Nieva Family OfficeMadrid

Home / Notes / PEP

PEPPepsiCo · exit thesis

“GLP-1 is not affecting the stock; its fundamentals are.”

Not a cash cow, not a compounder: after the Q3 results, I’m exiting within one quarter.

Written
2026-10-05
Updated
2026-10-21
First published
2026-10-27
Position that day
Held, exiting
Archived copy
PDF, v22 versions
  • v2 · 2026-10-21current Q3’26 results added (pages 1 and 4–8); four v1 figures corrected, marked †; the worst-case wording on page 1 revised. 8 pages · 1.1 MB · SHA-256 170241d98df980d136512ddcff1c9fcd59974926d482edcf0de632370c75ed33 · archived ↗
  • v1 · 2026-10-05not online As first written. Available on request; the fingerprint identifies the file. 8 pages · SHA-256 d5e9c5644b7c679ad8503030a887c37a96e98d6d3ae77ac86b2b7db9c7f35ef2
Wayback ↗

The decision, step by step

  1. 1
    Entry · 8 Jul 2026

    The GLP-1 scare looked overdone

    I started legging in while the research ran. My estimate put the drag at a rounding error: another 5% of annual penetration costs about 0.5% of volume a year, as long as the core base stays stable.

  2. 2
    Jul – Sep 2026

    The base was not stable

    The GLP-1 effect turned out to be indistinguishable from the other drags on volume. The weakness was in the fundamentals:

    • North American volumes falling, international growth inconsistent
    • Dividends above free cash flow: 103% in FY’25, 106% in FY’24
    • Rockstar impaired by $1.9b against a $4.7b all-in cost
    • Commodity costs and tariffs not offset by pricing
  3. 3
    5 Oct 2026

    Thesis replaced

    “GLP-1 is not affecting the stock; its fundamentals are.”

    Not a cash cow, not a compounder. Exit over one to two quarters.

  4. 4
    8 Oct 2026 · Q3 results

    Exit brought forward to one quarter

    North America’s recovery is “taking longer than expected”: low guidance for Q4, and 2027 seems weak. Operating and commodity costs, both up, explicitly mentioned. Risk management started the same day.

    Sealed record · the risk-management decision and its scenarios, opened at the exit, in per-share terms. SHA-256 fingerprint: c9416b29c9418236d2f01cecc188fe3fc0ad726cec3b9b8e37025090d53be2bc

  5. 5
    Now · registered with the exit

    Three tests that would pause the exit

    1. PepsiCo Foods North America organic growth of 2% or more, with volume flat or up, for two quarters
    2. Dividends at or below 90% of free cash flow, trailing twelve months
    3. Core gross margin up year on year in both North American divisions for two quarters

    Starting points, from the Q3 2026 results of 8 Oct: Foods North America organic growth −0.2%, volume +0.5%; dividends 103% of free cash flow in FY’25; core gross margin down year on year in Foods North America, 60.3% against 62.3%.

Handwritten notebook page on PepsiCo: US beverage market share against Coca-Cola, bottling and retailers
Source page · US beverage share, bottling and retailers

The note

i filing · ii management · iii third party · H my calculation · quotes from my call notes

The entry thesis: GLP-1

The base is already in place: GLP-1 users in North America are 11% of adults, about 20% of households. A 10% decline in savory snacks is a −2% drag on volumes; another 5% of annual penetration is a further −0.5% a year. H

Worst case, applied to both estimates, with self-reported adherence overstating persistence and treatment discontinued after the first year: a rounding error for PepsiCo, provided the core base is stable and real consumption grows. The base was not stable.

Today the GLP-1 effect is indistinguishable from the other drags on volume. The exception is emerging markets, a growth vector for PepsiCo, where cheaper generics are coming. I’m watching it.

The exit thesis

I started with a thesis to enter. Now I have a new one, to hedge the position and exit: GLP-1 is not affecting the stock; its fundamentals are.

  • Declining growth in North America, inconsistent growth abroad
  • A stretched balance sheet, unhealthy dividends and very poor M&A execution
  • Unable to offset high commodity costs

Not a cash cow, not a compounder: exit over one to two quarters, brought forward to one quarter with the Q3 results.

Q3 2026: the exit brought forward

Management: North America’s recovery is “taking longer than expected”. Low guidance for Q4, and 2027 seems weak. Operating costs and commodity costs, both up, were explicitly mentioned. ii Recognizing a problem is necessary, but not enough; management didn’t seem hands-on enough to solve it.

PepsiCo Foods North America: volume contracted in every quarter of 2025. Q1’26 brought a +2% volume contribution to revenue, a huge surprise; then 0% in Q2 and a weak +0.5% in Q3. Not convincing. Physical volume was about flat: savory snacks +1%, offset by −4% in other foods. Meanwhile SG&A grew 6% year on year and cost of sales 0.74%, so margins keep deteriorating. H

PepsiCo Beverages North America had another quarter of negative volume, in a long series, while operating costs ramped up. The International Beverages Franchise and EMEA showed strength on all fronts, but North America, the most powerful consumer in the world, is more than half of operating profit. It needs good results, and an end to the streak of market-share losses.

Add a stretched balance sheet; a refinancing wall that, by my numbers, raises interest expense by about 10%; and a very stretched dividend payout that management won’t have the fortitude to cut in half, ending the Dividend King status, to manage the company better. H

Q2 2026 snapshot

Segment mix, Q2 2026 · shares computed from the segment disclosure H
Segment Share of revenue Operating margin Share of operating profit
PepsiCo Foods North America 26.3% 21.1% 29.7%
PepsiCo Beverages North America 30.0% 14.5% 23.3%
US and Canada 56.3% — 53.0%
International Beverages Franchise (high growth) 6.3% 41.8% 14.1%
EMEA 20.6% 15.1% 16.6%
LatAm Foods 12.2% 21.0% 13.6%
Asia Pacific Foods 4.6% 11.3% 3.0%
Cash flow H
$ FY’25 FY’24 FY’23
Operating cash flow, ex SBC 11.8b 12.1b 13.1b
Operating cash flow / revenue 12.6% 13.2% 14.3%
Free cash flow 7.4b 6.8b 7.5b
Dividends / free cash flow 103% 106% 89%

A Dividend King: a 7% dividend CAGR from 2010 to 2026 that can’t be repeated, and is now a drag on competitiveness. Buybacks run at about $1b a year, so in effect all of the return to shareholders comes from dividends; the share count fell 0.4% from Q1’24 to Q2’25 and 0.3% to Q2’26. i

Debt

Net debt is 37.9% of total assets. H A quarter of the debt, $10.6b, is short-term. i Assuming +100 bps on the debt that rolls, that is +$0.106b of interest in FY’26, or +9.5% year on year. H

Interest expense: $1.121b in H1’25 (+22% YoY), after $0.919b in H1’24 (+12% YoY). i

Beverages, bottling and retailers

  • PepsiCo
  • Coca-Cola
Market share, US liquid refreshment beverages iii
Market share, US liquid refreshment beverages iii
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
PepsiCo 24% 23% 22% 22% 22% 22% 20% 19% 18% 16%
Coca-Cola 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 21% 20% 21% 20%

Why the slide? In Q1’22 PepsiCo sold its juice portfolio (Tropicana, Naked and others).

Coca-Cola spun off its bottling: its operating margin went from 19.7% in 2015 to 28.7% in 2025, while bottling fell from 52% to 12% of its revenue. i That spin-off is part of the margin gap. Then there is the mix: 58% of PepsiCo’s revenue is food.

Walmart is 14% of revenue. i In North America PepsiCo sells directly to retailers and absorbs their bargaining power itself. The downside: PepsiCo fights retailers head-on, while Coca-Cola lets its bottlers fight them first.

Contrarian: against spinning off bottling

Being number two means a density disadvantage. Integration tries to solve it, as in Texas in July ’26, where Frito-Lay and Pepsi were integrated: snacks sell strongly, drinks don’t, so there is spare room on beverage routes. Refranchising doesn’t solve it; a sub-scale Pepsi bottler has the same density problem. Being number two may also mean higher bottler funding, because the Coke bottler is stronger.

Management: “full refranchise not under consideration” and “a mosaic of structures”, given the Frito-Lay adjacency, a difference from Coca-Cola. ii

M&A: very poor execution

  1. 2020Rockstar: $4.7b all-in for a 6% market share
  2. 2022Juice portfolio sold to TBG, keeping a 39% equity stake
  3. 2024The TBG stake written off to zero
  4. 2025Rockstar impaired by $1.9b; Celsius: $1.1b of purchases
  5. Feb ’26Pepsi Prebiotic Cola: US national launch
  6. Jul ’26Pepsi Prebiotic Cola silently discontinued

Rockstar, a complete fiasco. $4.7b all-in cost in 2020 for a 6% market share; a $1.9b impairment in 2025, about 40% of the price; the US and Canada brand moved to Celsius at a $0.5b value, now with a 2% share. i

TBG, a mild disaster. $3.5b in cash, a $2.9b after-tax gain; then the 39% stake, worth $0.95b, written off to zero in 2024: about $1.95b net. H

Celsius. A distribution margin on $1.1b of purchases in ’25, with upside from Alani Nu. But if the Celsius brand weakens, so does PepsiCo’s preferred stake in Celsius: doubtful upside.

Pepsi Prebiotic Cola. A US national launch in February ’26, then silence: the wrong signal. In Q3’26, more silence: it had been discontinued in July ’26, without a word from management.

Poppi. A $300m earnout for 2027. In Q3’26 the earnout was revalued to $12m, after a $105m decrease in the quarter ($266m year to date), credited to SG&A. i Poppi probably won’t meet its 2027 targets. If that credit is inside Beverages North America’s core results, its Q3’26 SG&A growth would be about +10.8%, not the +7.27% reported. H

Core operating margin by segment

  • PepsiCo Foods North America
  • PepsiCo Beverages North America
  • EMEA
  • International Beverages Franchise
Core operating margin by segment, Q1’25 to Q3’26 H
From the quarterly press releases; full bridges (volume, price and mix, FX, cost of sales, SG&A) in the notebook H
Segment Q1’25 Q2’25 Q3’25 Q4’25 Q1’26 Q2’26 Q3’26
PepsiCo Foods North America 25.5% 23.5% 24.7% 23.5% 24.0% 21.5% 21.2%
PepsiCo Beverages North America 10.1% 14.5% 13.4% 9.0% 10.7% 14.6% 13.9%
International Beverages Franchise 35.3% 38.7% 40.0% 34.1% 41.2% 42.7% 40.7%
EMEA 8.9% 14.7% 16.6% 15.3% 11.8% 15.9% 17.2%

A broken scale: gross and operating profit include FX and acquisitions, while the denominator, organic revenue, doesn’t. The mismatch gives the impression of a higher margin. But each period is compared with the same period on the same broken scale, not with a competitor, so the scale still measures changes in margin. Without FX and acquisitions, the Beverages North America margin declines big time, and EMEA’s is worsening. H

What I watch

  • The “carrying value” language in the 10-K, for early warnings of future impairments: SodaStream is on the edge.
  • Pricing: the Q1’26 price cuts in foods lifted volume for only one quarter; in Q2 it was flat. Management’s next move is price increases at the end of ’26 and in Q1’27.
  • GLP-1 adoption in emerging markets as cheaper generics arrive.
  • The three tests that would pause the exit (step 5).

Position on the day of publication: held, exiting. I don’t trade against a published view in the 72 hours after publishing it, except to carry out a pre-stated exit or risk limit. Not investment advice.