I know this sounds strange put Franchisees may be better of dealing with a different Landlord as the dealings will be more transparent to all parties... The only big concern for McDonald's is that Now the exposure to NON performing stores would be highly exposed instead of held, and refranchised. I do think this would be a great opportunity for McDonald's to restructure from an antiquated era.
Someone has already said " be careful what you wish for". I agree with that but at this point I would support it because something needs to be done and there seems to be no real solutions coming from within. If an active investor forced them to sell off many corporate stores it would benefit the operators and the customers and force cuts in regional staffs. MCD is really dragging their feet. They say they know what needs to be done but they just can't do it. They have made so many costly mistakes I think they are scared they will look dumber tomorrow than they are today. Do something, we are dying from thousands of small cuts.
Because this talk about a "activist investor" is just rumor it's difficult to discuss seriously but - letting an activist investor influence the direction of McDonald's can only be a bad thing for McDonald's Operators. These investors are involved for the short term and basically want to strip the company down for parts, sell the parts, and move on.As for selling McOpCos (refranchising), there are just over 1,000 or 1,200 McOpCos left in the USA. I really doubt that McDonald's would sell them all as Burger King did. So let's say they sell 1/2. That's not enough stores to really benefit the Operator community. greatly. But they would run better wouldn't they?These activist investors are the "Greed is Good" guys. They are not super-duper corporate managers, they're financial opportunists. Franchisees are cannon fodder, just like at Burger King.
Post a Comment