The Type of Stock You Should Never, Ever Buy

Recs

9

Disney Buys Marvel!

David Gardner called it. He’s up 1,334%! See what David’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

It was a day in August, 2006 when some kid whizzed past me on these shoes with wheels, almost knocking me over. I was instantly annoyed -- not at the kid, despite my occasionally curmudgeonly attitude -- but because I instantly recognized these so-called Heelys (Nasdaq: HLYS) as a fad that was going to cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Turns out I was right.Yeah, the stock briefly hit $40 two months after its IPO price of $21. But that was its peak, and the stock rightfully rests at $2.12 today. Why?

Because it is a fad. A one-trick pony. A one-hit wonder. And its registration statements said as much -- the vast majority of its sales came from one style or another of the same darn product. If they sell perennially, you have a sustainable business. If not, watch out.

Some say these items aren't easy to spot, that today's fad could just as easily become tomorrow's Microsoft! I say, "feh." All it takes is a little imagination. If you look, as I did, at Crocs (Nasdaq: CROX) and can't come up with any other possible use or expansion of the product in 60 seconds, then it's a fad.  

Think of Amgen (Nasdaq: AMGN). The company never has just one possible drug in its pipeline. It has dozens. Think of Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL). It is constantly innovating. Think of Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), and 3M (NYSE: MMM). They all make products people need, and that they will buy in good economic times and bad, and these companies all constantly innovate to make sure things stay that way.

Plus, another reason to avoid Heelys is the potential for nasty lawsuits. If a woman can sue McDonald's for putting hot coffee in her lap, some parent is going to blame Heelys when her kid slams into a bus.

If you thought Heelys was some great new concept that would sweep the country like Starbucks, then maybe you didn't know that Fool co-founder and advisor David Gardner asks several questions before recommending a company for his Rule Breakers portfolio -- and Heelys never had a chance to make the cut as a Rule Breaker. Here are a few of those questions (and my answers):

1. Is it the "top dog" and "first mover" in an important, emerging industry?
Footwear is not an important, emerging industry.

2. Does it have a sustainable advantage?
No, it's just another type of footwear with no intrinsic, long-lasting consumer advantage.

3. Is good management in place with smart backing?
Management executed within the product's inherent limitations, but had no plans to take it beyond its initial concept.

4. Does it have strong consumer appeal?
No. It's just a niche, although reasonably sized, market.

Those are a few of David's criteria. You should hold your own portfolio to the same standards.

A few other warning signs to look out for if you're concerned you own a fad company:

  • Supporters who rabidly and irrationally insist it isn't a fad.
  • When sales inevitably decline, supporters who find something in the earnings report to trumpet (increasing year-over-year sales on rainy Tuesdays, for example).
  • Claims that the company will resurrect by "re-branding."

So here's where the rubber meets the road: On July 14, Heelys new CEO stated, "I believe there are several cost and infrastructure opportunities that can be optimized ... We will address those issues and begin to restage the Heelys brand day one."

The skid marks are on the street, folks. They lead to the poor house.

Other highly relevant Foolish fad reading:

Love this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Weekly by entering your email below.

Apple and Starbucks are Motley Fool Stock Advisor selections. 3M and Microsoft are Inside Value recommendations. Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble are Income Investor selections. Microsoft is a Motley Fool Options recommendation. The Fool owns shares of Starbucks and Procter & Gamble. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days.

Fool contributor Rick Steier owns none of the stocks mentioned. He is easily irritated by shoes with wheels, motorized scooters, and rubber shoes with fashionable pins. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Webuchadnezzar wrote:

    HLYS also has over $2.40 per share in CASH per $2.12 share.

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Webuchadnezzar wrote:

    HLYS also has over $2.40 net cash per share. Share price is $2.12.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2009, at 2:27 PM, TomTempleton wrote:

    Ok... so I agree with you 100% buying Heelys isn't the brightest thing to do, but neither is referencing/trivializing a court case when you don't know all the facts.

    So what happened that fateful day when some elderly woman split coffee on her lap?

    1. She was in the passenger seat of a parked car in the McDonalds parking lot.

    2. She spilt the coffee on her lap and got 3rd degree burns, and needed skin grafts and was in the hospital for over a week.

    3. She admitted fault and just wanted McDonalds to pay for the hospital stay.

    4. McDonalds said no, and eventually they went to court.

    5. In court it came out McDonalds had sent 100s of others to the hospital with similar burns. And it was mentioned in court if the fresh coffee was to get into a customers esophagus it would cause severe burns (how else is it going to get to your stomach?) Their coffee was much hotter than other fast food places, and far hotter than anything we make at home

    6. The majority of the original settlement came from punitive damages, which were based on what McDonalds made just in coffee sales in 2 days (2.4 million). And she was awarded some of the blame as well.

    7. Finally on appeal the judge decided to award her a total of 800K (including the punitive damages).

    8. Basically if McDonalds hadn't kept serving coffee they knew was burning people, or if they woulda paid for this old ladies skin grafts they never would have had to pay out such a large sum for "some lady who spilt coffee on herself"

    Sorry to nitpick but the McDonalds case wasn't frivolous and the majority of the money awarded to the lady was for punitive damages, and this is not a case of people suing to make an easy buck.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Webuchadnezzar wrote:

    <<<<Ok... so I agree with you 100% buying Heelys isn't the brightest thing to do, but neither is referencing/trivializing a court case when you don't know all the facts.>>>>

    What about making comments about buying Heelys when he has not reviewed the balance sheet?

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Webuchadnezzar wrote:

    <<<<Ok... so I agree with you 100% buying Heelys isn't the brightest thing to do, but neither is referencing/trivializing a court case when you don't know all the facts.>>>>

    I was aware of the McDonald's lady background as well. Same should go for his making comments about buying Heelys when he has not reviewed the balance sheet.

    I can't tell if my comment has been posted or not! It's not showing up so I will hit Post again.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2009, at 8:53 AM, tp705 wrote:

    What does it say about the author that he had this thought 3 years ago, kept it to himself and then publishes it now that he is correct. What a loser, have some balls and tell us what you think going forward. You should be ashamed of yourself for printing this today, does anyone really believe this happened to you and you had this idea? The reason this guy write this crap is he couldn't make it the real world where people pay for new ideas that are well thought out, not the crap he is slinging on this websire. What a schmuck.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1047111, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/10/2010 11:07:52 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
Weekly Walk of Shame: Dick Durbin

Related Tickers

2/10/2010 10:50 AM
JNJ $62.63 Down -0.13 -0.21%
Johnson & Johnson CAPS Rating: *****
PG $61.45 Down -0.31 -0.50%
The Procter & Gamb… CAPS Rating: *****
CROX $7.25 Down -0.03 -0.41%
Crocs, Inc. CAPS Rating: *
MMM $78.62 Down -0.10 -0.13%
3M Company CAPS Rating: *****
HLYS $2.18 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Heelys, Inc. CAPS Rating: *
AMGN $56.67 Down -0.55 -0.95%
Amgen, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
AAPL $194.87 Down -1.32 -0.67%
Apple, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Chief Financial Officer: A Chief Financial Officer aka CFO is a corporate officer, often of a public company, whose primary responsibility is the management of financial risks for said company.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!