{
  "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-b5e2117e169a",
  "docSlug": "ff2d385c560d",
  "documentTitle": "Pershing Square portfolio (multi-holding LP update: MDLZ, VRX, APD, ZTS, CP, QSR, HHC, PAH, FNMA/FMCC, HLF short)",
  "authorId": "01_Pershing_Square",
  "authorName": "William Ackman",
  "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor",
  "presentationDate": "2016-01-28 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "portrait",
  "aspectRatio": 0.77272725,
  "pageNumber": 25,
  "pageCount": 104,
  "prevPage": 24,
  "nextPage": 26,
  "slideType": "peer_benchmark",
  "function": "compare_peers",
  "density": "sparse",
  "nDataPoints": 6,
  "notes": "Uses a split-chart layout to contrast 3G's aggressive margin expansion with Mondelez's more modest targets.",
  "elementsJson": null,
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-b5e2117e169a/25",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-b5e2117e169a",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-b5e2117e169a.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b9b-b5e2117e169a#slide-25",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.11,
        "y": 0.21
      },
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "While management has embraced ZBB to address their high G&A, Mondelez’s version of ZBB is much less robust than the 3G approach",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "primary",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "34c35e3c-6cc9-43a7-940d-231a40f540b6",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.45,
        "w": 0.78,
        "x": 0.11,
        "y": 0.32
      },
      "kind": "chart",
      "text": "EBIT Margin Comparison",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bar-grouped",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "74126c69-eb7d-4ebd-8527-aae216b19195",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.82,
        "x": 0.09,
        "y": 0.84
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "Source: Public filings, Pershing Square estimates. (1) Excludes accelerated depreciation... (2) Represents Anheuser-Busch 2007 EBIT... (3) 2014 EBIT margin is pro forma for the Coffee JV.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "91e68fc0-f9fd-4fca-85ec-e5f1c2136dc9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.04,
        "w": 0.45,
        "x": 0.08,
        "y": 0.13
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Mondelez Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB)",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "d9c0e48c-7a6c-4aea-bcbb-a13e610f66c1",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "comparison_frame",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "eb32a55c-ba0c-4e36-8b36-ecea83e9036d",
      "evidence": "Direct comparison of EBIT margin performance between peer companies to highlight performance gap.",
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 25,
      "from": 19,
      "beatId": "315c54ce-3989-425d-99d9-079d23ddcb41",
      "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
      "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
      "beatName": "Complication",
      "beatSlug": "complication",
      "evidence": "Discussion of challenges faced by portfolio companies",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 30,
      "from": 20,
      "name": "Tale Two Worlds",
      "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds",
      "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change",
      "matchId": "dd33ab9a-e9db-46a0-97c5-96fa77f7e2f4",
      "evidence": "Comparison of current and potential performance for portfolio companies",
      "position": 0,
      "objective": "Highlighting the contrast between current and potential performance",
      "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication",
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}