December 10, 2013 6:18 pm

Darden Restaurants: Food fight

Whether activist investors can cook is not the point. Only serve them hors d’oeuvres and they will storm the kitchen, whatever their culinary talents. So Darden Restaurants is learning. The parent company of the languishing Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurant chains has offered some nibbles, such as $50m in cost cuts, to agitator Barington Capital. While appetising, they fall short of the heaping platter of spin-offs Barington craves – and which, if enacted, could lead to indigestion.

Traffic at the major “casual dining” (cheapish, waiter service) chains fell nearly a fifth between 2006 and 2012, JPMorgan says. The troubles are not just about the weak US consumer or the rise of “fast casual” (cheaper, counter service) chains such as Chipotle. Darden has not adapted. Operating expenses ate up 10 per cent of revenue in the 2013 financial year, twice the level of rival Brinker (the parent of Chili’s). Its capital expenditure to revenue ratio of 8 per cent also looks high. As such, Darden’s hefty dividend takes up much of its $300m in free cash flow.

Barington’s most daring demand is that Darden break itself up. Its smaller chains would be put into a new company, which could trade at a higher valuation given that – unlike Olive Garden and Red Lobster – they have positive same-store sales growth. Yet this new company could take some of the $150m in cost cuts Barington also wants away with it.

A spicier idea is a flotation of Darden’s sizeable property portfolio. Property companies tend to trade on higher multiples than restaurant companies, and Morgan Stanley estimates that floating the division could boost total shareholder value by 25 per cent. Risk lurks, though. The move requires Darden to become a debtor to the property company, since it must lease space and leverage would spike.

Barington’s spin-off ideas are not necessarily unwise, but they are trickier than presented. And the menu of fixes still lacks a plan to grow sales again at the flagship chains.

Email the Lex team in confidence at lex@ft.com

This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants. It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.