McDonald's Changes That Completely Fell Flat With Customers
McDonald's built a global empire on consistency, convenience, and crowd-pleasing classics. However, even the minds behind the golden arches aren't immune to missteps. Over the years, the fast-food giant has introduced ambitious new products, redesigned its restaurants, and even launched an entire spinoff chain, only to watch many of these changes backfire spectacularly.
Some of the McDonald's misfires were driven by shifting consumer trends, cost-cutting efforts, or corporate experimentation. Regardless of the motivation behind them, several of these changes left customers confused, disappointed, or outright angry.
From popular McDonald's items that were discontinued — like the McD.L.T. and Cinnamon Melts — to bold swings and misses like McPizza and a McDonald's hot dog, not every golden idea turned out to be a roaring success. In other cases, the company changed too much of what customers loved, such as altering its recipe for cooking fries and overhauling the look of its classic restaurants to become less bright and cheerful. While not always contentious, these changes were no doubt bound to stir up debate.
Read more: 22 Fast Food Breakfast Menus Ranked From Worst To Best
In late 2023, McDonald's launched a highly anticipated spinoff chain called CosMc's — a drink-focused concept named after a little-known McDonaldland alien mascot from the '80s. The new venture was meant to rival the likes of Starbucks and Dunkin' with a menu packed with cold-brew coffee, iced latte, and quirky food items like blueberry-lemon sundaes and the Creamy Avocado Tomatillo Sandwich. But by May 2025, McDonald's announced it would shut down its CosMc's test locations, effectively calling time on the experiment within a matter of months after it began.
The concept was first launched with a location in Bolingbrook, Illinois, with McDonald's executives aiming to create a beverage-centered brand geared towards afternoon traffic. When starting out this enterprise, the company planned to expand CosMc's to about 10 locations by 2025, including multiple sites in Texas.
Despite initial buzz, CosMc's quickly drew criticism from customers and analysts. The new chain's disjointed menu offerings, focus on drive-thru customers, and underwhelming marketing didn't sit well with many fast-food fans. One commenter on Reddit bluntly called CosMc's "another blunder by McDonald's executives. I thought the clown was only the mascot, but the entire management team seems to be entirely made up of clowns."
When McDonald's introduced all-day breakfast in 2015, customers were thrilled. The move catered to diners who craved Egg McMuffins and hash browns long after traditional breakfast hours had passed. Sales figures immediately jumped in the following months, and it was considered as a wildly successful McDonald's menu expansion.
However, by March 2020, all-day breakfast at McDonald's was shelved, reportedly as a temporary measure to simplify kitchen operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the change stuck. While individual franchisees can determine the hours when breakfast is sold at the McDonald's locations they operate, the chain generally stops serving McMuffins and hash browns at 11 a.m. or earlier.
The decision left many fans disappointed. Some McDonald's employees have taken to social media to explain that while all-day breakfast boosted sales, it also complicated workflows and slowed down service, particularly during busy lunch and dinner hours. Still, for customers who loved ordering hotcakes in the evening, the loss of flexibility has remained a sore spot.
Few discontinued McDonald's items inspire as much longing as Cinnamon Melts. Introduced around 2007, these warm, gooey, miniature-sized cinnamon rolls were compared favorably to the confections of Cinnabon. They were a hit with customers seeking something sweet to pair with a morning coffee.
Despite their popularity, McDonald's phased out Cinnamon Melts by 2017, supposedly due to steep production costs, low sales, and because the process of preparing them was relatively difficult. They also required unique packaging to contain the icing, which may have hindered efficiency in McDonald's kitchens.
Diners were not happy. Commenters on multiple online forums have lamented the item's disappearance. Some speculate that despite being delicious, Cinnamon Melts were simply not profitable enough to remain on the menu. Years later, people are still begging for their return. But McDonald's management doesn't appear to be budging from the decision to discontinue Cinnamon Melts, even ignoring an online petition with over 18,000 signatures to demand the return of this sweet-and-spiced treat.
In early 2013, McDonald's attempted to ride the wave of nugget-style innovation with Fish McBites — a bite-sized, breaded take on the pollock used in its classic Filet-O-Fish sandwich. Initially marketed as a limited-time offering for the period of Lent, the product aimed to attract customers seeking a non-meat option. It was also intended to appeal to younger diners as a Happy Meal option.
But Fish McBites didn't stick around. The menu item was discontinued after just a few months. Despite a flashy rollout and considerable marketing investment, McDonald's fish nuggets failed to make a lasting impression. Customer feedback was lukewarm, with reviews stating that the nuggets lacked flavor and had an unappetizing texture.
Years later, Fish McBites appear to be remembered more for the menu item's obscurity rather than its taste, with one person on Reddit alleging that "there is seemingly no evidence of them ever existing." Despite Fish McBites being a huge flop, the classic Filet-O-Fish sandwich is still loved and enjoyed by seafood lovers in multiple countries around the world.
Originally introduced in California in 1996, the Big N' Tasty featured a quarter-pound beef patty with lettuce, tomato, onions, and pickles on a sesame seed bun. It was sold nationally by 2001, and for a while it was considered as a staple of the McDonald's Dollar Menu.
Despite garnering many fans, it's widely reported that the Big N' Tasty was quietly discontinued in most U.S. locations by 2011, although it's still sometimes available with some variations at a number of international restaurant sites. McDonald's management has explained that this burger's size presented a logistical challenge, stating that keeping it as a regular menu item would hinder the chain's ability to cook other special-offer burgers introduced for a limited time.
Nostalgia for the menu item remains strong, with many people taking to online forums and wondering whatever happened to McDonald's Big N' Tasty burger. Diners still share fond memories of the Big N' Tasty, especially from during the time when it cost $1.
In the mid-2000s, McDonald's began overhauling its iconic red-and-yellow buildings, phasing out the interiors dominated by colorful plastic and replacing them with darker hues, wood fixtures, and sleek furnishings. This rebranding aimed to present a more sophisticated image, hoping to attract adult diners seeking a less garish dining setting.
While the effort aligned with broader trends in fast-casual dining, many customers felt the redesign stripped away the brand's charm. Instead enjoying a bright, family-friendly atmosphere, the new decor at McDonald's has left visitors complaining on Reddit that the restaurants look "sterile" and "eerily similar" to each other. One commenter shared the following question: "When did McD go from a happy, fun-loving child to a depressed, midlife-crisis adult?"
Other online commenters theorize that McDonald's needed to diminish its focus on attracting children to eat fast food, and that the less-distinctive design will make it easier to repurpose McDonald's locations that shut down. While the rebranding may have met some of McDonald's strategic goals, it also seems to have created a disconnect for loyal customers who miss the playful aesthetics and family-centric vibe of its previous aesthetic style.
In 2002, McDonald's released the McAfrika in Norway — a pita-style sandwich filled with beef, cheese, and vegetables — that was meant to evoke African flavors. But the timing couldn't have been worse. The launch occurred during a severe famine in Africa that affected some 12 million people. Humanitarian groups quickly condemned the campaign as tone-deaf and insensitive.
Following the backlash, a McDonald's spokesperson acknowledged the appearance of insensitivity, but the chain did not immediately remove the McAfrika from its Norway menus. While McDonald's officials welcomed famine-aid organizations to place donation boxes and fundraising appeals in its Norwegian restaurants, this wasn't enough to stop the criticism. To this day, the ill-timed McAfrika launch is considered among the biggest mistakes ever committed by the fast food chain.
Unbelievably, the controversy resurfaced in 2008 when McDonald's Australia attempted to a launch the similarly named McAfrica burger as part of a limited-time promotion connected with that year's Olympic Games. This incident did not inspire the same level of protests as seen in Norway six years earlier, but it again drew attention to the questionable decisions of McDonald's marketing practices.
In 2000, McDonald's introduced McSalad Shakers, a portable serving of chopped greens served in a clear plastic cup. Customers were encouraged to pour in dressings like ranch, Thousand Island, or herb vinaigrette, then shake the container, and enjoy a healthier fast food option on the go. This innovation was meant as an offering for health-conscious consumers.
Despite being offered in three versions — Garden, Chef, and Grilled Chicken Caesar — and sold for relatively low prices, McSalad Shakers were discontinued in 2003. While it's difficult to find any detailed explanation about what happened to McDonald's McSalad Shakers, McDonald's management has expressed in recent years that demand for salads at the fast food chain is generally low.
Nonetheless, some fans remember McSalad Shakers fondly as a relatively healthy McDonald's menu option that was actually tasty and convenient. Although short-lived, these portable salads remain a cult favorite among a dedicated cadre of online commenters who clamor for their return.
The McD.L.T. — short for "McDonald's lettuce and tomato" — was launched in the mid-1980s as a premium burger with packaging designed to keep the hot and cold ingredients separated. It came in a two-sided styrofoam container: one side for the hot beef patty and bottom bun, and the other side for the lettuce, tomato, cheese, and top bun. This design promised a fresher burger that diners could assemble just before eating.
While some customers appreciated this burger's taste and novel container, environmentalists were less enthusiastic. As the public was becoming aware of the growing amount of non-biodegradable waste going to landfills, the McD.L.T.'s oversized polystyrene packaging drew heavy criticism. As pressure mounted from the controversy, McDonald's faced a public relations dilemma.
By the early 1990s, the McD.L.T. was canceled. Over the following years, McDonald's joined other fast food chains in the eco-friendly trend to serve menu items in durable paper containers instead of polystyrene packaging. The rise and fall of this McDonald's burger became an emblem of the turning point in how fast food companies approach environmental responsibility; today an original McD.L.T. container is exhibited in the National Museum of American History. A few fans still praise this sandwich — "It really was probably the best burger McDonald's has ever had," wrote one commenter on Reddit — while acknowledging that it had to go for the sake of the planet.
Although McDonald's has experimented with diverse food items, one handheld meal that never gained traction was the McHotDog. Originally sold at select locations in the U.S. in 1995, it was introduced despite strong objections from the chain's founder, who died more than a decade before the launch. Ray Kroc didn't think McDonald's should sell hot dogs, because he believed that the sausages' mystery-meat reputation is not compatible with the chain's quality standards. Kroc even made this clear in his autobiography, "Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald's."
Despite Kroc's overt misgivings about dishing out frankfurters beneath the golden arches, McDonald's corporate management gave the McHotDog a shot — and it quickly became one of the biggest flops in McDonald's history. But while the chain's U.S. customers clearly didn't want this product, McDonald's hot dogs continually made sporadic appearances over the years at international locations, reportedly surfacing in Germany and on the restaurant's breakfast menu in Japan.
Nonetheless, McDonald's never successfully established hot dogs as a permanent menu item. For most customers, the McHotDog remains a forgotten oddity, probably proving that Kroc was right all along.
McDonald's has dabbled in varied seafood offerings, and one of its most curious was the McLobster. First introduced in 1993 and reportedly limited to markets in New England and eastern Canada, the McLobster was a sandwich similar to a lobster roll, made with Atlantic lobster meat, lettuce, and a light sauce, all served in a long bun.
The McLobster had its fans, and for quite a few years it occasionally appeared as a seasonal item on McDonald's menus in states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, as well as Canada's Atlantic-coast provinces. However, the sandwich never went national. This is likely due to the price of lobster varying considerably depending on the season and region, making it a difficult food to order regularly for a fast food chain known for uniformity. In 2017, McDonald's Canadian management specifically cited price concerns as the reason why the McLobster would not be offered at any restaurants that year, leaving aficionados of the sandwich high and dry.
For years, McDonald's deep-fried apple pies were a customer favorite. With their golden-brown, crispy crust and sweet filling, they were a staple dessert of the chain from the 1960s through the early 1990s. But in 1992, McDonald's made a controversial change: At most U.S. locations, employees started baking apple pies instead of frying them. This new cooking technique was meant as part of an effort to provide healthier menu items, but sweet-toothed diners were not pleased.
Fans of the original pies lamented the loss of the crispy texture and piping-hot filling of the deep-fried apple pies. Luckily for them, some McDonald's locations continue to sell the fried versions, such as a historic McDonald's in Downey, California, as well as the chain's restaurants in Hawaii. Although McDonald's has tweaked the recipe of its baked apple pies over the years — switching to a lattice crust and adjusting the filling ingredients — critics argue that the newer version never measured up to the deep-fried pies.
In 1991, McDonald's debuted the McLean Deluxe, a low-fat hamburger aimed at health-conscious consumers. Billed as a 91% fat-free alternative to standard burgers, the McLean Deluxe featured a patty made with lean beef that was blended with carrageenan — a seaweed-derived thickener — to retain moisture and texture.
Initially, the McLean Deluxe seemed poised for success. McDonald's spent a fortune (reportedly at least $50 million) developing and marketing the new item, positioning it as a health-boosting revolution in fast food. But almost immediately, the McLean Deluxe ran into trouble. Customers complained that the burger lacked flavor, and couldn't sufficiently satisfy their hunger. Other diners were less than enthusiastic about consuming seaweed in their fast food.
People stopped buying the McDonald's McLean Deluxe, and by 1996, it was quietly removed from McDonald's menus. Though the chain attempted to lead a charge into the realm of healthy fast food, this failure showed that flavor can't be sacrificed beneath the golden arches — even in the name of nutrition.
There was a time when McDonald's french fries were arguably the best in the fast food business — but many say that McDonald's fries don't taste as good as they used to before 1990. That year, the company made a major behind-the-scenes shift in its use of cooking oil, ditching beef tallow and switching to vegetable oil.
Nutritionally, the change seemed like a good idea. Beef tallow is high in saturated fats, while vegetable oil primarily contains unsaturated fat, making it a seemingly heart-healthier option. However, many customers felt betrayed when they noticed the change in flavor. The new fries lost savory depth, and yearnings for the original version quickly took root. In fact, restaurants where you can still order beef tallow fries remain in demand today. McDonald's did try to recapture the previous taste by adding beef flavoring to the oil blend, but critics still argue that the former fries were better.
Yes, McDonald's really tried selling pizza, but there's a good reason why many people aren't aware of that. The largely untold truth of McDonald's pizza began in the mid-1980s, as part of an ambitious attempt to diversify the chain's menu. By the early 1990s, McPizza had expanded to hundreds of test locations.
However, it wasn't long before the idea started to unravel. The process of making a McPizza took significantly more time than preparing burgers or fries, which slowed down operations in the chain's famously fast-paced kitchens. Many franchisees found the required ovens inconvenient to install. Extensive marketing efforts didn't help. The taste of McPizza is fondly recalled by some folks, but it never stood out in a crowded market among huge names like Pizza Hut and Domino's. By the early 2000s, McDonald's had pulled McPizza from most locations.
People now remember McPizza as either a quirky novelty or a misguided experiment. The failed launch provides proof that although McDonald's is a colossal brand, not every type of food belongs under the golden arches.
Read the original article on Mashed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Official: Social Security Retired-Worker Benefits Have Made History
Social Security provides a financial foundation for aging workers who can no longer do so for themselves. Based on the latest statistical snapshot from the Social Security Administration, the average monthly payout for retired workers hit a historic level in May. On the other hand, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar simply isn't what it used to be. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › In August 1935, the Social Security Act was signed into law, with the first retired-worker benefit being issued in January 1940. For decades, this prized social program has been providing a financial foundation for those who could no longer do so for themselves. Based on a recently updated analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security helped pull more than 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, 16.3 million of whom were aged 65 and above. It's also reduced the federal poverty rate for seniors to 10.1% from an estimated 37.3% if the program didn't exist. Separately, national pollster Gallup has been surveying retirees in each of the last 23 years to gauge how important their Social Security income is to making ends meet. Anywhere from 80% to 90% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their expenses. In May, the average Social Security check for retired-worker beneficiaries, who comprise the bulk of recipients, made history by surpassing a psychological milestone. Every month, the Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes what's known as its "Monthly Statistical Snapshot," which provides a detailed rundown of where every dollar in traditional Social Security outlays ends up. "Traditional" benefits refer to payouts for retired workers, survivor beneficiaries, and workers with disabilities. For example, the June statistical snapshot from the SSA shows that 69.628 million people received a benefit in May 2025. This includes more than 52.8 million retired workers, close to 5.9 million survivors of deceased workers, and 7.1 million workers with disabilities. You'll note these figures don't add up to 69.628 million, with the difference made up by spouses, children, widow(er)s, and parents of current/former beneficiaries who also qualify for a monthly check under select circumstances. The SSA's detailed monthly breakdown also allows anyone to see how much in benefits was outlaid, which includes the average benefit paid for each specific category. As a whole, $129.351 billion was dispersed in May to the aforementioned 69.628 million beneficiaries, which worked out to an average payout, across all beneficiary types, of $1,857.75. However, the highest average check of all beneficiary categories went to retired workers. For the first time in the program's 90-year history, the average Social Security retired-worker benefit crested $2,000 -- officially, it came in at $2,002.39. This average payout for retired workers has risen on a month-to-month basis for as long as the SSA has been publishing its Monthly Statistical Snapshot. This is because of the dynamic of new workers filing for and receiving initial benefits, as well as some beneficiaries dying. With wages and salaries nominally increasing over time, as well as near-annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) boosting how much Social Security beneficiaries receive, it was simply a matter of time before the average Social Security retired-worker benefit hit the psychologically important $2,000 level. Unfortunately, this nominal achievement isn't reason to cheer. Despite the average retired worker now receiving a payout that begins with a "2" for the first time in the program's storied history, studies have shown that Social Security payouts have done a very poor job of keeping up with the inflationary pressures retirees have contended with since this century began. Prior to 1975, there was no rhyme or reason to how Social Security COLAs were determined or passed along. Following an entire decade without a COLA in the 1940s, Congress passed a whopping increase to benefits of 77% in 1950. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was "adopted" as Social Security's measure of inflation, which would allow for annual adjustments, if necessary. The CPI-W has in excess of 200 spending categories, all of which have their own unique percentage weightings. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be chiseled down to a single number at the end of each month, which makes for easy year-over-year comparisons to determine if this broad basket of goods and services is rising (indicating inflation) or declining (indicating deflation). Though you'd think a broad-basket inflationary index would be perfect for mirroring the prevailing rate of inflation, this simply hasn't been the case. The inherent flaw with the CPI-W can be easily seen in the latter half of its full name: "urban wage earners and clerical workers." This inflationary index is tracking the spending habits of mostly working-age Americans who aren't currently receiving a Social Security benefit. In comparison, more than 85% of Social Security beneficiaries are 62 and older. Working-age Americans and retirees budget their money differently. Whereas the former are likely to spend a higher percentage of their monthly budget on education and apparel expenses, seniors dole out more for shelter and medical care services than the typical working-age American. Unfortunately, the CPI-W doesn't account for the added importance of shelter and medical care service expenses, thus leading to a fairly persistent decline in the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar over time. According to a July 2024 study from nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League, the buying power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. As long as the CPI-W remains Social Security's inflationary tether, even a record-breaking monthly benefit for retired workers is unlikely to keep pace with the pricing pressures beneficiaries are contending with. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. It's Official: Social Security Retired-Worker Benefits Have Made History was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Palantir Stock Turn $5,000 Invested Today Into $100,000 in the Next Decade?
Palantir stock has advanced more than 2,000% since January 2023, achieving a return that would have turned $5,000 into $107,000. Palantir is a recognized leader in artificial intelligence and machine learning platforms, a market forecasted to grow at 40% annually through 2028. Palantir shares currently trade at 109 times sales, an expensive valuation that is three times higher than that of the next-closest stock in the S&P 500. 10 stocks we like better than Palantir Technologies › Palantir Technologies (NASDAQ: PLTR) has been one of the hottest stocks on the market in recent years. Its share price has soared more than 2,000% since January 2023, achieving a return that would have turned a $5,000 investment into $107,000 over that period. Will Palantir shareholders see similar gains over the next decade? Here's what investors should know. Palantir provides data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) software that enables businesses to manage and make sense of complex information. Its platforms have applications across almost every industry. As an example, Archer Aviation recently adopted Palantir's Foundry and Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) products to improve its aircraft manufacturing capabilities, and the companies will collaborate to design critical aviation systems in the future. Forrester Research recognized Palantir as a leader in AI and machine learning platforms last August, awarding its AIP product higher scores than similar tools from Alphabet's Google, Microsoft, and Databricks, a private company currently valued at $75 billion. The report highlighted differentiated software architecture as a key strength. "Palantir is quietly becoming one of the largest players in this market," wrote analyst Mike Gualtieri. Palantir continued to show near-flawless execution in the first quarter. Revenue increased 39% to $884 million, marking the seventh consecutive acceleration (as shown in the chart below), due to particularly strong growth in the U.S. commercial and government segments. And non-GAAP (non-generally accepted accounting principles) net income increased 70% to $334 million. Management attributed the strong results to the demand for AIP. Importantly, Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar told analysts on the first-quarter earnings call, "Our foundational investments in ontology and infrastructure have positioned us to uniquely deliver on AI demand now and in the years ahead." That is encouraging because International Data Corporation estimates AI platform spending will increase by 40% annually through 2028. Palantir must increase at least 20 times in value (equivalent to a 1,900% return) over the next decade to turn $5,000 into $100,000. As mentioned, the stock has already notched returns of that magnitude once, and it did so in much less time. Shares advanced by over 2,000% in the last 30 months. It's worth noting that four companies in the S&P 500 achieved sufficient gains to turn $5,000 into $100,000 in the last decade, as listed below. Palantir is not included because the company did not go public until 2020. Nvidia: +26,530% Advanced Micro Devices: +4,790% Axon Enterprise: +2,180% Texas Pacific Land: +2,060% However, Palantir's share price is unlikely to increase 20-fold during the next decade. I say that because the company is already worth $324 billion. Multiplying that by 20 would bring its market value to $6.5 trillion, which seems implausible, given that Microsoft is currently the world's largest company and its market value is just $3.5 trillion. Additionally, Palantir stock would need to gain 35% annually over the next decade to achieve a total return of 1,900%. That seems particularly unlikely, considering shares already trade at a shockingly expensive 109 times sales. For context, the next-closest member of the S&P 500 is Texas Pacific Land at 35 times sales. Consider this: Even if Palantir trades at 40 times sales in 10 years (which would still be the most expensive stock in the S&P 500 at current prices), revenue would need to increase by 49% annually during that period for the company to achieve a $6.5 trillion market value. Palantir's revenue increased by only 39% last quarter, so the odds of revenue growing at 49% annually for the next 10 years are remote at best. Here's the bottom line: Palantir is executing on a tremendous market opportunity, but the current valuation is absurd. Personally, I think investors should steer clear of the stock at its current price, or at least keep their position sizing very small. At some point, valuation will matter, and Palantir shares could crash. Before you buy stock in Palantir Technologies, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Palantir Technologies wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Trevor Jennewine has positions in Axon Enterprise, Nvidia, and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Advanced Micro Devices, Alphabet, Axon Enterprise, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Can Palantir Stock Turn $5,000 Invested Today Into $100,000 in the Next Decade? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Keep an eye on this FTSE 100 stock in the week ahead
Bunzl's (LSE:BNZL) set to issue a trading statement on Tuesday (24 June). And the last time the FTSE 100 company did this, the results were dramatic. The stock fell 25% when the firm released its Q1 results in April. So I think it's worth paying close attention to both the business and the stock in the coming week. Bunzl's Q1 update essentially amounted to a profit warning. And according to conventional stock market wisdom, these things are rarely isolated incidents. The firm reported weakness in both revenue and margins, especially in its North American business. Part of this is due to the macroeconomic environment, but not all of it. Bunzl's been attempting to shift its business in two major ways. One is by centralising its sales operation and the other has involved attempting to focus more on own-brand products. Neither has been a success in the short term and has resulted in the loss of a major customer. But the question for investors now is whether there's more bad news to come. Bunzl's also announced an action plan to try and resolve its US issues quickly. But this might be ambitious and losing a major customer might not be reversible in the short term. That means there's absolutely scope for the upcoming trading update to reveal more bad news. But the company's been decisive in its moves to try and limit the damage. In light of the macroeconomic uncertainty in the US, Bunzl's changed its capital allocation priorities. The firm's paused its share buyback programme to focus on its balance sheet. That generally isn't an encouraging sign for investors, but it might prove to be a good one. In general, I prefer it when companies err on the side of caution when it comes to resilience. Despite the recent difficulties, I think the stock's one to keep an eye on. More specifically, I'm impressed by the firm's long-term growth prospects. Bunzl has an outstanding record of growing through acquisitions. This can be risky, but the company has a key advantage when it comes to limiting the inherent danger. In general, buying businesses is most risky when the acquisitions are large and unrelated to a firm's existing operations. But the industry Bunzl operates in is highly fragmented. This gives the company more opportunities to identify relatively low-risk targets. And management thinks it still has a strong pipeline ahead in terms of future growth. I'm still firmly of the view that Bunzl's fundamentally a very good business that's facing a number of challenges at the moment. Some of these are of its own making. I do think however, that these are temporary. But the market seems to have other ideas and is pricing the stock as though the company has a permanent problem. If I'm right, then Bunzl could well be one to keep an eye on. And this week's trading update should give investors a chance to get a clearer picture. The post Keep an eye on this FTSE 100 stock in the week ahead appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Stephen Wright has positions in Bunzl Plc. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Bunzl Plc. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025