|Bid||211.57 x 800|
|Ask||211.98 x 800|
|Day's range||211.35 - 212.77|
|52-week range||173.41 - 221.93|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.45|
|PE ratio (TTM)||27.83|
|Earnings date||28 Jan 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||5.00 (2.37%)|
|Ex-dividend date||27 Nov 2019|
|1y target est||224.00|
For Impossible Foods, an impossible task. The plant-based burger pioneer - which just launched a new line of imitation pork-based products at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas - told Reuters it cannot produce enough imitation meat to partner with McDonalds. Impossible and main rival Beyond Meat have been battling it out for deals with fast-food giants as they and others chase a global alternative meat market worth an estimated $140 billion in the next decade. Burger King last year launched its soy-based Impossible Whopper in the U.S. and McDonalds has trailed Beyond Meat's PLT - plant, lettuce, tomato - burgers in Canada. It is though yet to offer a plant-based burger as a regular feature in its 14,000 or so U.S. outlets. Impossible is working to more than double production but talks with McDonalds have stopped, it said. CEO Pat Brown told Reuters it would be quote "stupid" to vye for McDonalds at the moment. Beyond Meat's shares jumped over 12% on the news. It says its talks with the word's no. 1 fast-food maker are going "very well." It has capacity, it added, to keep up with demand in the U.S. and globally.
INVESTIGATION ALERT: The Schall Law Firm Announces it is Investigating Claims Against McDonald’s Corporation.
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by management of McDonald’s Corporation (NYSE:MCD) resulting from allegations that management may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.
BOSTON, Jan. 16, 2020 -- Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation firm representing investors and whistleblowers nationwide, is investigating whether.
"Craft Casual" Sensation Torchy's Tacos Expects Store Count to Rise to 160 from 71 in Four Years By John Jannarone When Torchy's Tacos appeared in Orlando, FL this week, it whetted the appetite of the financial community not once but twice: First, with a feast of its tacos, queso, and deserts at a cocktail party […]
Extending its last year's rally, Dow Jones touched 29,000 for the second time in three days, suggesting strong complacency in the market.
(Bloomberg) -- Navinder Singh Sarao, the British trader blamed for helping cause the 2010 Flash Crash from his bedroom, should serve no additional jail time, U.S. authorities said in a recommendation before his Jan. 28 sentencing in Chicago.The government cited Sarao’s “extraordinary cooperation,” his autism diagnosis and the fact that he lost most of the 45 million pounds ($58.5 million) he made trading to fraudsters, according to a memo filed with the court Tuesday. He spent four months in a London jail, and the Justice Department said an additional term term wouldn’t deter other traders, and would pose serious risks to the 41-year-old’s mental health.“For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully recommends that this court depart significantly below the advisory sentencing guidelines range,” prosecutor Michael O’Neill wrote. “Specifically, the government agrees with the probation officer and the defendant that a sentence of time served would be appropriate.”The U.K. citizen was arrested in 2015 for contributing to the volatility of May 6, 2010, when markets dropped 5% in a 5-minute period, earning him the moniker the ‘Flash Crash Trader.’ For five years starting in 2009, he spoofed U.S. futures markets, including using a software program he designed himself called the NAVTRader. He was extradited to the U.S. where he pleaded guilty in November 2016 to spoofing and wire fraud.Since then, Sarao has been working with the government on building cases against other market cheats. Unusually, he was allowed to return to the U.K. during his cooperation. He spent days with prosecutors in London, going through videos he’d made and schooling the CFTC, the DOJ and the FBI on the world of high-frequency trading and how to identify market cheats.Spoofing involves placing and then quickly canceling orders in a bid to deceive other traders about supply and demand and therefore hopefully move the market.“The defendant’s keen insights and explanations regarding both general and specific patterns of deceptive and manipulative trading have illuminated the government’s understanding of similar spoofing,” O’Neill wrote. “As a result, he has substantially assisted and informed the government’s nationwide efforts to detect, investigate, and prosecute these crimes.”Last year, he also testified against his former programmer, Jitesh Thakkar, who was charged with conspiring with Sarao to spoof the market. Thakkar was acquitted at trial.Beyond his cooperation, the government pointed to the fact that Sarao barely touched the money he made as further reason to treat him leniently.“The defendant clearly was not motivated by money, greed, or any desire for a lavish lifestyle,” O’Neill said. “His only significant purchase was a 5,000 pound car. Of his remaining trading profits, the defendant lost over 40 million pounds to three apparently fraudulent investment schemes.”Sarao continues to live in his parents’ house in the London suburb of Hounslow, where he sleeps “in a child-like bedroom that includes multiple stuffed animals” and “uses coupons to buy food at McDonald’s,” the Justice Department wrote. He has been diagnosed with autism, which a psychologist described as “both a disability...and a talent.”The final decision on Sarao’s sentencing will be made Jan. 28 by the judge presiding over the case in Chicago. The government originally recommended a custodial sentence of between 78 and 97 months.To contact the reporter on this story: Liam Vaughan in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Christopher Elser at firstname.lastname@example.org, Ambereen ChoudhuryFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If you’re a typical wage earner, then your employer is obligated to pay you at least the federal minimum wage, along with overtime if you work beyond 40 hours in a given week. But who is your employer? On Sunday, the administration of President Donald Trump brought a common-sense answer to this important and, surprisingly, unresolved question.Determining who is liable for violations of employment law is more complicated than it may seem. Take a cashier at, say, an independent McDonald’s franchise. Certainly she works for the franchised restaurant. But does she also work for McDonald’s, the national brand? What responsibility does McDonald’s Corp. have for her?The waters are similarly murky for an employee of a staffing agency or a contractor who is assigned to a business, like a security officer who is assigned to a law firm. If the guard is owed overtime but doesn’t receive it, who should be held accountable? The agency? The law firm? Both?These issues have grown in importance as companies increasingly contract with outside firms for many services and functions that would once have been taken care of in-house. At large employers, it is now common for building maintenance, security, kitchen, laundry and custodial staff not to work directly for the company they report to each day. Today, it is even common for hotel rooms to be cleaned by employees of temporary staffing agencies. The same goes for the workers who load trucks at retail distribution centers. This remains true as well for activities that have long been outsourced, like payroll and accounting services.This creates complications for the enforcement of employment law, because what workers actually do on the job — their schedules, the quality standards they are expected to meet, the procedures the need to follow — is often determined by their indirect employer, even though they are direct employees of a staffing agency or a franchise.How much responsibility do indirect employers have for compliance with employment regulations? The uncertainty around this question has been a burden for businesses, creating compliance costs and duplicate record keeping. It has exposed national brands and businesses that hire contractors to litigation when employment regulations are violated, and in other instances.Now the Trump administration has adopted a four-factor test to assess whether an indirect employer is a joint employer that would bear legal responsibility for violations of minimum-wage and overtime regulations. Take the example of McDonald’s and an independent franchise. McDonald’s would be deemed a joint employer if it hires or fires employees of the local franchise; supervises and controls employees’ work schedule or other conditions of employment to a substantial degree; determines employees’ pay; and maintains workers’ employment records.Typically, a company would have to meet some or all of these criteria to be liable for wage and hours violations.This is a narrower standard for determining joint-employer status than the practice that existed under the administration of President Barack Obama, which expanded the responsibilities of indirect employers in January 2016. The International Franchise Association (the largest organization representing franchises worldwide) argues that the broader criteria previously in place cost U.S. franchisees between $17 and $33 billion per year.The new rules — which will affect the behavior of workers and employers, and will influence court decisions — are a victory for common sense. They more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of different parties, which will make it easier for them to work together productively and efficiently. Indirect employers will know what steps to take to avoid legal liability and compliance costs and record-keeping costs. National brands will be shielded from litigation over employment issues in local franchises they could not control. Court decisions will become more uniform, which will help businesses. By reducing compliance costs, employers in the low-wage labor market will have more resources to grow their businesses.Sunday’s Department of Labor guidance is limited to regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a landmark piece of New Deal legislation that determines rules about wages and hours of work and prohibits child labor. It is part of a broader conversation about joint-employer status. The National Labor Relations Board, the government agency responsible for enforcing collective-bargaining laws, is expected to issue a similar rule in the next few weeks, reversing Obama-era policy that made it easier for contractors and workers in franchised businesses to unionize.These are welcome developments that will, on balance, accrue to the benefit of workers in the low-wage labor market. But it is important to point out that violations of labor law are all too common. A 2017 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, found that low-wage workers lose billions of dollars per year due to minimum-wage violations alone. Still, the best solution is better enforcement of labor law, not muddying roles and responsibilities in economic relationships.The Trump administration touts deregulation as one of its major accomplishments. These claims can be overblown. But this guidance is a feather in its cap.To contact the author of this story: Michael R. Strain at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Michael R. Strain is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is director of economic policy studies and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the editor of “The U.S. Labor Market: Questions and Challenges for Public Policy.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Things are heating back up in the chicken sandwich wars, and the pressure has reportedly pushed McDonald’s to use MSG in its sandwiches in order to compete with rivals Popeyes and Chick-fil-A.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The appetite for major consolidation sweeping the global food delivery industry has finally reached the U.S. Now the big question is, which combination would be easier to stomach? The fly in the soup may, as ever, be SoftBank Group Corp.Waves of dealmaking have reduced the number of online food delivery players in markets such as the U.K. and South Korea to just two or three. In Germany, there’s only one — Takeaway.com NV. Yet the U.S. still has four major rivals: Grubhub Inc., SoftBank-backed DoorDash Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., another company in SoftBank’s stable, and the smaller Postmates Inc.Grubhub is “considering strategic options including a possible sale,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. The biggest U.S. player until 2018, it has lost market share to its venture capital-backed peers, and the stock had fallen 63% from its peak before the news hit.The Chicago-based firm’s business model differs from its rivals. While the likes of Uber Eats provide a network of couriers to deliver food from their network of restaurants, Grubhub has operated largely as a digital platform since its founding in 2004. It simply connected restaurants to customers, leaving the eateries responsible for actually delivering the food. Under CEO and co-founder Matt Maloney, it became the dominant destination to order food online in the U.S.His platform approach was a lot more profitable. Because Grubhub didn’t have to shoulder the costs of couriers, and just took a cut of each meal ordered, it was able to enjoy Ebitda representing more than 20% of sales between 2013 and 2017, when competition started to ramp up. Its rivals have always been loss-making.But that model also made it harder to attract major fast-food chains such as McDonald’s Corp., which don’t want to have to take on the fixed cost of maintaining a network of couriers themselves. So Grubhub has belatedly started building out that capability in an effort to defend its market share. However, that’s hurt profitability. Still, despite those headwinds, Grubhub remains an attractive business, not least because of its dominant position in New York, where credit-card data analysis firm Second Measure estimates it has 67% market share.The difficulty lies in the deal price. Based on Grubhub’s cost of capital and anticipated 2022 earnings, a buyer would probably need to find annual savings exceeding $500 million by the end of that period to justify paying a 30% premium — even to the share price the day before the Wall Street Journal report, which would value the firm at about $6 billion including debt. Such savings would be a near impossible ask: Grubhub’s operating expenses over the past 12 months totaled just $1.2 billion. It would instead be a risky gamble on increased pricing power allowing the new firm to improve profitability enough to service any new debt. And the path to profitability for firms with their own couriers remains unclear. That probably rules out an approach by Amsterdam-based tech investor Prosus NV, which has no local business, reducing the opportunity both to find synergies and to remove a market competitor.A merger with one of Grubhub’s existing U.S. rivals therefore seems a more rational solution. An all-stock combination would reduce concerns about justifying a capital outlay on a firm with low returns, while offering greater opportunities for cost savings and increased pricing power. And combining Grubhub’s major network of restaurants with a rival’s couriers could prove attractive.But there are problems here, too. San Francisco-based DoorDash, arguably the most logical candidate strategically, was valued at nearly $13 billion in its most recent funding round. That sky-high figure would be a problem for Grubhub shareholders. Their firm may not be growing as quickly as DoorDash, but it is similarly sized and a lot more profitable. It’s hard to see them accepting a merger where DoorDash investors ended up with more than two-thirds of the combined entity.Yet giving Grubhub shareholders a bigger stake could require DoorDash’s investors to write down the value of their holdings in the company. And that’s the last thing that SoftBank needs, fresh as it is from a year where underperforming investments such as Uber and troubled coworking-space trailblazer WeWork already prompted a $4.9 billion writedown. SoftBank is one of DoorDash’s biggest investors.A combination with Uber Eats is the best alternative to DoorDash. But SoftBank again might create difficulties. If push came to shove, it’s more likely to favor an Uber Eats-DoorDash tie-up, rather than continuing to back two companies fighting each other for customers and restaurants.Which leaves Postmates, the San Francisco-based firm which delivers everything from groceries to pizza and just expanded beyond food with an alliance with retailer Old Navy. It’s the less attractive solution for Grubhub, which would have to be the acquirer, and would be unlikely to add the scale needed to compete effectively. But such a combination does have some industrial logic — adding Postmates’s network of couriers to Grubhub’s restaurants — and is less likely to raise the hackles of antitrust regulators.Were SoftBank not at the table, a combination with DoorDash or Uber Eats would make the most sense. But as it stands, Grubhub could be left fighting for the scraps.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Alex Webb is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe's technology, media and communications industries. He previously covered Apple and other technology companies for Bloomberg News in San Francisco.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Continues Investigating McDonald’s Corporation’s Directors and Officers for Breach of Fiduciary Duties – MCD
Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown slammed the meat industry in an interview with Yahoo Finance, calling it "the most destructive technology on Earth by far."
(Bloomberg) -- Chinese state-owned conglomerate Citic Ltd. is planning to significantly reduce its stake in McDonald’s China Co. more than two years after it bought into the fast-food chain, as rising costs pinch the franchise’s profit.McDonald’s China said in a statement Wednesday that Citic is looking for buyers for a 22% stake, which will bring its share in the chain’s China operations down to 10%. The bottom price for the stake is set at 2.17 billion yuan ($312 million) and the bidding process is ongoing, said a disclosure document filed by Citic to the Beijing Equity Exchange.Separately, Citic Capital Holdings Ltd.-- partly owned by Citic Ltd. -- said it’s interested in buying the stake. It currently owns 20% in McDonald’s China.“Citic Capital is confident with the future growth and prospects of the business and we’re actively participating in the bidding process,” said a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman.McDonald’s Sells Control of China Business to Citic, Carlyle Citic Ltd. said in an emailed statement that the transaction was “purely a business decision.” Citic and its partners have added more than 1,000 new restaurants in mainland China and Hong Kong since they took over and will continue to benefit from the development of McDonald’s China, it said.Citic Ltd. said Chicago-based McDonald’s Corp. holds a 20% stake in the China business.The stake sale comes as the fast-food chain saw revenue and profit growth stall amid fierce competition in China’s dining scene. Food chains have also been hit by rising costs due to the ongoing African Swine Fever epidemic, which has wiped out a quarter of the world’s pigs and caused animal protein prices in China to surge.Citic’s disclosure document showed that revenue for the McDonald’s China master franchiser, called Fast Food Holdings Ltd., was HK$24.8 billion ($3.2 billion) in 2018. For the first 11 months of 2019, it was HK$24.4 billion.Operating profit for the first 11 months of 2019 was HK$16.2 billion and net profit for the same period was HK$856.2 million, according to the statement. This is compared to HK$16.4 billion and HK$1.15 billion, respectively, for all of 2018.McDonald’s China said that same-store sales have risen for three years consecutively since Citic and its partners bought over the franchise in 2017.(Updates with Citic Ltd comment in the fifth paragraph. An earlier version corrected the currency from yuan to Hong Kong dollars for McDonald’s China revenue and profit figures)To contact the reporters on this story: Jinshan Hong in Hong Kong at email@example.com;Cathy Chan in Hong Kong at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Rachel Chang at email@example.com, Jeff SutherlandFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Burger King is doubling down on its big bet on the plant-based meat craze with a new addition to its breakfast menu.