4 ms·
Right. Chains try to maintain at least some amount of stores run by the company to help guide and preserve the brand. Especially in new and high profile markets
by fred_durst 12y ago
Right. Chains try to maintain at least some amount of stores run by the company to help guide and preserve the brand. Especially in new and high profile markets.
But 3G doesn't need to maintain the brand. The Burger King brand, both to the customer and the franchisee is still decent based upon its historical success. It will take quite a few years for that to trickle down to retail investors and potential franchisees. You have contractual 4.5% royalty of gross and 4.5% for advertising of gross. It does not matter if the franchises make any profit. The IPO paid for the original expenditure, so all BK is left with is debt. Debt which has very little teeth because the majority of assets have already been sold off with some more equity about to be drained out during a debt refinancing. Maybe this is just 3G getting in first on the feeding frenzy of the shrinking fast food, burger joint market, and didn't really change Burger King's path too much, but no one should pretend any of this has to do with running a traditional corporation looking out for its own best interest.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago> It will take quite a few years for that to trickle down to retail investors and potential franchisees. You might be right, but I would make the observation that markets seem to be capable of changing a lot faster today. I think anyone investing in consumer segments like retail and fast food should be open to the possibility that meaningful trend shifts can occur and businesses can rise and fall relatively quickly (on the order of a few years as opposed to a decade or more).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]