Management versus leadership has been a long time battle between efficiency/status quo and growth/forward motion. There are many blogs and gurus out there that dive deep into the battle and define the differences to each, but I think there are two key differences that inherently separate the leaders from the managers.
To explain more about what I mean above, let me say that Management is simply about maintaining the status quo. If a process works, don’t change it. Instead, you strive to keep it working like an oiled machine and that means managing the process to limit as much change as you can. The thing is, change is the nemesis of management. Seeing as change is inevitable, management becomes this reactive decision to revert any change back to the state of the oiled machine.
An employee leaves; find a replacement. A machine breaks down; fix it as soon as possible. If someone disrupts the status quo by doing something different, you have to get rid of them. You don’t want different; you want normal. You want consistent production and you’ve found a proven process. The problem with this is that a proven process has been proven for that point in time, but over time, change will be inevitable, and that proven process can very well turn into a proven disaster. This kind of management mindset simply halts any and all growth, making the process a ticking time bomb for failure.
Now management is also inevitable. We have to manage processes and businesses for them to maintain a state that will launch them into further success, but my point is that it is things that need to be managed; not people.
Things should be managed…People should be led.
There are many aspects to leadership, but I believe that the two staples of leadership are Culture and Empowerment:
Culture is a large part of job satisfaction and employee retention. Imagine you’re in a workplace where you are yelled at all day for everything you’re doing wrong and never praised for the things you do right. Imagine you’re working day to day in fear that you may lose your job, watching the seconds hand on the clock tick by waiting to clock out and go home, and you’re forced to put your hand up in the air so your manager can come by and give you permission to use the restroom.
Now imagine you’re praised for the things you do well and given constructive criticism on what you can do better. You’re not yelled at, but instead you brainstorm together about how we all could improve the process. You work day to day towards a long-term goal you resonate with and you know as long as you resonate with that goal, there’s a spot for you in the organization. You don’t need to clock in or clock out because you’re motivated to be there every day. You get there early and leave late because you want to; not because you have to. And you don’t need permission to use the bathroom, leave to pick up your kids, or take a Friday off while family is in town because you’re trusted to get your job done and you will work on a Sunday evening if you have to because you realize trust is a two way street.
That’s the difference culture can make in an environment. Although possible, it’s extremely difficult for leadership to persevere through a managing culture. Future leaders become stifled, agitated, are not fulfilled, and leave. The work environment becomes stagnate and stale, employee retention becomes a struggle, and no one leaves work with a smile. The root of most organizational issues begin in culture (which is strongly related to communication and vice versa). Create a leadership friendly culture and your organization will not only maintain it’s successful status quo, but also jump on any growth opportunities that become available.
You have to empower your employees or your partners to be leaders themselves. You have to trust that they are aligned with your mission (which starts with a culture), because if they are aligned with your mission, they will make the moves to keep you going in the right direction. They may not do everything exactly as you would have done, but there are a million ways to get from one place to another. When you empower your employees, you give them a sense of ownership. This isn’t simply your project that they are working on…Now it becomes their project as well. Not everyone likes to be a leader or lead others, but everyone likes to be empowered to bring creative ideas to the table. This empowerment, in turn, will likely inspire the future leaders of your organization to take a leadership role by instinct; by necessity. They will catapult themselves into it because that’s their calling and that’s what’s necessary for the group to attain it’s goals.
Maybe I will get into management versus leadership more in depth in future posts, but to keep it simple, we have to start by implementing these two things before we can even begin to think about shifting from a management focused organization to a leadership focused organization. Create a culture that empowers your employees to be leaders because they will start to empower their subordinates to be leaders in their own way. An organization of leaders will always accomplish more than an organization of employees.
I encourage anyone interested in learning more about culture to read Tribes by Seth Godin. It’s a very simple and easy read, but it packs in a lot of great information about culture and the implications of managing versus leading.
If nothing else, just remember:
The restaurant sector continues to grow aggressively. From new trendy concepts popping up and gaining traction to well-established concepts expanding into other markets in order to capture more market share, restaurants remain bullish on development. Sometimes, however, more isn’t always better. When it comes to scaling any business, from franchisees just getting off the ground to well-established corporate structures, it is important to understand your bandwidth and how to scale under the premise of sustainability versus blind and rapid expansion that can lead to disaster. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. is a prime example of this philosophy and how sometimes taking what seems like a step back can be a wise move toward a future two steps forward.
BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. is an American restaurant concept that operates under names such as BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse, BJ’s Pizza & Grill, and BJ’s Restaurant & Brewery. The first BJ’s concept opened in Orange County, California back in 1978 and in 2017, BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. plans to add 10 locations totaling 197 restaurants operated in 24 states across the nation.
Developing 10 locations in 2017 is light compared to the 17 locations that were developed two years ago. Plans for 2018 are even lighter. According to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN), CEO Greg Trojan plans to add six more stores next year, stating, “The slower pace of expansion has allowed us to focus operationally on many new initiatives…It’s helped drive more management tenure, adding more local knowledge and team familiarity to our sales-building efforts.”
Recent trends in development has caused construction costs to rise, which has made a number of developers think twice about how to make the numbers work. Net-leased development in general remains the key driver of overall retail construction, accounting for more than 46 million square feet of the 60.4 million square feet delivered over the past year. Single tenant construction has averaged 45 million square feet over the past three years. Developers have been focused on net-lease property development amid labor market strength and extremely low unemployment. According to Marcus & Millichap’s Net-Leased Research Report for Fall of 2017, builders have been constructing projects favoring single tenant concepts, particularly in the quick-service restaurant, pharmacy and dollar-store segments. Further, net-leased deliveries have accounted for more than 80 percent of retail development since 2009, up from below 70 percent before the recession. According to the Turner Building Cost Index—which measures costs in the non-residential building construction market in the United States— the third quarter 2017 index increased to a value of 1044, which is a 1.26% increase from the second quarter 2017 and a 4.92% annual increase from the third quarter 2016. In fact, costs all around have seemed to tick up a bit as the restaurant sector has been heating up, employment has improved, and supply and demand plays its part in the sector.
Although these rising costs have played into some of the slowing development of certain concepts, it also appears that the top level management at BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. simply has a strong understanding of their bandwidth and capacity for growth. By taking a step back and slowing development, they are allowing themselves to settle into their new stores giving those stores an opportunity to mature and build steam. Just like everything else, there is an ebb and flow to growth. It is no wonder that cap rates for real estate assets backed by the publicly traded company have compressed in the recent past. Based on our research data, the average cap rate for BJ’s occupied property in the past 12 months has been 5.27%, while the average BJ’s leased property is on the market at a 5.00% cap rate. Compare that to the average cap rate across full-service restaurants for the past 12 months: 5.79%. The graph below highlights the 2016 average cap rate across a number of the top casual dining concepts in the sector.
That means BJ’s occupied property has performed over 50 basis points more aggressive than the average full-service nationally recognized brand. That is impressive. Many investors have expressed concern for the full-service casual dining sector as a whole. With many concepts failing to meet sales expectations and consumer preferences changing, some investors worry that the casual dining sector is disappearing altogether; however, as consumer preferences continue to demand customer experience, there is opportunity for the casual dining sector to evolve with consumers and technology in a way that is bound to keep the industry alive. Many champion leaders of the industry are already taking a proactive approach to these consumer changes adopting new technologies, catering to more take out and delivery services, while providing guests with the offerings and experiences they desire in order to get ahead of this evolution and remain relevant. Both QSR and Casual Dining real estate tends to adhere to certain core characteristics; main thoroughfare traffic, hard corners, visibility, ingress/egress, strong parking ratio, etc.
The fact is, from a real estate standpoint, the casual dining sector also provides investors with many benefits over quick service restaurant concepts:
- Generally Larger Parcel Size for Future Development
- Larger Building Footprint
- Higher Guest Ticket Prices Equate to Higher Sales Volume Per Unit
- Higher Guest Volume and Sales Equate to Higher Rental Figures
- Larger Price Points to Place, Build, and Leverage Equity
The disappearance of the entire sector would eliminate an entire tier of investments from both a price point and a cash flow stance. Ultimately, there is inherent value in the experience the casual dining sector provides consumers from a social environment to the variety and quality of food it can provide over quick service concepts.
Do I expect the sector to disappear?
Do I expect the sector to evolve?
That is inevitable.
Investors would be wise to identify these front-runner brands, such as BJ’s Restaurants, and opposed to avoiding the sector altogether, invest in concepts that are up and coming in addition to scaling in a sustainable way.
If you are an investor interested in taking advantage of some of the up and coming concepts in the casual dining sector, I am happy to share my insights and help you find a deal that meets your investment criteria. Whether you are looking to invest in the sector, gauge your current holdings, or build a strategy around how to maximize the value of your assets, I welcome the opportunity to learn more about your individual situation and what I can do to help.
Burger King has been part of quite the wild ride. As an income producing property investment, it can be considered one of the most popular options because of the attractive lease structures, experienced franchisees and powerhouse institutional parent backing. When looking to identify solid net-leased investments that also have upside, Burger King may be worth a strong look, but first let us start with a quick history lesson on how the concept has grown to what it is today.
It was 1953 when Keith Kramer and Matthew Burns built a stove called the “Insta-Broiler”. Living in Jacksonville, they were searching for a restaurant concept and settled on a burger joint called “Insta-Burger King”. After James McLamore, a student at Cornell, visited the hamburger stand operated by the McDonald’s brothers, he and his fellow classmate David Edgerton bought an Insta-Burger King franchise in Miami. By 1961, Burger King had begun expansion across the United States becoming famous for their signature burger, The Whopper. Just six years later in 1967, Pillsbury purchased the concept for a whopping $18 million and with Pillsbury’s support had the means to scale their operation becoming the second largest burger chain in existence, only behind McDonald’s.
Because of the intense competition between the two burger concepts, Burger King franchise agreements were restructured to restrict franchisees from operating franchises in other chains, in addition to regulating how far away your stores were from your home in order to cut down on absentee ownership. With the continued growth of the Burger King brand, TPG Capital paired up with Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital to purchase the concept for $1.5 billion before its IPO in 2006, which generated $425 million in revenue. Then, in 2010, 3G Capital purchased the concept for $3.2 billion.
That is about when Burger King began shifting its business model to focus heavy on franchising. Burger King makes its money from primarily three revenue streams: Sales from corporate operated locations, Income from leasing owned property, and Revenue from Franchise fees. In 2011, Burger King had 1,395 company owned and operated locations, but in 2012 Burger King began selling off stores. In 2012, about 59 percent of Burger King’s revenue came from store sales and operations. One year later, only 8 percent of the company’s revenue was from operating stores. Burger King had sold 96 percent of all their stores to franchisees in order to focus more on branding, product development, and other support resources that would help franchisees find further success.
Their philosophy became:
Let the franchisees do what they do best so we free up time to find new ways to make the concept better.
That is why today, an investment in a Burger King net-leased asset, even operated by a small franchisee, can be an extremely safe, stable, and attractive option. That is also why many of these Burger King assets demand aggressive cap rates compared to other concepts on the market. In 2016, the average cap rate across all Burger King investment sales was 6.04%, while the historical all-time average cap rate across the restaurant sector lands at about 7.12%. This data includes both long term leases and short term leases; both corporate backed leases and franchisee backed leases. The graph below shows the average cap rate across a number of quick service restaurant concepts. You will notice that Burger King offers investors a very competitive return compared to other concepts, but while also offering a very well established brand and operation.
For a long-term lease (10-20 years remaining), that cap rate can compress 50-100 basis points. In 2017, there have been a number of fee-simple properties backed by small franchisees (5-unit to 20-unit guarantees) selling at cap rates from 5.08% to 5.59%. Although corporate backed leases will demand a more aggressive cap rate in most instances, the franchise and support structure employed by the Burger King concept has proven a successful business model for smaller franchisees and those investments continue to demand a very competitive cap rate because of it.
So where is the upside?
Burger King is moving towards and would prefer to have fewer, but larger franchisees. Fewer franchisees operating more stores means less micromanaging, fewer contacts to keep in front of, and economies of scale. Fewer operators obviously means fewer moving parts. That is why purchasing a store operated by a small franchisee could provide very attractive upside in the future. Because a small franchisee backed lease still offers stability of concept and a hedge against risk, it will still demand an aggressive cap rate; however, an investor would still be able to capture a higher return than purchasing a corporate backed lease, which exposes the investor to even smaller risk. Why wouldn’t you capture that higher return on a solid long-term net-leased asset, while also keeping in mind the potential upside in the future. If you purchase a property operated by a 5-unit franchisee and plan to hold for 10 years, the chances of that operator being acquired by a larger more regional franchisee are fairly strong. That means that by the time you are ready to revisit an exchange, you will likely have built up equity in rental increases, real estate appreciation, but most importantly an increased financial guarantee or at the very least a stronger operator behind your original guarantee. Now, when you decide to bring the property back to the market, you will be able to demand a more aggressive cap rate having a larger, stronger operator having taken over your location.
That’s the potential upside!
Although Corporate will still back leases, most Burger King locations are owned and operated by the franchisee and provide a lease guarantee to match. As an investor, this is a benefit because your tenant has significant skin in the game, while also operating under a proven concept with monster support from its corporate parent. You are able to secure a long-term passive net-leased asset, but with upside in the future acquisition from a larger regional franchisee. This is why even a property housing a small franchisee operating under the Burger King umbrella can demand extremely aggressive cap rates in the investment sales arena. These deals should not be overlooked by investors looking to purchase or exchange into a net-leased restaurant property.
For more detailed information regarding Burger King properties, franchisees, or lease language and how it can impact the value of your investments, feel free to contact me directly at 813-387-4796. I am working with property owners, restaurant operators, and developers on a regular basis to connect the dots around where they are today and what they are trying to accomplish in the future. Even if there is no immediate business, I welcome the opportunity to learn more about your current investment situation and what I can do to help you maximize the value of your assets.
One of the biggest metrics investors look at when purchasing a single-tenant net-leased asset is the guarantee behind the lease. It is a major factor in weighing risk vs. return when it comes to net-leased assets.
It can also be a major factor that is misunderstood or overlooked without careful investigation.
For example, let’s say you are considering the purchase of a Taco Bell net-leased asset:
You perform a quick Google search to discover that Taco Bell is S&P rated BB and operates 7,000 locations!
That is quite a strong concept!
Hold on…You also learn that Taco Bell is actually a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, which owns Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut comprising of over 43,000 locations!
That must be a risk-free investment then…
Well, not necessarily.
Thinking this is the best investment since sliced bread, you put the property under contract. During the due diligence period, you investigate the lease to learn that it is actually only guaranteed by an entity named “Taco Bell 5 FL Tacos, LLC”…
What does that mean?
Come to find out, the franchisee operating this Taco Bell only has 5 stores…and only ONE of their stores is backing this lease through the referenced entity…
It is easy to see how an investment backed by corporate Taco Bell holds drastically different risk factors than an investment backed by a 5-unit franchisee only offering a 1-unit guarantee on their lease. These are important risk factors that have significant impact on the values you can demand for your investment property and the return you can expect to yield from purchasing one of these properties.
These are also important factors that your broker/investment advisor should be making you aware of and helping you analyze, not only prior to a purchase, but prior to a contract for purchase.
With that in mind, existing guarantees can have upside or downside tied to the strength of what is backing the lease.
The typical rule of thumb in any investment is:
The Higher The Risk, The Higher The Return!
A corporate 20-year Taco Bell lease may sell for a 4.5% cap rate, while a 5-unit Taco Bell lease with just 3 years remaining might sell for an 8% cap rate. With a weaker guarantee or lesser lease term comes more inherent risk, but also more reward.
This can be especially true for your guarantee.
You may take on more risk purchasing the 5-unit franchisee backed lease, but what if a larger 200-unit operator is considering buying out that smaller franchise? If that 200-unit operator buys out your tenant and decides to guarantee the lease with the entire lot of their locations, you could easily gain 100-200 basis points worth of value overnight.
That is what some like to call upside.
KBP Foods, a large franchisee of Yum! Brands concepts, recently acquired 78 KFC locations. According to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN), this was just one of many recent acquisitions that have helped the operator reach 530 locations in 20 states. One of those purchases was an acquisition as small as four locations in Lawrence and Topeka, Kansas. These units were purchased from franchisees and the investors owning the real estate under those operations must be popping the champagne right about now because their small franchise tenant just evolved into a powerhouse operator and one of the largest Yum! Brand franchisees in existence. Even without a change in the guarantee, the perception of now having a very strong operator can alone impact the value and equity of the investment.
My warning is that it can work in the opposite direction as well.
Part of KBP Food’s feeding frenzy in acquiring locations included 41 locations in Texas directly from Corporate KFC. This is not unexpected. Last year, Yum! Brands announced they would shift the ownership of their stores drastically into the hands of franchisees; taking their 10,000 corporate run stores and shrinking that number to fewer than 1,000 by the end of 2018, according to USA Today.
Those investors that had a corporate KFC lease just had a change of tenant…From Corporate run to franchisee run…overnight. While in some lease structures, the landlord is protected for the life of the lease, there is certainly downside when it is time to re-up and your new tenant has a fraction of the net-worth your previous tenant came to the table with. In the KBP Foods scenario, the downside in equity may not be as dramatic; a tenant shift from Corporate run location to a 530-unit operation, although a sure hit in the risk department, is still a pill you can swallow. Some leases, however, allow for corporate guarantees to revert to franchisee guarantees as small as 10 or fewer units…
That is where there can be downside.
Which scenario strikes a chord with your current portfolio?
Do you have upside or downside?
If these are factors you actively consider when looking at deals, then you are ahead of the game and I would be happy to take you to the next level with the specialized insight I can provide. If you were unaware of these factors or fail to consider them on a regular basis, you and I should connect immediately.
Please reach out and I will make myself available.
I’m helping clients all over the Nation evaluate their upside/downside on a daily basis; analyzing property value, risk, and equity to help clients get clear on their options at any given time within the market and execute on a proactive strategy around these seemingly reactive assets. Feel free to reach out to me for more specific insight around your restaurant investments as I welcome the opportunity to help you do the same even if there is no immediate business to be had on the horizon.
Just a few quick thoughts on self-development. Outside of investments, we can all strive to be better, do better, and grow further. This is meant to be a very short read aimed at helping get outside of your day to day grind to identify a few ways you might be able to help yourself grow, improve, or expand your horizons.
2 Excuses for Failing to Change our Habits:
1. We Are Creatures of Habit
Let’s get serious. We’re only human. And as we travel through this journey of life, we become comfortable in the consistent. We come to know what we can expect from things that never change. We don’t inherently like change. Breaking a habit doesn’t just mean a temporary change, it means a life-style change. If you’re not ready to make the change for life, you’ll likely fall back into the habit. Although, this is the nature of humans, it’s also an excuse to stay in the habit. If you want to change, don’t let this excuse hold you back. Your mind is stronger than the human creature that you are. Break it!
2. We Are Motivated by Instant Gratification…and Demotivated by Lack of Instant Gratification
When we want things to change, we want them to change now. We don’t want them to change later. That’s why the world is filled with get rich quick schemes, diets that claim you’ll lose 50 pounds in a week, and pipe dream infomercials that seem too good to be true, but still somehow leave you wanting to order them. At the end of the day, for real results, you’ll have to put in real work. Many times when we don’t get that instant gratification, we lose our motivation to go on…so we fall back into the same habits that yield that instant gratification. When you work at something and it doesn’t happen right away, don’t use that as an excuse to fall back into your old pattern. Find little “wins” along the way and keep pushing. Eventually that instant gratification will be replaced by the ebb and flow of your new established habit!
Reasons Changing Habits is so Damn Hard:
1. You Want Someone To Do It For You
Habits were built by no one except for ourselves. You created this habit; you alone will break this habit. Others may give you tools that can help, but if you don’t do it, no one will. No one can break your habit for you and that’s why sometimes habits are so hard to break. It would be great if we really could sit back on the couch, eating a bag of potato chips and watching cartoons riddled with adult humor, while a vibrating belt melted away all of our body fat. That sounds easy, right!? That’s false hope. If you want something, go get it. If you don’t go get it, you don’t really want it.
2. You Want To Do It For Someone Else
A lot of times we want to change a habit because others are pressuring us to change. It becomes much harder to change for someone else because the motivation pushing us is based in a negative sense. We feel that if we do not change, negative things will happen. A much more energizing approach that creates a more sustainable motivation is the vision for how things will be better when you finally do change. You have to want to do it for yourself before you can make a lasting change. Many habit changes must become lifestyle changes. We must commit to change for a lifetime. There is no end goal of “I did it”, and that’s hard for us to grasp. Without that sustainable positive motivation pushing us for ourselves, we won’t last without a finish line in sight.
At the end of the day, habits are difficult to break and difficult to sustain. It’s hard work, but worth it if you’re changing negative habits into positive ones. Put in the work. Make the commitment. Dedicate your mind and time to building a better life for yourself.
It was November of 1980 in Decatur, Georgia when the doors opened for T.J. Applebee’s Rx for Edibles and Elixirs. Six years later, the concept changed names to Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar to reflect the original vision for the concept being a local place that everyone could call home. Fast forward 20 years later and Applebee’s had grown large enough to attract the attention of DineEquity, formerly IHOP Corporation, which acquired Applebee’s for $2.1 Billion in 2007 to create the largest full-service restaurant company in the world.
Now we are in 2017 and times are changing! Fast casual concepts have been picking up steam since the early 2000’s. With consumer preferences continuing to shift towards a larger variety of tastes along with a desire for healthier choices, fast casual as a segment has began to take market share from both casual dining and quick service restaurant concepts with the rise of trendy concepts. In light of these changing consumer preferences, Applebee’s made a number of shifts over the past few years in strategy, offering, marketing, etc. in order to maintain that market share and recapture their customers.
Even still, the company has seen regular declines in same-store sales recently and it has hurt the perception of Applebee’s as an investment. The average cap rate for Applebee’s sold in 2016 was 5.90%; year to date 2017, the average cap rate is 6.21%. That means that over the past twelve months, cap rates have climbed over 30 basis points.
That doesn’t sound too bad…
The recent announcement that DineEquity would close up to 135 locations in fiscal 2017 is what has really created the most recent shift in perception and cap rates. The average cap rate for on-market Applebee’s properties right now is 6.73%; over 80 basis points from the 2016 average. Further, the average cap rate for Applebee’s properties hitting the market since August is 7%. That is over 100 basis points lower than where cap rates were for a comparable asset 12 months prior. This is not happening across the board for restaurant net-leased assets. The restaurant sector actually continues to see some of the most compressed cap rates across all other net-leased food groups; staying about 40-50 basis points lower than other comparable net-leased assets in other sectors. This is a direct result of buyer perception and an influx of inventory hitting the market.
So as a buyer, you should stay away, right?
Many argue that now is the time to enter the Applebee’s concept and take advantage of these inflated cap rates for a proven concept with a long-term lease in place. Applebee’s has been on a steady decline, however, recently there have been a number of changes within executive management and they are shaking things up. What they did not tell you prior to rolling out the breaking story of all the anticipated location closures was that they had identified most of these closures quite some time ago. In fact, half of the stores they plan to close have likely already shut their doors. According to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN), the Applebee’s brand president, John Cywinski, said this was a strategic move and many of the store closures are stores that “need to close and perhaps should have closed a long time ago”. In addition, Applebee’s has vowed to get back to their American roots. Instead of continuing the attempt to capture a new demographic, they are going back to listening to what their core demographic is asking for. According to Inc.com, Cywinski made this statement regarding their new focus:
Now, let’s shift attention to our guests and perhaps one of the brand’s strategic missteps. Over the past few years, the brand’s set out to reposition or reinvent Applebee’s as a modern bar and grill in overt pursuit of a more youthful and affluent demographic with a more independent or even sophisticated dining mindset, including a clear pendulum swing towards millennials. In my perspective, this pursuit led to decisions that created confusion among core guests, as Applebee’s intentionally drifted from its — what I’ll call its Middle America roots and its abundant value position. While we certainly hope to extend our reach, we can’t alienate boomers or Gen-Xers in the process. Much of what we are currently unwinding at the moment is related to this offensive repositioning.
Applebee’s is upgrading image, equipment, and focus. They have embraced technology and begun implementing tablets into their POS systems. They have adjusted the menu and pricing strategies under new executive management. To top it all off, they are getting back to the roots of their core demographic and are revved up to crush it out of the park. Good or bad investment? It depends on your threshold for risk and your hunger for return. For every seller looking to transition from Applebee’s to a different asset or net-leased sector, there are three buyers trying to take advantage of the inflated cap rate environment around the concept.
Like any long-term net-leased investment, it is important to weigh all the factors heavily before moving forward. Ultimately, anything can happen over the next 15-20 years. If you are concerned with maintaining your cash flow for the extent of the new 15 year Applebee’s lease you are looking to purchase, then get critical of the guarantee behind the lease and weigh the risk that it holds. If you would rather take a 7% return when all other restaurants are trading 100 to 200 basis points lower, then simply assume they will vacate at the end of the lease and evaluate the core real estate for the future. If the financial strength of the guarantee holds weight and you are positioned on over an acre of land, on a decent thoroughfare, in a growing area, then a dive into an Applebee’s bottom might be your smartest move; worst case scenario you re-tenant after the base term with a growing concept after collecting an average of 7-8% on a passive net-leased asset…the upside, though, is that you could enter into the monster concept on a downswing and get to ride it back up through its transformation.
I remember a few years ago, taking a phone call in front of our large conference room window. I was looking out at the downtown skyline of Tampa Bay, discussing deal points with a client on other end of the phone. Most of the office had cleared out to prepare for a brewing hurricane. The skies were blue and the sun was beaming, but grocery store parking lots were gridlocked as swarms of people flooded the aisles in search of water and canned goods. There was no indication that the storm would even continue heading our direction, but everyone was up in arms about being prepared for the worst. It turns out the Category 3 storm that was headed straight for us took a last minute detour and we maintained blue skies for the bulk of its passing.
Preparation, or non-preparation, becomes a double edged sword. Nine times out of ten, you will over prepare for a storm that never happens, but that one time you decide to overlook your preparations is when you will be hit the hardest. This year, hurricane season has been in full force. First it was Hurricane Harvey, which slammed coastal Texas with devastating power. Homes and businesses were flooded and cars were swept off the roads. The category 4 storm had 130 mph winds that ripped through the Texas coast overnight. At the end of it all there had been as much as 20 inches of rain in some places leaving over 300,000 people without power.
That type of devastation affects not only the residents, but the surrounding businesses, the infrastructure, and the real estate. Darden Restaurants, Inc., the parent company of a number of well known full-service restaurant brands such as Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, The Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze, and the newly acquired Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen, reported the storm hurt same store sales and earnings in its fiscal first quarter. Between forced store closures, power outages, and other unfortunate circumstances, their earnings per share took a hit. The Cheddar’s Scratch Kitchen concept was hit particularly hard because of their strong presence in Texas according to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN).
Hurricane Irma was expected to have a similar impact on Florida markets. With its last minute shift causing a direct hit on the entire state of Florida, there were many Florida markets that were hit hard as a result. The day after all the devastation, our team was out driving the market to help owners assess damages to their properties. Many of the coastal flood zones flooded some houses and businesses. Most of Tampa Bay, however, was able to weather the storm with minimal damage, although many businesses went without power for over a week in addition to having difficulty acquiring supplies to keep their doors open. Some businesses were raking in the sales and taking advantage of being the only restaurants open among some of the densest counties in Florida. One Taco Bell I visited was slammed with guests, but still struggling to save face in the wake of not being able to get the supplies they needed. A guest asking for a spork was met with a manager’s apologetic eyes:
“We don’t have anymore. I might have to go down the street and see if we can get some plastic forks from Publix”
Most of Central Florida, although arguably hit the worst, weathered the storm fairly well. Aside from debris and a few fallen trees paired with a massive loss of power, most structures stayed intact. Many of the restaurants maintaining power served to feed those residents who were going on 5 days without power in their homes.
Other Florida markets, however, were hit harder than they would have wished. South Florida markets on both coasts and everything in between were met with some tough times; properties flooded, power grids out for weeks, infrastructure ruined. Many markets are still working to recover their physical structures, not to mention swallowing the pill of lost sales during the times of closure. Franchisees have been forced to close doors on a number of stores and some have even abandoned specific locations that they deemed too much of a capital expense to get back up and running.
In terms of net-leased investment sales, these factors impacted the market there too. Some properties that were hit the hardest were actually under contract at the time of devastation. Many of the potential buyers in the midst of 1031 exchanges ended up dropping those contracts. We saw an influx of offers shifting from south Florida markets to West and Central Florida inventory we still had available. Investors were looking more critically at hedges against catastrophe than they had previously. In addition, a number of owners had never considered the potential risk of a natural disaster or at least never considered it a risk significant enough to impact their investment. Some owners have had to spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on repairs, while others made it out with little or no damage, but now have considered selling due to the increased perception of risk.
These storms have been eye opening for many people in a variety of ways, including the other side of the coin where there are many investors now looking hard at Florida markets trying to identify the opportunities to scoop up some of these properties that may suddenly have value to be added. At this point, most businesses are back up and running in most major markets, and while many are still recovering, everyone is working hard to move forward. Ultimately, though, it is amazing how resilient the market is. For every owner wanting to exit Florida markets for fear of the next natural disaster, there are three buyers looking to buy in the income tax free state.
The show must go on…but now it may just come with a higher price tag for flood insurance.
Church’s Chicken is an American chain of fast food restaurants specializing in fried chicken. The chain was founded as Church’s Fried Chicken To Go by George W. Church, Sr., on April 17, 1952, in San Antonio, Texas, across the street from The Alamo. The company, with more than 1,700 locations in 25 countries, is the third-largest chicken restaurant chain behind KFC and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen.
Church’s is known for thriving in tough markets housing lower income demographics. Many investors actually prefer these investments because there is a sort of hedge against risk in these markets. The perception is that regardless of what hardships hit these markets, they will always need to eat cheap and Church’s is there to provide that service. In the recent past, however, with the chicken market exploding, Church’s has had some tough competition. Church’s as an organization has made serious strides towards improving their competitive position.
According to the organization itself, burger joints and grocery stores are stealing their thunder lately. It could be argued, however, that their biggest competition is the local shop across the street. Even they agree that the business is a battle of street corners. Essentially, it is all about real estate…Who has the hard corner with the highest traffic counts? Who is most likely to pull customers in from the street and capitalize on their impulse for dinner?
Admittedly, Church’s as an organization is working on both variety of offering and also increasing volume through drive-through efficiency. According to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN), Church’s has been ramping up their technological offering in an attempt to improve their drive through experience.
Who is the drive through competition though?
Chick Fil A, Raising Cane’s, Zaxby’s…There is some tough competition out there. Church’s has clocked their drive-through time in at just over three minutes and 30 seconds, which is impressive, but you also have to get the order right. According to recent data published by QSR Magazine on the accuracy of QSR fast food joints, some of the top contenders include Raising Cane’s topping the list at over 97% accuracy…Chick Fil A pulling 3rd with over 93% accuracy…and Zaxby’s clocking in at over 90% accuracy. Church’s Chicken unfortunately did not make the top 15 on the list.
With a dinner oriented business, focused on a lower income demographic and catering to the entire family, there is still little competition for the type of value their $5 Real Big Deal brings. It is hard to beat a deal that cheap that can feed the family while also offering choices that allow you to customize your meal.
When it comes to Church’s Chicken as a real estate investment, there are certain characteristics the deal holds that you cannot ignore:
- Like many QSR properties, the real estate tends to maintain core desirable properties:
- Hard Corner
- Main Thoroughfare
- Good Ingress/Egress
- The rents are low
- With rents averaging around $20 PSF as a concept, if the demographics were to shift in a landlord’s favor, there could be some generous upside in rent appreciation.
- Demographics have a sustainable need
- The target demographic, although thrifty, has proven to spend money on convenience. The concept works and is typically recession-proof. Even when there is a downturn, the main household income for this demographic will not shift as dramatically as other higher income areas. Because the demographic is self-sustainable, they can often replicate the disposable income necessary to spend money on eating out more readily than other economically hard-hitting areas.
Over the past twelve months, Church’s Chicken has had an average cap rate of 7%. Similar to the story above regarding the sustainable demographic, the cap rate has also remained fairly stagnant compared to other concepts. Why? Mainly because while the risk or perception of risk in other concepts varies greatly around market traction, the perception of risk for these types of assets remains fairly the same over time. The guarantee has not shifted much; and although the demographics will never demand a certain amount of sales, the demand for the concept and product is there. The density of the population and demand from the surrounding population will sustain the concept.
The challenge for an owner is: what happens if they leave?
If you own a Church’s Chicken and the lease term is approaching, a major question is: Will they stay or will they go? As an owner with this question in mind, you hold significant risk. Although compared to other net-leased investments, the average Church’s Chicken pays a fairly low rent per square foot, the sustainability of the cash flow stream can still be unclear. The nature of the target demographic is a pro in the fact that it is in constant need of the product, but a con in the fact that even though the base rent is low, if Church’s left, you would be stuck trying to lease to a local tenant likely at half the market rate. Your cash flow would be cut in half. If you are a savvy investor and have enough tenant relationships to redevelop the parcel or sit on it until it can be redeveloped with a stronger tenant, then you are in good shape.
Most of us, however, are not in that kind of position.
I urge clients to look at their investments critically and evaluate their options on a regular basis. I am here to help. I’m evaluating risk, cash flow, equity, and future value for clients on a daily basis and I’m happy to do the same for you. As you plan your long-term investment strategy, it is imperative that you look at how your existing portfolio fits into your long-term plan. An investment like Church’s Chicken has its pros and its cons; it can certainly be a strong part of a comprehensive portfolio, but my point is that nothing should be left to chance. If you are not looking at these investments with a strict magnifying glass and comparing them to the rest of your long-term plan, then you need to re-evaluate your investment strategy. I am happy to help wherever it makes sense, so please reach out if you are curious about your existing portfolio, looking to diversify, or simply wish to keep a pulse on what is happening in the market and how you can best capitalize on the recent market changes.
With the rise and plateau of the Fast Casual sector, consumer preferences changing, millennials consuming all the avocado toast, and all the other craziness of 2017 (See @RealDonaldTrump for Details), many restaurant concepts are making executive level shifts and reconfiguring their business models.
Dunkin Brands is no different. Dunkin’ Donuts opened their first shop in Quincey, Massachusetts in 1950 and since has grown to 12,300 locations worldwide with over 8,500 locations here in the United States. Recently, Dunkin’ Donuts announced they were considering a rebranding initiative to remove the…donuts. Don’t grab the tissues. The donuts are not going anywhere for now, but soon the brand may be known simply as Dunkin’. They are expected to make a final decision sometime next year after rolling out a few test stores, according to CNN Money. If they go through with it, it would mean removing the word “Donuts” from thousands of stores including signage and marketing materials. Dunkin’ Brands, with the pastry market already cornered, is looking to capitalize on the consumer preferences leaning heavy on the beverages.
That is why they are also shaking things up with their doughnut inventory. According to Nation’s Restaurant News (NRN), the Dunkin’ brand is “getting its doughnut mojo back”. Their plan is to reduce the variety of doughnuts offered, while simultaneously introducing more “artisanal” options that have proven success with consumer preferences in the recent past. They plan to land at around 18 different doughnut options including a maple doughnut with bacon bits on top; maybe taking a page out of Voodoo Doughnuts’ recipe book out in Portland, OR.
In addition to shrinking their doughnut variety, Dunkin’ will look to expand their beverage variety experimenting with a number of new beverage options. Their hope is to rebrand and capture more of the beverage heavy consumers from their immediate competitors. All in all, it is a lot of major change happening fast. Some say they are putting the “nuts” in Donuts, but if profits jump and it appears they are making more money by capturing more market share from their competitors, they may be simply replacing one kind of dough for another ($$$).