Burger King is in talks to create what would be the third largest fast food company in the world with the iconic (to Canadians anyway) Tim Hortons. Let us know what you think. Great deal, or just another company fleeing the US tax system?
http://www.firmex.com/blog/should-burger-king-acquire-tim-hortons/
| +169 | The "Not So Obvious" things that get you a return offer? | 20 | 5h | |
| +101 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 25 | 4h | |
| +65 | Best IB group on the Street | 28 | 2s | |
| +56 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 8h | |
| +49 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 7h | |
| +47 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 29m | |
| +36 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +34 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 6h | |
| +25 | Got RBC offer but I have cold feet accepting. | 33 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I enjoyed Tim Horton's while on work trip in Michigan, it's definitely in the same genre as BK, i.e. Stuff I Shouldn't Eat Everyday. Without seeing one line of financials, that part at least makes it a good fit.
That would be soooooo weird.
It would be kinda like McDonald's buying Dunkin Donuts.....like no. That's just too much in 1 space. And it's weird.
Like are they trying to become the Wal-Mart of fast-food by doing that? So weird.
I don't think they'd be putting each others' products in current stores. There's be consolidations on the corporate side, but they'd probably still franchise as separate entities.
3G Capital took Burger King private in 2010 at a valuation of $4 billion. Burger King's current market cap is $9.73B and 3G Capital still retains a 70% stake or $6.81 billion equity stake. 3G Capital used to have substantial investments in Wendy's and Jack in the Box. At the time of those investments Wendy's used to own Tim Horton's before they spun it out in 2006.
These guys at 3G Capital know what they're doing.
Well, you could say that Burger King is looking to try and actually compete with McDonald's' but it strikes me that they already offer breakfast... although I've never actually had it to my knowledge.
That said, I love the young guys they have running the show at burger king with their franchising plays and vicious cost cutting... so, why not? It's not like they are buying a Canadian makeup company or something.
Although I think this has inversion deal written all over it, if it can be levered to bring Tim Horton's into the US without making is a "Dual Brand" Store (think the KFC/A&W Combos, etc.), then I'm all for it. I happen to like Tim Horton's and think that it's a fantastic brand. I prefer it to Dunkin, Starbucks and McDonald's Coffee. The Doughnuts are ok, but the real gem is the Coffee with an occasional does of Timbits. Financially, if it makes sense, then it go for it.
Tax benefits for no longer paying double taxes on profits earned abroad - check Improving breakfast offerings and quality - check Synergies - check Consolidating in a declining segment - check
What isn't to like about this acquisition?
Those Timbits are so good haha.
These inversion deals need to be banned asap! Complete horseshit in my opinion. We're basically creating a free market for corporate tax rates, which can lead to some very nasty outcomes... pretty soon the U.S. won't have any corporate tax revenue and will have to turn the screws hard on individuals and small biz owners.
I guess I should be writing my congressman, instead of you guys...
Instead of banning inversions, why not fix what is a completely fucked tax system? 35% and taxing foreign revenues is completely ridiculous. If the US had a tax system comparable to most developed countries these inversion deals would never have arisen.
Upper middle class: Making enough money to get taxed a ton, not making enough money to effectively sidestep getting taxed a ton.
A free market that exists in virtually every other country in the world; hence, the incentive to invert in the first place.
Hey man, no one is forcing these companies to do business in the U.S. If they don't want to have access to our market, our employees, the implicit guarantees that come from a strong defense, stable currency, sophisticated legal system, halfway decent infrastructure etc., then they are welcome to take their businesses elsewhere. If they do want to participate, then they need to pay their fair share to support the U.S.
It's just crazy because if you have a free market for tax rates it's like borders don't mean anything anymore. Everyone will end up "pricing" at the same tax rate, and all economies will basically play an allocation game with what they get to spend those tax dollars on (defense, education, infrastructure, etc.). Borders should mean something and different countries should have an ability to price for government services depending on their needs. I also think it's silly because a lot of these countries have low corporate tax rates but higher individual rates. If the principals and top shareholders of these inverted companies want to get the tax benefit on the corporate side, they should be willing to pay the higher individual income tax rate. Take it all or nothing.
Hate to break it to you but America isn't as great as it used to be. Of the accesses you highlight in your post, the only one that is a certainty for the future is a strong defense which is because we spend an absurd amount of money on it. Sure other economies plays the same allocation game but clearly they are doing better than we are because they spend less of their budgets on defense, education, etc. but yet they still have a sustainable defense and most have a far better primary and secondary education system than the US. The US's problem of companies leaving is a result of a government that needs far too much money to operate.
"Pricing"? I have no idea what you're talking about, but I suspect - given my previous experience with your posts - that you are once again opining on a topic about which you lack even basic understanding.
Companies, like BK, that transact business in the U.S. pay U.S. corporate tax rates, regardless of domicile. Should the BK / TH deal be consummated, BK will continue to pay U.S. corporate taxes on income it earns in the country.
The difference between the U.S. corporate tax regime and that of virtually every other globally significant country is territoriality. Corporations domiciled in the U.S. are expected to pay 35% income taxes on any and all earnings, worldwide. Contrarily, in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, UK, Switzerland, etc. (including many of what I imagine fit your vision of collectivist utopias), companies pay domestic income taxes on domestic income and pay local rates for foreign income.
For instance, today, BK pays 35% on income it earns in Canada, despite the fact that Canadian income tax rates are in the high teens or low twenties including municipal taxes. After transaction completion, it will pay Canadian income taxes on Canadian income and U.S. taxes on U.S. income. Said differently, it will pay taxes in accordance with the global norm, rather than the exceptionalist U.S. corporate tax regime that seeks to take its share of every penny.
In short, contrary to your point above, there will be no "repricing" of corporate tax rates, companies will continue to pay their "fair share". But they should, and likely will, relocate to avoid paying taxes under the U.S.'s usurious policy of taxing income earned beyond its borders.
I've broken this section out because it is specifically and quite hilariously ludicrous.
1) Can we just note the fact that, despite your overarching complaint that corporations / people are taking measures to avoid paying U.S. taxes, you're suggesting that the officers of inverted companies should pay foreign taxes, in lieu of U.S. taxes. What's particularly illuminating about this observation is that it highlights your true policy goal: to take money away from those you perceive to be "too rich", rather than your putative goal of "giving to the poor". You'd rather executives be taxed at a higher rate by a foreign country (to the chagrin of U.S. tax revenue) than have their tax dollars benefit the poor in the U.S. Moreover, I suspect if corporations began redomiciling in, say, Switzerland, where personal income tax rates are lower than those in the U.S., you would recant this position in favor of higher rates in the U.S. Your argument has nothing to do with principle ("take it all or nothing"), and everything to do with your personal vendetta against corporations / the wealthy (which you seem to treat as a common enemy)
2) Let's also appreciate how backwards the world would be if, say, AT&T call center representatives in Bangalore had to pay U.S. income taxes on their earnings because AT&T is domiciled in the U.S. You can't possibly hold this position.
3) As for "top shareholders", they obviously already are subject to foreign tax regimes on foreign investment income. Yet another irrelevant concern.
Once again, I suggest you spend some time reading and considering your point of view before offering it on a public forum.
From my understanding it was stated that if BK buys Tim Hortons, they would still operate as two separate restaurants both operated out of Canada.
delete
As much as the liberal media would like you to think, this would barely help them on the tax side and the actual "moving the domicile to Canada" has more to do with placating the Canadian government into letting the deal go through.
Gotta love how Canada is now more business friendly than Amerika. I fully support any company working to minimize the criminal theft foisted upon it by this government.
Yah, the US should become even more unfriendly to business. That makes sense.
Corporate taxes are bullshit anyway. Simply a pass through to consumers. The prols cheap for corporate taxes, only to see the cost come out of their pocket.
God bless BK for doing what is best for its shareholders. Any company paying more in taxes out of some lame ass patriotism is doing a disservice to its investors.
[ ] post is logical and well reasoned [ ] post applies objective/unbiased insights x troll post - verified
Yah, wonderful argument. Taxes are part of the overall cost of a good or service. It impacts the cost of an item and is pass through to consumers or offset by lower wages/employment.
Furthermore, the US has the highest corporate tax rate and causes this. A company is a collection of investors capital seeking to maximize their return. It doesn't have patriotism. Furthermore, we operate in a global environment. The US sells it's goods overseas and we buy from overseas companies. If our laws or taxes are a detriment, it dictates companies will relocate. Consumers do the same thing by buying online, waiting for tax holidays or moving to lower taxed states.
I think you need to read up on the subject a little more.
idk how canadians will react to having their biggest pride taken under American control again.
The 3G guys are primarily Brazilian so national pride isn't being taken over by Americans but, gasp, Latinos.
If the U.S. is so uncompetitive, why are the ROICs for U.S. businesses consistently and materially higher than for companies in other countries? That has always puzzled me... oh, we can't afford this harsh U.S. tax regime, and then you check out the P&L and see these whiners are some of the most profitable businesses in the world. Again, if they don't want to operate in the U.S., be my guest and leave... otherwise they need to play by the same rules as Joe Entrepreneur.
They are leaving and in case you hadn't noticed, we already live in a globalized economy. So now you are attempting to argue that the U.S. has the right to tax profits earned on goods and services rendered in another country, using another country's infrastructure, and subject to that country's taxes?
There is a reason no other developed nation is doing this. There is nothing illegal about these inversions, nor should there be.
It's not as simple as you want to make it. Any company doing business in the US will still pay US taxes on US profit. They're too high, complicated yada yada yada, that's another discussion. The reason companies move offshore (inversion) is because the US also taxes non domestically produced profit unlike nearly every other country in the world. If the US doesn't want companies to move offshore then create a competitive tax code. The worlds a free market. A company's highest priority is to legally produce the highest return to shareholders. If you can trim a non trivial amount of tax cost by legally relocating and do not do it its irresponsible corporate management and governance. Pure and simple. This isn't to be blamed on a company or investors, it should be blamed on the dumbfucks in DC who can't get their heads out of their collective asses.
And it's not like BK is moving to North Korea. It's Canada for the love of god.
I appreciate your response. I understand the tax regime and that they presently need to pay U.S. tax rates on foreign earnings. I think that is justified because the U.S. has done a lot of protect infant industries, get businesses off the ground etc., so this is almost like dividending a portion of subsidiary income back to the States in recognition for its services (again infrastructure, education, contract/IP law, banking etc.).
To be clear I think the U.S. needs to go through some major comprehensive tax reform to make these things simpler, and maybe also cheaper (i'd leave that to policymakers). But letting a bunch of companies slide through the cracks and end up shifting huge economic upside to other countries is messed up imo.
gotta love that piece of shit Buffett financing this
Liberals have never met a tax they don't like. I'm sure they'd be calling Washington unpatriotic back in the day also.
Fiscal conservatism; now apparently a "liberal" idea.
Buffet is financing 25%, they are moving burger king headquarters to Oakville Canada to lower taxes. Burger King is trying to compete better in the breakfast space, Tim Hortons is king in breakfast in Canada. Tim Hortons was looking for a better international strategy. 3G will own 51%. Burger King and Tim Hortons will remain independent names.
Jesus Christ, the ultimate irony here is that these guys already have the same fucking tax rate. What a shit show.
man i've never gotten so much monkey shit in one day... I guess that's an accomplishment.
Maybe I can derail this thread with my signature '80% incremental tax on incomes over $10mm' proposal, and accrue some more.
Because you have a history of sounding like a know-it-all, while not knowing anything at all.
I think this is a great deal and 3G has a pretty impressive track record of jacking profit margins through the roof. I think the relocation of BK to Ontario has more to do with negotiations than BK fleeing taxes in the states, although that does play into it. Nabooru made a good comment that it may be about pleasing the regulators. A Liberal government was just re-elected in Ontario and they promised big incentives to companies bringing jobs to Ontario so this might also play into it
Nothing more patriotic than fueling the tax coffers of the government so they can spy on their citizens, provide military equipment to cops, kill people with drones all over the world, fail to secure our borders, and other wonderfully patriotic things it does in the reg.
Evil companies not paying their fair share.
I am not familar with the financials, but this sounds like a win. As for US corporate taxation, it is broken. The double taxing of income earned abroad is nonsense... but so is the level of tax loopholes, incentives and the like that allow highly profitable companies to pay little to no tax in a particular year. The corporate and income taxes in the US is complete f*king corruption. It is designed to obscure who pays what and why. We have an entire industry dedicated to accounting for and avoiding paying taxes. I would be thrilled with a system that either eliminates or phases out deductions, or even as extreme as no income tax at all and only a federal sales tax. Only pay based on consumption instead of income, this way you can tax all of the money that is borrowed before it is earned... but clearly I've stepped outside the bounds of the post.
Anyways I've gotta run, but allow me to turn it over to our fearless leader for concluding remarks. Sorry to OP for hijacking your thread.
I don't know how nobody has put this in regards to @"jankynoname"
//www.youtube.com/embed/wKjxFJfcrcA
appreciate that. very clever.
I think the solution is very simple. There should be a VAT charged only to retail companies that are subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Either you pay us 25% of your global net income or 5% of your gross US revenue. The cost should be borne by the companies subject to the charge, and they should be required to advertise all prices inclusive of VAT so consumers can make a fair comparison. (The cost will be partially borne by consumers, sure, but there will also be a huge transfer from foreign companies to domestic firms)
I have nothing against foreign companies, but domestic firms should have clear advantages in selling to US consumers if they pay 25% of their global income (net if local taxes) as tax.
Meanwhile we should also have a foreign lobbying transfer tax. Foreign companies that wish to hire lobbyists should be required to pay 50% as tax. I am fine with people trying to not pay US taxes and I am fine with people trying to influence our government, but I am not fine with doing both at the same time.
The Harper government lowered corporate tax rates to make Canada a more competitive place to do business. The rational response would be to do the same with the US tax code, not scream about "economic patriotism."
The tax advantages stemming from this deal won't be that great...not enough to warrant it anyways, so don't think we can really call this to be in the same camp as other inversion deals.
Anyways, the deal makes sense. Tim & BK both love to own as few stores as possible, opting to franchise a larger percentage than is common in the industry...making them a good fit business model wise. Plus Tim Hortons has A LOT of room for growth and can do in markets BK already knows well.
Doubt they'll combine the entities though...can't see TH coffee in BK haha
the stupidity of some of the comments here (not you dingdong & northsider) makes me wanna
I for one am pretty proud of what I was able to accomplish here...hell even I don't believe half the shit I posted. Some of these guys I only see posting when there is a super politically charged debate, e.g. @"NorthSider". You guys in general are probably a bit too conservative to be considered objective on these kinds of issues, but I think that's par for the course in finance.
... ??
3,600 "exclusively politically charged" posts and counting!
What could possibly be the meaning of "objective" in this context? We're debating a matter of policy; neither I nor you can offer "objective" (whatever that would look like) suggestions. And FWIW, I'm not conservative. In fact, I'd wager you'd find me far more liberal than you are, granted I haven't heard any of your stances outside (your ludicrous) tax suggestions.
Well I'm all for Burger King workers ejaculating into chicken sandwiches, if that's what you're asking...
I'm not particularly conservative and in most finance circles I'd practically be considered a socialist. I'm much more pragmatic when it comes to issues. The US tax system, corporate and personal, is probably the worst in the western, civilized, free world. It drives corporations offshore. It prevents corps from repatriating money. It keeps foreign investors from investing. A few years ago we were raising money and went down the road with a very wealthy South American individual. He could, and did, stroke 9 figure checks. He was very hesitant to invest in the US not because he didn't want to pay taxes on profit here but because investing in one US thing basically gave the IRS carte blanche to look into everything he did anywhere in the world under the guise of figuring out if he was avoiding US taxes. And if they determined he did they could get foreign banks and government to lock up his assets. The over reach and utter gall of the US tax system is disgusting.
Canada has actually been doing remarkably well with regards to corporate taxes and being business friendly. Many reports have put them as #1 over the past few years.
KPMG said so this year: http://www.kpmg.com/ca/en/services/tax/focus-on-tax/pages/default.aspx
The fact that they are avoiding the US tax system makes it a great deal.
Gotta love the cop out "too conservative" retort. Simply fix our broken tax system.
Modi dolore quia eveniet. Ipsam eius omnis fuga voluptas odit ducimus corrupti. Dolor mollitia quia deserunt qui modi et dolorum sit. Quaerat aut nobis quisquam nam incidunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aliquid ut dolor quis iste sint quos. Quis quo ea nesciunt et error sed omnis blanditiis. Ut autem quibusdam et dicta a.
Autem enim repellat aut fugit. Qui quaerat qui magni ipsam ad qui. Reiciendis quo animi explicabo labore ut ut. A autem dolores qui impedit perspiciatis qui ut.
Voluptatem accusantium accusantium voluptatibus. Quia natus nesciunt mollitia omnis id sed autem pariatur. Quo aliquid aliquid vitae error. Deserunt sit velit inventore vel.
Eius molestiae fuga ex facere. Labore sed hic vel fugiat nesciunt et dolorum. Aut ad doloribus et amet.
Est consequuntur et atque. Sed eveniet laudantium voluptate quaerat tempora reiciendis quibusdam. Nisi nihil aut amet iure corporis.
Facilis officia in omnis molestiae aspernatur eos est. Cum dolor amet dolorem. Ut consequatur architecto eveniet quam qui. Cum non consectetur et recusandae. Quasi molestias dolorem quia. Voluptatum totam dolores sunt maxime sequi pariatur qui.