Educational Inequity

Educational Inequity: Why Businesses Should Care About Their Community’s Education

    A big problem that I have noticed while working in a warehouse setting, is the lack of basic skills needed to be a productive employee. Some of the warehouse associates (general labor) are lacking in problem solving, computer, mechanical, and in some cases even language skills (this may be due to English being their second language). So where does this problem come from and how can we solve it? I’m about to offer a solution that would kick-start an end to educational inequity.

    As you can imagine, one of the biggest problems companies face is finding talented employees. That applies to all companies, from giants like General Electric to your local corner store. But the difference is that General Electric, because of their sheer size, has more freedom in who they can employ and where they choose to be located. Those corner stores and small businesses don't have

Great Lakes Science Cennter & MC2 Campus

the same luxury. They have to find their employees from their surroundings because it would be too costly to relocate. Now what if their surroundings are filled with with high school dropouts? In effect, they will be forced to hire lower-skilled employees because they can't afford the expensive personnel searches that larger corporations can. The staffing of lower-skilled employees will likely inhibit their growth. This low skilled labor environments also means that large corporations are not as likely to move their operations to those communities. They would be unable to obtain enough skilled laborers willing to make the commute. This combination could create a "dead zone" where there is little economic growth either from inside or outside i.e. small local businesses growing or large corporations coming in.

     So what does this mean to those local businesses? In short it means they should take interest in the education that is occurring in the communities they will be hiring from. Local businesses and school districts need to be involved in a two way dialogue that starts with the question "What can I do for you?" They need collaboration.

    Two schools come to mind for me when I think about this type of collaboration: Robert A. Taft Information Technology High School & MC2 STEM High School. Those schools  have partnered with

Robert A. Taft IT High School

Cincinnati Bell and General Electric, respectively. While GE's partnership is quite a bit more extensive than Cincinnati Bell's (part of the MC2 STEM H.S. is inside of GE's campus) they are quite similar in many ways. Both companies are providing their high schools with invaluable resources like dedicated tutoring & mentoring program and internships that could offer the students a direct path into a full-time job, In GE's case there are even content  instructors for MC2's project-based learning.

    These partnerships are just a small part of the greater solution to educational inequity that needs to being corrected in all of our communities. Consider that after MC2 enacted their partnership with GE, the graduation rate has almost tripled from 31.1% in 2003 to 91.4% in 2010. Partnerships create opportunities for educational growth that otherwise would not be available to underprivileged  students. So if you run a local business in your community or know somebody that does, it can't hurt to start the conversation. Who knows, it might help your city grow.

Training & Development for Businesses: A Literature Review

Training & Development for Businesses: 

A Literature Review

     This admittedly is a bit different from my normal postings but sometimes a change is refreshing and this is my attempt to be a bit more academic in my writing. I recently had the chance to lay the groundwork of a leadership development program for one of the largest third party logistic providers & freight managers in the world at their largest North American location with over 1000 warehouse associates and leaders. While I have "field experience" in leadership I saw this opportunity as a way to expand my academic understanding of what leadership is and how you develop it. Before you are several summaries of articles that I have reviewed to help give you a guided tour through what you should or shouldn't do and why these programs are important.

Article #1

(Cappelli, 2008)

This paper sets the stage and discusses the broader topic of talent management within companies and how to carry out the entire process with the best ROI. There are four basic principles: 
1) Make and Buy to Manage Risk; too much talent is expensive to retain. Underestimate the talent you need and then higher the rest from outside but, be careful in the areas in which you do this because some are easier (less expensive) to fill from the outside than others.
2) Adapt to the Uncertainty in Talent Demand; break up development programs into shorter periods or create organization wide talent pool that can be used by any business unit. 
3) Improve the Return on Investment in Developing Employees; get employees to share in costs of development. Ask them to take on additional assignments on a voluntary basis. Maintain relationships with employees that leave in hopes that they will come back, bringing back your investment in them. 
4) Preserve the Investment by Balancing Employee-Employer Interests; Involve them in the conversation of where there career is going within your organization, this may prevent another company from stealing the talent you have already developed. This approach is almost like a queueing in supply chain management but with human capital instead.

Article #2

(Pierre Gurdjian, 2014)

This article discusses the 4 major mistakes that came up when the authors interviewed hundreds of executives (the authors work at McKinsey & Company) in regards to their leadership development efforts. 

1) Overlooking Context, “A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another.” The type of skills and leadership you want to develop will be determined by what you are trying to do with your business. This leads you into refining the development process to 2-3 core competencies to train on and the program should have a clear beginning and ending skill level. 

2) Decoupling reflection from real work, classroom training has its place but studies show that learning by doing is a much better development process. “Tie leadership development to real on-the-job projects that have business impact and improve learning.” The immense amount of challenge that is involved in this type of process will produce much better results from your program and might just end with a fantastic business improvement. 

3) Underestimating mind-sets, this is usually accompanied with difficult conversations that have to be hand because what may have to change is a personality trait or a style of leadership, I.E it may be hard to tell somebody they are a micro-manager or tell somebody that you want to change the way they do things even though they already do them well but your way would make them even better. Challenging and pushing people out of the comfort zone is the only way you will get already effective leaders to flourish even more. 

4) Failing to measure results, you track results of new products or business functions why would you not track the effectiveness of your training or leadership programs. Not only will you fail to improve the program if it didn’t work but you won’t be able to justify its continued use if it does. Being able to quantify its success is key in determining it’s return on investment. This analysis can range from determining the productivity of workers before and after a training program to tracking their careers to see if those that have gone through development program have fared better than those that have not. 

In conclusion you spend plenty of time and research on developing and launching products or business lines why would you do the same for your employees?

Article #3

(Dostie, 2010)

This paper examined the effects of OTJ and Classroom Training in businesses throughout Canada from 1999 to 2006. They used statistics from the Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) conducted by Statistics Canada. While they are relatively confident in their findings they do admit some factors that may have skewed their findings such as: worker turn-over inhibiting long term gains from training and less productivity-enhancing subjects being taught. The article has found that employees who have received classroom training are 11% more productive than employees who have not.  They also find that OTJ training creates 3.4% more productive employees but could be higher if the turnover rate is controlled for.  During a cost benefit estimation in the article they have outlined that the “11% productivity gain yields approximately $8000 in additional value added per trained employee per year.” However they found in WES that “average classroom training expenses per (trained) employee being approximately $1000. This would mean that each $1 invested in classroom training yields a maximum of $8 in value added.” This however is generalized across a large subject sample and may not be replicable in every business environment. 

Article #4

(Bartel, 2000)

This article discusses commonalities between various literature throughout that analyse returns on investments (ROIs) to companies when they conduct training programs. While the article was written in 2000 (the current atmosphere may be different) they found several glaring issues with research; companies did not effectively (or did not at all) measure ROI due to the lack of productivity data before and after training was conducted, they did not compare their measured group to a control group to determine its overall effectiveness, and the companies did not continue to measure productivity well after training to determine the depreciation of the productivity created from that training. In two case studies that measured and analysed everything correctly the companies had ROIs of anywhere between 100 and 200%.

     In summary what should you and your business do? Honestly I wouldn't even start developing a program until you find that it might be worth creating. I guarantee that if you thought about doing it another company before you thought about it and then did it. Reach out to your contacts in similar businesses and see what their outcomes were and if they think it was worth it or not because if it wasn't then that money and time could be used best in another area. If it was worth it take a measure of those that you want to train and then set a goal for where you want them to be after. This gives you not only the pre-training data to analyse ROI but will also give you an idea of what type of training you will need to incorporate in order to bridge that gap of skill you have established. Next is understandably the hardest part, developing the curriculum of the program. You want the content to be challenging in order to encourage growth but you don't want it to be too hard or too easy because that may ruin your ROI. Lastly don't make the mistake of not measuring the progress of your employees, before, during, and long after they have completed the training. The whole reason of creating the program is to improve the business and you can't measure improvement if you don't effectively track the outcomes of the program.

     Investing in human capital through training & development is just as important as research & development of a new product, I would even argue that it is more important. If you have a good product but you don't have productive employees then you won't be able to manufacture and sell that product. If you aren't developing your workforce then you aren't developing your business and that is a recipe for failure. Hopefully after reading this you will be inspired to create your own recipe for success. 




Shout out to the Scholars (Aka Bibliography)

Bartel, A. P. (2000). Measuring the Employer's Return on Investments in Training: Evidence from the Literature. Industrial Relations, Vol. 39 No. 3.

Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century. Harvard Business Review, 1-8.

Dostie, B. (2010). Estimating the Returns to Firm-Sponsored On-the-Job and Classroom Training. The Institue for the Study of Labor, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5258.

Pierre Gurdjian, T. H. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail. Mckinsey Quarterly.

Tootsie Roll (Industries) I Think I am in Love with You!

Tootsie Roll Industries:

Not as Sweet as I Thought

    Initially I had thought that Tootsie Roll Industries (NYSE: TR), the maker of many popular candies such as Tootsie Rolls and Pops, Caramel Apple Pops, Double Bubble, and 21 other brands, was going to be something Warren Buffet would be proud to invest in (even though he already owns See's Candies)...Profitable and growing at a slow and steady pace. To some extent that is true, if you take into account a time period from 1978 through today which gives you a return of 15,317% (excluding dividends). This exceeds the 1,916% return of the S&P 500 (index which tracks the top 500 public companies), and also trumps their leading competitor, Hershey (NYSE: HSY), 10,994%.

TR vs. HSY vs. S&P 500 1978-Present

However, over that time period TR has acquired numerous confectionery companies and hasn't developed an in-house candy in a while. Organic developments, innovations they develop in their own company, usually cost them less and show that they are dedicated to innovation.  In large part their rise in share prices correlate with their acquisition of other companies which allows them to inorganically increase their revenue.   

Although that recap is from the past, it gives you a historical analysis to help create projections for the future. TR’s last acquisition was Concord Confections in 2004, and the share price has only risen 23% since then. While I haven't dug into the weeds on it, I don't foresee any new acquisitions or major developments in future product lines. This I believe is jointly due to a small market share owned by TR, and their lack of extremely popular products other than the Tootsie Roll and TR Pops. This leaves the burden of creating increases in revenue solely up to the growth in candy consumption in the U.S. (the majority of sales occur there) and their ability to market antique candy brands. It also leaves the increase of net profit to commodity prices and business efficiency improvement. While these are very important areas to improve on, the candy industry itself just took a PR hit when the U.S. Government released new health guidelines for sugar intake that demonize the candy and junk food industries. The recent increase in urgency for U.S. citizens to be more health conscious doesn't help TR increase their revenue either.

64 Million Tootsie Rolls are made a day

The past five years, however, have had a positive impact on the company- but not because of an increase in revenue, rather, because of an increase in profit margin that has been driven by business efficiency improvement and a significant drop in commodity pricing (sugar, corn syrup, cocoa powder, edible oils, and packaging). This increased their earnings-per-share, which made the company very attractive to investors. However, the company has negligible control over the price of these commodities, and if they go up their profit margins will be hurt substantially.

 
Should you take a bite of Tootsie Roll Industries? No. The growth prospectus of the candy industry is moderate, if not poor. If commodity prices rise the EPS will fall, and in the past several years their largest quarter for revenues (Halloween) has decreased, and overall revenues have been flat. If you invest now you are leaving your gains primarily up to the prices of commodities, which rarely proves to be a good idea. I would suggest staying away from the candy industry as a whole. But if you really have to cure your sweet tooth, I would look for a company that is attempting to adapt to current industry trends. It tells you that they are interested in increasing profits through something they can control and not leaving it up to commodity prices. Check out more diversified companies like Hershey, Nestle (VTX: NESN), or Mondelez (NASDAQ: MDLZ) for better prospects in the confectionery industry.

Legalize It: An Investor's Perspective

 

Legalize It: An Investor's Perspective

     Currently, marijuana has been legalized for medical usage in 19 states, and is fully legal in 4 states (in addition to the District of Columbia). This leaves 27 states where it remains illegal

"Buddy" the Marijuana Mascot from Ohio

or decriminalized (an offense punishable with a fine rather than jail time). However, it remains federally illegal and is classified as a schedule 1 drug, meaning it is "defined as a drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence."
     Marijuana's illegality is its largest barrier into being a good long term investment. Because of this, many serious investors (especially banks) choose to avoid exposure to the legal risks, and will not put money into its development. Banks are largely federally regulated, and many will not take-in or loan money to be used in the production or purchase of marijuana or its by-products. Recently, The Federal Reserve even rejected the establishment of a Credit Union in Colorado that was to deal primarily in the money from the sale of marijuana.

     This presents the industry with a three-fold problem: First, it stifles the growth of newly created companies. Second, it creates a barrier for large existing companies from entering the industry. Lastly, the young age of the industry hasn't allowed regulation to refine itself yet in order to create growing and profitable industries.

     Many states are still attempting to legalize marijuana for recreational and medical usage. However, due to improper regulation, the industries have either been stifled or have unprofitable environments for the growers and/or retailers. Ohio couldn't pass a legalization

Colorado Growing Warehouse 

bill because voters did not agree with the monopoly it created, which would also have prevented its widespread growth. Colorado is proposing measures to reduce production because they are afraid the marijuana will cross over into states where it is still illegal. Washington state has created an unprofitable environment by allowing for too much expansion in growing while overtaxing on the retail end.
     While the whole industry is waiting for it to be legalized, they may ultimately be crushed by large companies like Altria (NYSE: MO) and R.J. Reynolds (NYSE: RAI) (aka “big tobacco”), even though these companies have publicly said that they are not currently interested in entering the marijuana market. For a major industry that is already very good at growing, sourcing, refining, and selling a weed, actually getting into the "weed" business makes sense. Especially since it will be hard to maintain their status as “the best industry to invest in” with cigarette usage nearing lows not seen since the early 1900's.

     It is clear that until marijuana is legalized nationally, and the regulation governing it has matured, it won't make a good long-term investment. Stay away from the the stocks that

Washington Marijuana Retail Store

deal with marijuana most are unprofitable and volatile. I would even go as far as saying that you shouldn't take a position until a large company like Altria or R.J. Reynolds decides to get into the recreational market and maybe even big pharma like Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) or Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) for the medical market.
     National legalization may not be that far off, though. Eleven states are very close to legalizing it, and if all bills pass, that would bring the total to 16. With the inconsequential attention it has gotten in the Presidential election so far, the outlook may be positive no matter which party gets elected. I would keep an eye out and start following news feeds for large Tobacco and Pharmaceutical companies to monitor their interest in the industry, and follow their lead on when to jump in.

One of The Best and Most Boring Investments You Never Thought Of

Trucking

     That computer you are looking at, that desk it is laying on, that chair you're sitting in, and those clothes you are wearing were placed on a truck and shipped to where you bought it from. Oh, and all the resources it took to make it's parts were shipped to a factory to be made then shipped to another factory to be assembled even before it was shipped to where you bought it from. Think of how many different points of shipping there are for everything that you used today...yeah, it's a lot. 

     Trucking is one of the biggest industries in the U.S., and is estimated to be worth about $700 billion a year (4% of the United States' GDP) and creates about $39 billion in highway and diesel taxes which help maintain our nations infrastructure. The industry employs about 7.1 million people with 3.4 million actually being truck drivers. All those employees are employed by 1.2 million companies and roughly 90% of them operate with 6 or less trucks.

One of Old Dominion's 222 service locations

     How do you invest in this $700 billion dollar industry? There are several ways, trucking companies, logistics companies, and the companies that make those trucks or the parts for them. Trucking companies have the poorest margins out of the three but make up the majority of the industry's revenue, the poor margins are due to the expenses of fuel regardless of the current cost of oil. But a few companies are good at making the best out of this scenario, one of the best being Old Dominion Freight Line (NASDAQ: ODFL).

     Old Dominion is one of the stand outs among all the other public trucking companies. In a sector that struggles to have high single digit margins it has advanced it's margins into the double digit territory with a Q3 15' margin of 10.82%. Old Dominion's closest competitor is Knight Transportation (NYSE: KNX) with a 10.24% margin, but Knight has half the revenue showing Old Dominion's ability to be a larger company while keeping margins higher. One may argue that Knight does pay a dividend which may make it more attractive but it is a mere 1% payout. I would rather see a company use that money to try and capture a larger percentage of the market share, especially since ODFL only owns about .39% of the shipping market. Old Dominion has a positive future because our economy is based on consuming, the more consuming, the more shipping, the more business for trucking and hopefully Old Dominion. Old Dominion is slightly over valued with a P/E of 16. I would recommend waiting until it becomes fair or undervalued  to start a position with Old Dominion.

U-Haul's Various Rental Options

     Our next company is a bit of an out-liar in the trucking world, Amerco (NASDAQ: UHAL) is the parent company of U-Haul self storage and moving trucking rentals. They are also somewhat of a cheater in this sector because they also own Amerco Real Estate Company (commercial real estate), Repwest Insurance (insurance for U-Haul customers), and Oxford Life Insurance. This company has taken the two biggest cost factors in shipping, fuel and employees, out of it's business model.  With those costs gone they can now reap much larger margins than other trucking companies, they had a Q3 15' margin of over 19%. While one would think the insurance and real estate business helps with this, it does, but Self Moving rentals amounted to about 70% of total sales. In past studies the average american moves about 11 times, given this statistic and an increasing population, Amerco has a positive future. And if for some reason moving starts to decrease there are additional revenue streams that can help offset lower moving rates. Amerco is also slightly over valued and someone looking to start a position in this company could benefit from waiting for a better value to enter into a position.

Cummins' Global Footprint

     The company that powers a large part of the trucking industry is Cummins (NYSE: CMI). If you look into it, right away there is a glaring problem, a slowing global market has negatively impacted the revenue of Cummins. While North American segments are growing (4%) all other global
segments besides India are decreasing (-18%), fortunately for Cummins they are heavily weighted towards the North American segment (60%). They have also taken action to help offset their loss of revenue in foreign markets, specifically, laying off 2,000 of their workers. Currently Cummins has lost over 45% of it's share value and has a P/E of 9.1. They also have quite a solid financial status, small amount of debt, plenty of cash to continue paying dividends of 4.58% and a new $1 billion share repurchase plan. Global markets will not always be in a slump and Cummins engines and products are not going out of style. With a long term positive industry outlook, good financial status, and great value Cummins presents itself as an addition to your portfolio.

     With several options to choose from you are presented with "which company has the best long term capability for return?" I  believe the cheater wins in this battle, while U-Haul isn't your typical trucking company they have flourished in the world of moving "stuff" from one spot to the other. Their business model is not going anywhere soon and as long as the population increases and people continue to move throughout their life they will continue to profit.

In It to Win It

In It to Win It: 

What if you could own part of your favorite sports franchise?

     What are the publicly traded sports companies out there? Technically there is only one that is publicly traded and is the sole business of that company, Manchester United (NYSE: MANU). However a few others include the New York Knicks (NBA), New York Rangers (NHL), and New York Liberty (WNBA) who are all owned by Madison Square Garden (NYSE: MSG). Then we have the Atlanta Braves that are wholly owned by Liberty Media (NASDAQ: LMCA) who also own

Could you own part of the Braves?

several minor league affiliates. Liberty recently announced that they would be publicly offering the Braves under a tracking stock (no voting rights) with the ticker symbols of BATRA, BATRB, and BATRK.

     What if you could own part of your favorite sports team? To answer that question we will have to answer a few others first. What are the benefits to a company and to it's shareholders when it becomes publicly traded?
     What does the company get when they become publicly traded? #1 They get a boat load of cash. That is really one if not the only benefit received from being a publicly traded company. Companies run the risk of losing majority control of the company, their business practices are much more regulated, and may come into conflicting decision making based off of what's better for the company or what's better for the shareholders. 

     What rights do you get when you own a share of a publicly traded company? #1 You get to vote, generally individual shareholders own so little of a company that their votes wouldn't matter. But, in actuality if given the proper motivation and percentage of voters, shareholders could change the businesses decisions. #2 You get to profit or lose money depending on how successful the business is.

     Does it make sense for a professional sports team to become publicly traded and does it make sense for you to be a part owner? Lets take a look at the beloved Browns to try and answer this.

Add caption

      The Browns are owned by James Arthur Haslam III (Jimmy Haslam) and have been since he bought them in 2012 for nearly $1 Billion (actually had to sell his stake in the Steelers first). Forbes values the Browns at around  $1.5 Billion, presumably that is what the Browns would be able to raise if they had an Initial Public Offering (what makes your company publicly traded). The Browns could use this money to renovate their existing stadium, build a new stadium, hire better management, sign better players, create a marketing campaign, and the list goes on.

     Should the Browns become a publicly traded company then? No, they (Jimmy Haslam) could possibly lose their majority interest in the company and have to succumb to the interests of their shareholders (fans). This could possibly put the future of the franchise in the hands of fans that do not know how to run a professional sports team business (sorry it is true). For the Browns I would think the risks greatly outweigh the benefits.

Washout Quarterback

     Should you, a perennially disappointed Browns fan, invest in the Browns?  Yes, you should if the Browns were ever silly enough to become publicly traded. Despite their annual losing records Jimmy Haslam and the Browns actually run a decent business. The valuation of the Browns has increased almost 50% to $1.5 Billion, revenues have increased almost 52% since 2006 to $313 million, and they had an operating income of almost $35 million in 2015 according to Forbes. All these positives would surely increase the value of it's shares and thus your net worth if you owned shares. You would also then be able to voice your opinions a bit more loudly as a fan base if you actually owned part of the company.

     I know you know the Browns suck, and I am sure their management knows too, but how cool would it be to actually own a part of your favorite sports team?! You could even possibly influence their draft picks instead of yelling at your friends about if they should draft another wash out Quarterback. The best thing is even if they do poorly (win loss wise) you could still actually profit off of your team and possibly not end another season in disappointment.
     

Is She Worth It?...Oprah Winfrey

Is She Worth It?

Oprah Winfrey and Her Purchase of Weight Watchers

     On the 16th of October Oprah Winfrey purchased a 10% (6.4 million shares) stake in Weight Watchers (WTW) worth $43 million. In 2 days that stake was at one point worth $119,404,000, some may think that's a bit fishy, using your name to solely increase the price of a stock. The company has seen a steady decline in revenue over the last 4 years which has been attributed to mobile fitness devices and apps. For Oprah it makes sense to enter into a deal and purchase a stake in the company,
her media empire could do wonders for bringing in customers. Right off the bat her name alone has increased the valuation of the stock, but does her expertise and possible help in marketing bring enough to the table to turn this company around, not in valuations, but in real earnings?

     No is the short answer. But we aren't in the game of answers that short, we like to expose the facts so that you can make informed decisions in the future. To give you transparency here are the details about their partnership (taken from their website):

• Member – Winfrey has joined the program and will candidly share her experiences and perspective along the way.
• Board Member and Adviser – Winfrey will bring insight and strategy to program development and execution that reflects not only her own experiences as a member, but also her unique ability to inspire and connect people to live their best lives.
• Owner – Winfrey will purchase newly issued shares representing 10% of the shares outstanding and will receive options to acquire an additional 5% of the fully diluted shares.

     First lets talk about what challenges they have going forward. The first one is being able to gain and retain new customers. Weight Watchers has been primarily losing customers to apps people can easily access on their phones, and for free. The next one is a bit of a conundrum, their business isn't actually good for business. If their program works then the people that sign up will pay, lose weight, and then no longer need Weight Watchers and cancel their membership. They will need to figure out how to retain customers after they have lost their weight. 

New Weight Watchers App

     Even before they signed a deal with Oprah Winfrey Weight Watchers has rolled out new offerings that include subscriptions that offer either entirely online & app based weight loss products starting at about $20 a month or online, app, and in person meetings starting at about $33 a month. The challenge they face here is having a premium enough service to were a free app is not an effective alternative. Perhaps they could offer a freemium app that requires payments for increasing amounts of service or goods. 

     Next they have to keep people paying past the point of weight loss, after all the most important part of weight loss is keeping it off. If they can monetize this part of their customer base they will have created a steady predictable portion of their revenues. Going forward they should add services that will help do this like identifying diet trends that have made you gain rather than lose weight or having a different point system to maintain weight. Monetarily they could offer discounted memberships for those that get to and maintain their healthy weights. This would give them an incentive to stay with weight watchers and stay at their healthy weight.

Will her Media Empire Help? 

     So how does Oprah Winfrey solve these dilemmas that weight watchers faces? She solves maybe one at best solely through her marketing power, and that's gaining new customers. The other problems will only be helped by giving their solutions better marketing power than what they already posses. 

     Should this change your view on investing in weight watchers or not? I would say not yet, as with any company I would not recommend investing in anything that does not have positive results. Weight Watchers definitely lacks positive results seeing as their most recent reporting Q3 15' showed they were down 20.8% since last year. Right now a purchase in Weight Watchers is simply an educated gamble.