Monster sells energy drinks. Red Bull sits on the same shelf, and so do other brands, some of them distributed by Pepsi. It is not the king of the category. Coca-Cola bottles and distributes across much of the world, and it owns a stake in Monster. The agreement can be renegotiated. This report states neither that percentage nor a gross margin.
Aluminum, sugar and freight move the cost of the can. A year of heavy marketing, or a hot year, is not normal earnings. Debt, if any, is in the filings. It is not a debt-free cash pile by decree.
The result is the price of the can minus that cost, inside the Coca-Cola agreement. If another brand fills the shelf, volume falls. It is not a closed distribution network.
Sustainable Competitive Advantage
"The advantage is the can the buyer already recognizes and the Coca-Cola truck that already delivers it. The agreement can be renegotiated. The moat narrows if another energy drink takes the shelf, or if the can costs more."
Loading the Vaultflake…
Radar axes
—
Health
—
Moat
—
Growth
—
Value
—
Return
—
Health is the debt of a branded bottler, not Coca-Cola's. Quality is the margin after aluminum and sugar, not a margin already measured. Growth follows cases sold, not a licence over the category. P/E is read against a year of heavy marketing, not against that peak. Shareholder return, if any, comes out of that cash. Do not read it as exclusive distribution or as a stake already measured.
The P/E of a year of heavy can sales is not normal earnings. EV/EBITDA is read without treating the Coca-Cola agreement as if it could not be renegotiated. Do not use Coca-Cola's multiple, which is another drinks portfolio, or Red Bull's, which does not even publish the same book. A dash if the MNST cache is cold.
Limits of this report
Not advice on Monster. Vaultflake states neither Coca-Cola's stake nor a margin. This is not the king of energy drinks. Read the filings. The table is a snapshot, not a target price.
Questions from this report
What moat does Monster Beverage have?
The advantage is the can the buyer already recognizes and the Coca-Cola truck that already delivers it. The agreement can be renegotiated. The moat narrows if another energy drink takes the shelf, or if the can costs more.
How do you read the Monster Beverage radar?
Health is the debt of a branded bottler, not Coca-Cola's. Quality is the margin after aluminum and sugar, not a margin already measured. Growth follows cases sold, not a licence over the category. P/E is read against a year of heavy marketing, not against that peak. Shareholder return, if any, comes out of that cash. Do not read it as exclusive distribution or as a stake already measured.
Which multiples matter for Monster Beverage?
The P/E of a year of heavy can sales is not normal earnings. EV/EBITDA is read without treating the Coca-Cola agreement as if it could not be renegotiated. Do not use Coca-Cola's multiple, which is another drinks portfolio, or Red Bull's, which does not even publish the same book. A dash if the MNST cache is cold.
What does this Monster Beverage analysis leave out?
Not advice on Monster. Vaultflake states neither Coca-Cola's stake nor a margin. This is not the king of energy drinks. Read the filings. The table is a snapshot, not a target price.
Related reports in Consumer Staples · Energy Drinks
