Curious which celebrities eat at the same fast food places and chain restaurants you do? You might be surprised by their favorites.
Tim Hortons is the most valuable segment for Restaurant Brands International and we expect nearly 60% of the company’s overall 2017 revenues to come from Tim Hortons company owned restaurants and another 18% from the franchised restaurants of the same brand.
Restaurant Industry Stock Outlook - April/May 2017
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (QSR) reported better-than-expected results in the first quarter of 2017, wherein both the top line and the bottom line outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate.
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (QSR) beats on earnings as our consensus earnings estimate called for earnings per share of 35 cents and the company reported earnings of 36 cents per share
We expect Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) to beat expectations when it reports first-quarter 2017 numbers on Apr 26, before the opening bell
Bank of Canada acknowledged that economic growth was surpassing its expectations.
Consolidation has become the name of the game to survive in the prevailing restaurant recession.
JAB Holdings will acquire Panera for $315 per share in cash, in a transaction valued at roughly $7.5 billion
Luxembourg-based JAB Holdings, the acquisitive owner of Caribou Coffee, Peet's Coffee & Tea and Krispy Kreme, confirmed swirling speculation this morning when it announced it would acquire U.S. bakery chain Panera Bread for $315/share - a 20% premium - in a deal valued at about $7.5 billion. If completed, the transaction would mark the largest M&A deal for a US restaurant company, and the second-largest in North America after the 2014 acquisition of Tim Horton's. The deal represents a whopping 18x LTM EBITDA, and includes the assumption of about $340 million of net debt, JAB Holdings and Panera said in a joint statement. Panera founder and Chief Executive Ron Shaich and entities affiliated have agreed to vote shares representing about 15.5 percent of the company's voting power in favor of the deal. Panera has 2,000 bakery cafes throughout the United States and its fresh offerings appeal to "health-conscious" consumers. The St. Louis-based company has reported better-than-expected earnings per share for the last six quarters. The deal, meant to compliment and expand JAB's coffee and breakfast assets, had been leaked in recent days, with Panera shares rising 5% from March 31 through Tuesday's close of $274. The stock jumped nearly another 13% to $309.49 in premarket trading on Wednesday. The purchase by JAB, the investment vehicle of Germany's billionaire Reimann family, has recently been on a restaurant buying spree, snapping up several popular U.S.-based breakfast and coffee companies, including Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and K-cup coffee pod-maker Keurig Green Mountain Inc. JAB Holding also has controlling stakes in cosmetics company Coty Inc and luxury goods maker Jimmy Choo among many other companies. According to Reuters, JAB became the world's largest pure-play coffee maker by volume in 2015, when its created Jacobs Douwe Egberts in Europe, a joint venture that combined its D.E. Master Blenders 1753 business with the coffee business of U.S.-based Mondelez International Inc. And while shareholders are delighted that someone would pay nearly 20x EBITDA for their stock, the biggest losers this morning are the hedge fund shorts, who had been progressively rising in recent months, and at last check stood at about 18% of the float.
The CEO of a large Australian company called me to relay a particular strategy development problem his firm was facing, and ask for my advice. The company was an eager user of my “cascading choices” framework for strategy that I have used for decades and written about extensively, most prominently in the 2013 book I wrote, with friend and colleague A.G. Lafley, called Playing to Win. My Australian friend explained that each of his five business unit presidents was using the Strategy Choice Cascade, and that all of them had gotten stuck in the same place. They had chosen a Winning Aspiration and had settled on a Where to Play choice. But all of them were stuck at the How to Win box. It is no surprise, I told my friend, that they have gotten stuck. It is because they considered Where to Play without reference to How to Win. I’ve heard variants of this over and over. Although I have always emphasized that these five choices have to link together and reinforce each other, hence the arrows flowing back and forth between the boxes, it has become clear to me that I haven’t done a good enough job of making this point, especially as it relates to the choices of Where to Play and How to Win. The challenge here is that both are linked, and together they are the heart of strategy; without a great Where to Play and How to Win combination, you can’t possibly have a worthwhile strategy. Of course, Where to Play and How to Win has to link with and reinforce an inspiring Winning Aspiration. And Capabilities and Management Systems act as a reality check on the Where to Play and How to Win choice. If you can’t identify a set of Capabilities and Management Systems that you currently have, or can reasonably build, to make the Where to Play and How to Win choice come to fruition, it is a fantasy, not a strategy. Many people ask me why Capabilities and Management Systems are part of strategy when they are really elements of execution. That is yet another manifestation of the widespread, artificial, and unhelpful attempt to distinguish between choices that are “strategic” and ones that are “executional” or “tactical.” Remember that, regardless of what name you give them, these choices are a critical part of the integrated set of five choices that are necessary to successfully guide the actions of an organization. I had to tell my Australian friend that locking and loading on Where to Play choices, rather than setting the table for a great discussion of How to Win, actually makes it virtually impossible to have a productive consideration of How to Win. That is because no meaningful Where to Play choice exists outside the context of a particular How to Win plan. An infinite number of Where to Play choices are possible, and equally meritorious — before considering each’s How to Win. In other words, there aren’t inherently strong and weak Where to Play choices. They are only strong or weak in the context of a particular How to Win choice. Therefore, making lists of Where to Play choices before considering How to Win choices has zero value in strategy. For example, Uber made a Where to Play choice that included China because it’s a huge and important market. But being huge and important didn’t make that choice inherently meritorious. It would have been meritorious only if there had been a clear How to Win as well — which it appears there never was. Microsoft made a Where to Play choice to get into smartphone hardware (with its acquisition of Nokia’s handset business) because it was a huge and growing market, seemingly adjacent to Microsoft’s own, but it had no useful conception of how that would be twinned with a How to Win — and it lost spectacularly. P&G made a Where to Play choice to get into the huge, profitable, and growing pharmaceutical business with the acquisition of Norwich Eaton, in 1982. While it performed decently in the business, it divested the business in 2009 because, in those nearly two decades, it came to realize that it could play but never win in that still-exciting Where to Play. Moreover, no meaningful How to Win choice exists outside the context of a particular Where to Play. Despite what many think, there are not generically great ways to win — e.g., being a first mover or a fast follower or a branded player or a cost leader. All How to Win choices are useful, or not, depending on the Where to Play with which they are paired. A How to Win choice based on superior scale is not going to be useful if the Where to Play choice is to concentrate on a narrow niche — because that would undermine an attempted scale advantage. Undoubtedly, Uber thought its How to Win — having a easy-to-use ride-hailing app for users twinned with a vehicle for making extra money for drivers — would work well in any Where to Play. But it didn’t work in the Where to Play of China. It turned out that Uber’s How to Win had a lot to do with building a first-mover advantage in markets like the U.S.; when Uber was a late entrant, the Where to Play wasn’t a simple extension, and it exited after losing convincingly to first mover Didi. Perhaps Microsoft felt that its How to Win of having strong corporate relationships and a huge installed base of software users would extend nicely into smartphones, but it most assuredly didn’t. As a Canadian, I can’t help but recall the many Canadian retailers with powerful How to Wins in Canada (Tim Hortons, Canadian Tire, Jean Coutu) that simply didn’t translate to a Where to Play in the U.S. Perhaps there is some solace, however, in retailer Target’s disastrous attempt to extend its U.S. How to Win into the Canadian Where to Play — turnabout is, I guess, fair play. The only productive, intelligent way to generate possibilities for strategy choice is to consider matched pairs of Where to Play and How to Win choices. Generate a variety of pairs and then ask about each: Can it be linked to an inspiring, attractive Winning Aspiration? Do we currently have, or can we reasonably build, the capabilities that would be necessary to win where we would play? Can we create the Management Systems that would need to be in place to support the building and maintenance of the necessary capabilities? Those Where to Play and How to Win possibilities for which these questions can plausibly be answered in the affirmative should be taken forward for more consideration and exploration. For the great success stories of our time, the tight match of Where to Play and How to Win is immediately obvious. USAA sells insurance only to military personnel, veterans, and their families — and tailors its offerings brilliantly and tightly to the needs of those in that sphere, so much so that its customer satisfaction scores are off the charts. Vanguard sells index mutual funds/ETFs to customers who don’t believe that active management is helpful to the performance of their investments. With that tight Where to Play, it can win by working to achieve the lowest cost position in the business. Google wins by organizing the world’s information, but to do that it has to play across the broadest swath of search. It doesn’t matter whether the strategic question is to aim broadly or narrowly, or to pursue low costs or differentiation. What does matter is that the answers are a perfectly matched pair.
(Don Boudreaux) TweetIn today’s U.S. News & World Report I discuss some basic economics of international trade – basic and very straightforward economics that, scarily, seems nevertheless to be too complicated for the likes of Trump and his trade advisors to grasp. A slice: No misconception [about trade] looms larger than the one that claims that trade […]
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) continues to reflect strength in several areas and should make a value addition to your portfolio
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Berkshire Hathaway, General Motors, Goldman Sachs Group, Restaurant Brands International and VeriSign
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Berkshire Hathaway, General Motors, Goldman Sachs Group, Restaurant Brands International and VeriSign
Subway's prides themselves on serving the 'freshest' ingredients. The main question is, what exactly are in the ingredients? According to DNA tests conducted by Trent University and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Subway's chicken fillets, found in their Oven Roasted Chicken sandwich, had just 53.6% chicken in it, while their sumptuous strips, found in their delicious Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki sandwich, contained only 42.8% chicken. In case you're wondering, the remainder of the 'chicken' substance is made from soy. Subway's Canada responded to the findings with the following statement. “SUBWAY Canada cannot confirm the veracity of the results of the lab testing you had conducted,” the company said, adding, “Our chicken strips and oven roasted chicken contain 1% or less of soy protein. We use this ingredient in these products as a means to help stabilize the texture and moisture. All of our chicken items are made from 100% white meat chicken which is marinated, oven roasted and grilled.” Related: CBC and Trend also tested the chicken from fast food chains, including A&W, McDonald's, Tim Horton's and Wendy's -- most of which contained 80-90% chicken. Here's a video of the results below. Stop eating fast food. Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
The Zacks Stocks in the News Blog Highlights: Apple, Popeyes, General Motors, Retail Earnings
After recent concern and controversy following events in the UK and U.S., to many, Canada seems like the most habitable country at the moment. Trump and Brexit prove to be a stark contrast to Trudeau and Tim Hortons. But what does this mean for fintech?
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (QSR) announced its $1.8 billion acquisition of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc. (PLKI) yesterday, and it helped the fried chicken giant's stock sizzle upward 19% to $78.77 per share. RBI stock rose 7% Tuesday to $57.50 per share
Restaurant Brands, the company that owns Burger King and Tim Hortons, is buying Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen for nearly $2 billion. Shares of both companies surged on the news. The deal is a win for Warren Buffett, too.
Во вторник, 21 февраля, компания Restaurant Brands International, созданная в 2015 году путем поглощения американской сетью Burger King канадского оператора сети кофеен Tim Hortons, заявила о заключении соглашения по приобретению фирмы Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen. Стоит отметить, что сумма сделки составила $1,8 млрд наличными. Так, в рамках соглашения акционеры Popeyes получат $79 за каждую свою бумагу, что на 19,5% выше их цены закрытия в пятницу, 17 февраля.