strong></p>
<p>If you're a regular reader of these pages you know I make no apologies for my desire to do business with companies that are aligned with my values. As well, I continue to maintain that food stores and restaurants which embrace sustainability as a real and integral part of their business models will typically perform quite well.</p>
<p>This has been the case with Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM), this has been the case with Chipotle (NYSE: CMG), and I believe this will be the case with Shake Shack, too.</p>
<p>No matter how you slice it, there's a very real, and incredibly vibrant market segment that demands quality and ethics. And this market segment will rally around any restaurant that delivers. Shake Shack is no exception.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I maintain that other recent IPOs, like Potbelly (NASDAQ: PBPB) and Noodles & Company (NASDAQ: NDLS), offer no real value for customers, and therefor, no real value for investors.</p>
<p>Certainly these charts tell that story quite well …</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/08/29412/getinmapotbelly.png" border="0" alt="getinmapotbelly" width="700" height="530" /></p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/08/29413/oodlesandoodles.png" border="0" alt="oodlesandoodles" width="700" height="530" /></p>
<p>Ouch!</p>
<p>Don't sleep on sustainability, my friends. It will serve you well, if you let it.</p>
<p></p>2015-02-20T19:53:23Z2015-02-20T19:53:23Z2330Jeff SiegelWhole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM) Rules All!Whole Foods crushes it again, and I couldn't be happier. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/07/29250/wffm.jpg" border="0" alt="wffm" width="226" height="169" />So today's metaphorical middle finger goes out to the waning legions of Whole Foods haters.</p>
<p>After years of being one of the biggest cheerleaders for Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFM), I've witnessed a remarkable thing …</p>
<p>No matter how many times Whole Foods crushes it, there's at least a dozen or so analysts that continue to warn about the illusions of competition from Big Box stores and a market for organic and natural foods that has peaked.</p>
<p>Neither are true, and in fact, one couldn't be true over the other. If demand is soft, then why do Costco and Walmart carry a crap ton of organic foods now?</p>
<p>In any event, I was extremely pleased to see that the company delivered a 6 percent increase in Q1 profits, which beat Wall Street estimates.</p>
<p><strong>Tech is your Friend</strong></p>
<p>Technology seems to be on the side of Whole Foods now, with 5% of all sales coming from grocery delivery service Instacart. This has resulted in average online delivery sales of more than $1 million per week. The company also pulled about 2 percent of sales from Apple Pay – Apple's mobile device payment card.</p>
<p>Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb commented on this, saying …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We attribute our broad-based sales momentum to our customers' positive response to our many strategic initiatives, along with improving consumer confidence. Changing technology has fundamentally altered how and when customers choose to connect with us, and we are rapidly building out an extended experience beyond the four walls of our stores.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Beyond the positive results for Q1, I also remain extremely impressed by co-founder John Mackey's plans to transform healthcare. And one thing's for sure, these plans look a hell of a lot more exciting than anything the government's come up with.</p>
<p>As reported in Bloomberg …</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One idea he’s working on is a sort of weight loss and nutrition camp for employees and customers. It’s based on a program called Total Health Immersion, a weeklong clinic that Whole Foods employees can attend for free, where they undergo medically supervised testing, group discussions with nutritionists, and cooking classes. Mackey wants Whole Foods to offer Total Health Immersion to customers as a healthful weekend getaway. He says he’s negotiating to buy a property in Austin, and “if it works here, there’s no reason we can’t do it in every major city in the U.S.” He sees a huge market need, as he once did for organic foods. “Americans are sick of being sick,” he says. “They don’t know what to do, and there’s so much misinformation, which is why we started Whole Foods in the first place.”</p>
<p>Mackey’s second idea is even more grandiose: a Whole Foods medical clinic. He says he was inspired by Rosen Care, an employer health-care program run by Rosen Hotels & Resorts in Orlando, which offers employees an on-site company-owned medical facility. The clinic has a staff of 38 health-care practitioners serving 5,300 employees and places an emphasis on nutrition and preventive medicine, which company founder Harris Rosen says has reduced his per-employee health-care costs to about half the national average. Mackey met Rosen at a health-care conference last summer in Las Vegas, then traveled to Florida to tour the clinic. He’s considering rolling out Whole Foods clinics to employees—and even, perhaps, to customers.</p>
<p>“Health care is so broken in America,” Mackey says. “If we allow markets to work, if we allow entrepreneurs to get in here and do things like I’m talking about doing, we will pretty much solve the health-care problem in a generation.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the entire interview <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/in-shift-whole-foods-to-compete-with-price-cuts-loyalty-app">here</a>.</p>
<p></p>2015-02-12T15:02:22Z2015-02-12T15:02:22Z2327Jeff SiegelDeath of the Clean Coal MythFutureGen: A sign of things to come. <p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/07/29222/ccoal.jpg" border="0" alt="ccoal" width="236" height="166" />The federal government is pulling the plug on a clean coal project that it was supposed to help fund.</p>
<p>The FutureGen Alliance, a group of companies working on a coal project in western Illinois, will have to stop its plan going forward without the subsidies from the Department of Energy.</p>
<p>The project was slated to cost $1.65 billion, with the Energy Department (the American taxpayer) kicking in a one billion dollar subsidy. They call it stimulus funding, but it would be more accurate to say that it is resource wasting.</p>
<p>It is interesting that these coal companies are now abandoning this project that would have refit a coal-fired plant to store carbon dioxide underground that comes from the coal. Without help from Washington DC, it seems it is no longer “profitable”.</p>
<p>The companies had already spent $25 million, but that was in anticipation of the full federal subsidy. Meanwhile, the taxpayers of Illinois took it on the nose, with the state government having already spent $9 million on the project.</p>
<p>There are a lot of lessons to be learned from this one story, but don’t expect many people to actually learn them.</p>
<p>First, don’t assume that this is a Democratic Party thing or a leftist thing. This was first proposed by George W. Bush in 2003. But even the big spending Bush administration couldn’t make room in the budget for this one, so it was stopped due to rising costs.</p>
<p>Obama proposed a second version that was actually scaled down from the original, but once again, the government had to go back on its promise.</p>
<p>There is also a lesson to be learned here for private enterprises. You shouldn’t depend on the government for your profitability. There is no doubt that many companies benefit greatly from government favors and government handouts. But as we have seen here, if you live by the subsidy, you die by the subsidy.</p>
<p>This will be a more common theme in the future. As the debt continues to grow and the unfunded liabilities get larger, there are more and more people retiring and looking for their so-called entitlements. The budgets are going to get a lot tighter in the future than they are now, in the sense that these discretionary special projects will probably be the first things to go.</p>
<p><strong>Wasting Wealth</strong></p>
<p>The most important thing to be learned here is that when the government spends money, it misallocates resources. This is the case almost all of the time. It is just more obvious in the case of an abandoned project for coal companies.</p>
<p>If some project is beneficial to society, then it should not need any kind of government subsidy. It should be able to operate based on private loans and investment. It should be sustainable and profitable without the government subsidy.</p>
<p>The free market gives us these wonderful tools called profits and losses. They can instantly tell a company if it is serving consumers. If there are losses, then the company has to figure out a way to cut costs or get more customers. If it continues to lose money, then it will probably go bankrupt and close down.</p>
<p>In a free market economy, losses are to be expected. They serve a vital function in that it minimizes capital investment from being wasted. It is quickly diverted to other areas that are profitable and are serving the consumer better and more efficiently.</p>
<p>There are really no exceptions when it comes to consumer goods and services. It doesn’t just apply to clean coal projects. It applies to all forms of energy. It applies to food and agriculture. It applies to airlines and car companies.</p>
<p>Some businesses that receive subsidies may still survive without them. We can’t know for sure unless those subsidies are removed and put to the market test. If consumers really value the product, then the companies can raise prices and still be profitable without the subsidy.</p>
<p>In the case of the FutureGen Alliance, we know that this was not a profitable venture without government subsidies. The companies quickly folded the project when the funding was withdrawn.</p>
<p>This means the money (which represents wealth) should be spent elsewhere. If it is spent by the government in other areas, it will continue to be misallocated. The best way to allocate scarce resources is through a free market system with prices and profits and losses.</p>
<p>Taxpayers don’t have a direct vote every time their money is spent. Consumers do. Every time you spend your money, or even when you don’t spend your money, you are voting in the marketplace. You are sending signals on what you desire the most. This obviously doesn’t include a clean coal project in Illinois.</p>
<p></p>2015-02-11T14:38:20Z2015-02-11T14:38:20Z2325Geoffrey PikeShake Shack IPO and the Quest for the Next Chipotle (NYSE: CMG)Finally, a worthy competitor in the fast food wars has arrived.<p><img style="float: right;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/05/28960/theshack.jpg" border="0" alt="theshack" width="242" height="162" />Not every modern fast food joint is Chipotle (NYSE: CMG).</p>
<p>It's just not.</p>
<p>The truth is, Chipotle has filled a very profitable niche. It's insistence on values, quality and convenience has provided the launchpad for its tremendous growth. And while some could try to replicate that, most don't. So why do so many investors insist on comparing every new fast food IPO to Chipotle?</p>
<p>They did this with Potbelly (NASDAQ: PBPB), they did it with Noodles & Company (NASDAQ: NDLS), and now they're doing it with Shake Shack.</p>
<p><strong>The Power of Growth</strong></p>
<p>Yesterday morning, Shake Shack raised its IPO offering from $14 to $16 a share to $17 to $19 a share. At the top, selling 5 million shares would net Shake Shack $95 million.</p>
<p>Now for the sake of full disclosure, I'm no expert in this field. When it comes to fast food restaurants, I'm not typically an investor, nor am I a customer. Except for Chipotle, of course.</p>
<p>So does Shake Shack deserve to be in the same space with Chipotle?</p>
<p>I do like the fact that their burgers seem to be a bit more desirable to folks willing to spend five or six bucks on a fast food burger. The “no hormones, no antibiotics” disclaimer gives it some sustainability cred, which as we've seen with Chipotle is very valuable. They also have some vegetarian and organic options. Definitely a plus.</p>
<p>As a dog lover, I am pleased to see that the Shack is happy to cater to other dog lovers with ShackBurger dog biscuits. As well, employees at its Qatar location volunteer every Tuesday at the Qatar Animal Welfare Society. Most investors probably don't care about this, but I do.</p>
<p><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.angelpub.com/2015/05/28963/qatardog.jpg" border="0" alt="qatardog" width="540" height="352" /></p>
<p>Also worth noting is that the company works with local breweries, using quality local beers to serve its customers. It's done this with Victory Brewing Company out of Pennsylvania and Brooklyn Brewery in New York.</p>
<p>I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical about Shake Shack before reading up on this one. Particularly as it pertains to its sustainability and ethics credibility. But in all honesty, I do think a Chipotle comparison could be justified in this situation.</p>
<p>My only hangup right now is the valuation based on current metrics. It's a bit on the high side, that's for certain. However, I'm a big believer in the power of growth potential. And this belief has certainly served me well with companies like SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR), Chipotle, and Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA).</p>
<p>As well, I do like investing in companies that share my values. Shake Shack comes closer than most, so, depending upon how the broader market cooperates, I may be looking to pick up some shares.</p>
<p>Shake Shake will trade under the symbol “SHAK” on the NYSE.</p>2015-01-29T17:40:01Z2015-01-29T17:40:01Z2322Jeff Siegel