# Monster - MNST



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Is Monster the stock with the best performance of the last two decades? Or maybe the best stock ever in history?

How and why did Monster 1000x in only 15 years (performance of its best 15-year rolling return)?

Its highest 3-year was 87x (344% CAGR). Its highest 5-year was 130x (164.40% CAGR). Its highest 7-year was 100x (93.40% CAGR). Its highest 10-year was 350x (79.68% CAGR) . But its highest 15-year was over 1000x (58.83% CAGR). What a monster!

Sure, that's pointing out the exact best timings on the exact best stock, but what justified that performance?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

So why do people care so much about TSLA and Bitcoin when they could have owned MNST?

If we're playing the game of past regrets, surely the biggest regret is failing to own MNST over the last 20 years.

This is the kind of thing I think of whenever I see people going crazy about something like TSLA, AMZN or Bitcoin. There is always something that performed well in hindsight. Shouldn't people today be more interested in "missing out" on MNST?

For some reason though, when the ticker is MNST people [correctly] point out that this is pretty arbitrary and some damn stock will always do great in hindsight. But when it's something with _hype or tech fetishism_ attached to it, like TSLA or Bitcoin, then people view it differently... it's irrational and kind of stupid, IMO.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Well, even with that wonderful performance, MNST best 1-year rolling was in the +500%. Other stocks like NFLX were also in that range. TSLA's best 1-year rolling is in the +1000%. MNST's P/S ratio was always below 15 and its highest P/E was 65.

But I'm just trying to understand what led MNST to such an awesome performance. I don't want to compare or to regret, I only want to understand how it happened because I wasn't investing in stocks when it happened. There was certainly lots of people taking about that stock. There were certainly many analyses.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> But I'm just trying to understand what led MNST to such an awesome performance. I don't want to compare or to regret, I only want to understand how it happened because I wasn't investing in stocks when it happened. There was certainly lots of people taking about that stock. There were certainly many analyses.


Perhaps one thing that happened in this case was that the company wasn't acquired or absorbed into some larger conglomerate. Therefore, we see a single standalone stock with a very long performance. If it had been fully acquired, we would only see truncated performance, plus the investment opportunity is lost.

I would guess that is a rare thing. Companies with amazing track records are frequently acquired. Maybe by some fluke, this one wasn't (or the original ownership wouldn't sell out).

Regarding fundamentals. They've had strong income, demonstrating steady income growth over the years (TSLA does not). If the history on this page is to be believed, the EPS trend is really beautiful. Look how it barely dropped in 2008 during economic collapse. The 2008 EPS was actually higher than 2006. Just keeps increasing.

There are real earnings standing behind those stock gains. The EPS growth is fantastic. Very few companies have such a pattern. It appears to be totally immune to recessions.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

And I guess that selling an addictive drug such as energy drinks is very lucrative. It made a hit. Monster Energy started in 2002, it has a 35% share of the energy drink market, the second highest share after Red Bull. I wonder if Red Bull would have the same stock growth if it was public. They also have so much money. Red Bull marketing is everywhere, in all big and expensive events.

Look at Altria Group. No wonder why people are going crazy with marijuana stocks, they don't want to miss the train on something that could fly high. (I'm even able to make puns in English)

When looking at other energy drink stocks, REED didn't do so well (but I think they don't have drinks with caffeine). FIZZ is doing good, but nowhere near MNST, but I think they sell only soft drinks (no caffeine energy drinks), so they are just competitors of KO and PEP, and FIZZ is actually outperforming those big names. GURU.TO is still young but it started strong. We'll see if it's sustainable.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And look at more broadly, how well addictive products and services have performed. Twitter and Facebook are basically designed to be addictive. Silicon valley even hires experts to help make tune them for behavioural engagement.

The whole "smart phone" (toy) market is all about addiction. So Monster drinks, marijuana, smart phones, and social media ... many similarities.


----------

