{
  "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-42fab09bc86d",
  "docSlug": "f306ccfd77a7",
  "documentTitle": "PepsiCo (PEP)",
  "authorId": "06_Trian_Partners",
  "authorName": "Trian Partners",
  "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor",
  "presentationDate": "2013-07-01 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.3333334,
  "pageNumber": 35,
  "pageCount": 59,
  "prevPage": 34,
  "nextPage": 36,
  "slideType": "competitive_analysis",
  "function": "compare_peers",
  "density": "dense",
  "nDataPoints": 3,
  "notes": "This slide is part of an activist investor presentation (Trian) critiquing PepsiCo's strategy.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "bullet_list",
    "footnote"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-42fab09bc86d/35",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-42fab09bc86d",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-42fab09bc86d.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6db-42fab09bc86d#slide-35",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "Competitive pressure in beverage, in our view, has forced PepsiCo to make questionable capital allocation and strategic decisions.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd953-64cf-7128-a32a-295d6209f93a",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.9
      },
      "kind": "disclaimer",
      "text": "Note: The estimates, projections, pro forma information and potential impact of the ideas set forth herein are based on assumptions that Trian believes to be reasonable, but there can be no assurance that actual results or performance of the Issuer will not differ, and such differences may be material. This presentation does not recommend the purchase or sale of any security.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9d04de77-0ce9-44bb-999c-b69e372e781c",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.12,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.7
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "Coke will likely continue growing faster than PepsiCo in beverages because of an advantaged global position. We believe this places a ceiling on valuation; PepsiCo destined to continue trading at parity / discount to Coke despite snacks value. Time is of the essence: Coke has “upped its game” in recent years, leveraging its strategic advantages to make life difficult for Pepsi.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "00d44d3b-4bc2-48a7-a870-c390028c70e0",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.25,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.35
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "Competitive pressure in beverage, in our view, has forced PepsiCo to make questionable capital allocation and strategic decisions: Multi-decade “arms-war” between Coke and Pepsi, driving promotional activity but not volume increases. Recently invested incremental ~$16bn in low margin / capital intensive bottlers to squeeze synergies and help hit profit targets. Purchased Wimm-Bill-Dann (dairy & juice, 100% exposed to single high-risk market) for 17.5x enterprise value (EV) / LTM EBITDA. Pushed snacks margins to the point of over-earning to offset beverage weakness.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "8dfcc2ea-fac7-4330-aa76-ebeaa9bc6ef9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.6
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "Management’s plan to compete in beverages is unlikely to be game-changing. “Disruptive innovation” – even when successful, generally drives transient growth.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "e871ca67-93a4-4e90-8a46-7069c1080cdd",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.2,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.15
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "Though snacks are ~51% of revenue and ~2/3rds of value, PepsiCo has forever been viewed by investors through a “beverage lens” comparing it to Coke, a pure play beverage business. Majority of analysts covering PepsiCo follow beverage, not food. Analysts are fixated on challenges in North American CSDs, despite mid-single digit (MSD)+ organic growth potential across other businesses (vs. typical food company growth of 2-3%).",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "ee9af3f8-cbbf-41db-adc1-10896f5fecd0",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.8,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.05
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "It Is Time To Redefine The Competition With Coke",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9d950e07-a4ae-4f2f-a30f-f3ca45f45cc4",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 59,
      "from": 25,
      "beatId": "a7b0e30d-20b3-4240-a09b-2497aa6acb9b",
      "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
      "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
      "beatName": "Solution",
      "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-solution-provide-relief",
      "evidence": "Slides 25-59 present the proposed solution",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "parentBeatName": "Resolution",
      "parentBeatSlug": "resolution"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 59,
      "from": 26,
      "name": "Tale Two Worlds",
      "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds",
      "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change",
      "matchId": "efc95e7b-f645-4275-a8e6-eca2b777e397",
      "evidence": "The document presents a clear contrast between current and proposed structures",
      "position": 0,
      "objective": "Presenting a better future through separation or merger",
      "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication",
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}