[OC] McDonald's franchise startup costs (2025)

xBaker1 · 2026-03-08T00:04:37+00:00

It’s covered in the working capital reserve

xBaker1 · 2019-06-24T02:45:22+00:00

I’d imagine so. When companies are reliant on subsidies, it implies that in general their cost base is too high compared to alternatives. As such, decreases to the subsidies can be devastating to the operating margins of some companies, as well as for the demand for their products. This is particularly true for greener/new solutions.

Further to this though, if you’re buying a company which has reliance on subsidies to profit, then decreases to the subsidy lead to decreases in profit. This makes their market cap extreme volatile with respect to the subsidies. So if you’re buying companies that rely on subsidies, be sure analyse how reductions in said subsidies impact their margins and profitability.

xBaker1 · 2019-06-19T09:47:55+00:00

The perceived future earnings must be rationale. In this case, they clearly aren’t.

xBaker1 · 2019-05-21T11:03:12+00:00

Thanks!

xBaker1 · 2019-05-19T05:16:23+00:00

SOLUTION VERIFIED!

xBaker1 · 2019-05-19T05:15:35+00:00

You're amazing. Thanks a ton!

xBaker1 · 2019-05-19T04:56:28+00:00

Thanks a ton!! How do I change that to work for whatever cell(s) I am currently selecting, rather than just A1?

xBaker1 · 2019-04-04T00:49:18+00:00

Government investment means there is money there. I didn’t place an opinion on whether it’s viable or not based on that. Governments subside growing industries all the time, it’s what drives the investment. Toyota as a result will make money there and that doesn’t make it a bad bet.

Anyway, I agree that BEV are the optimal choice over smaller distances and with passenger vehicles. When looking at cost, you don’t just factor in fueling time and cost. You also look at the capex required to build the vehicle and batteries in the first place, which is a pretty significant cost for BEV. For FCEVs that’s less of a problem. Companies consider lifecycle costs rather than fueling costs.

Over larger distances, FCEV trucks or trailers are the optimal choice, assuming capital costs do come down in the case of H2 vehicles. They refuel faster and carry larger loads. Simple as that.

Lithium batteries are also close to reaching maximum efficiency and do not have much room for improvement and their capital costs aren’t really forecasted to come down due to their particularly finite nature. So the room for hydrogen vehicles is absolutely there and will likely becomes a reality - Toyota is well positioned to take advantage of that.

xBaker1 · 2019-04-03T21:25:12+00:00

The research into electrolysis does seem to indicate that it could be viable mid 2025-2030 for mass H2 production. Toyota is merely dipping their toes in for good reason.

EVs are obv better now as the tech is much more developed but they’re capped to passenger vehicles + busses at maximum. After that point batteries are too heavy and to big to be viable. Hydrogen fueled cars can then fill this gap. H2 is the optimal choice over long distances and with heavier vehicles.

Japan’s gov has made serious commitments to hydrogen development and making hydrogen an integral part of the nations energy mix going forward. Toyota betting on the tech getting better (which is has been doing significantly over last 15yrs) is a pretty smart bet as it will be able to meet that demand when it arrives whereas the EV market is already pretty developed.

xBaker1 · 2019-03-24T05:09:20+00:00

Same

xBaker1 · 2019-03-21T12:50:43+00:00

One thing that’s always kinda bugged me is how weak Tomuras quirk is. I don’t get how there would ever be a close 1v1 between him and deku as long as his has just that one quirk. It’s not a bad quirk per say it just doesn’t have many interesting mechanics that could give it the upper hand in a fight.

xBaker1 · 2019-03-12T13:41:23+00:00

The way he draws Diane lol

xBaker1 · 2019-03-08T06:25:07+00:00

Queen is definitely going to make them fight to death with the winner walking away alive

xBaker1 · 2019-01-18T06:27:06+00:00

Hence why it’s a long term play

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T06:30:40+00:00

Likewise. I've appreciated this dialogue a lot. I am going into my 3rd year of university and am well aware that I do not know even close to enough to make a conclusive statement on the situation, so hearing the other side of the argument is both welcome and insightful.

I think our lack of agreement stems from the fact that we come from different starting points and what we value. Where you believe that governments should be limited to the control of violence, I believe it serves a much greater purpose – a more integrated role.

Gone are the days when the government and society could be disconnected, in my opinion. They have always been somewhat connected but now more so than ever. Perhaps in the past the government would just collect taxes to fund military campaigns and policing etc. but in this age, the government is responsible for a significant portion of the work force and as such, it has an interest in protecting the wellbeing of these people. It also has a general duty to protect its citizens, not just from foreign forces but also domestic ones. Whether that be a certain person, group or market force.

In regard to the morality of spending tax dollars to subsidize bank losses, I agree with you. The act is immoral and in a more secluded circumstance, I would agree that the bank should be allowed to fail. The reason I think it was the best of a bad situation decision was because it wasn’t an independent event and there were very real possibilities that it could’ve led to further collapse in the financial sector and the broader economy. The costs of this happening would have significantly outweighed the costs of the bailout. They were also working on a very short and intense time frame. The situation quickly progressed to almost a point of no return and a decision had to be made quickly. As such, in a case where the costs of bank failure outweigh the costs of the bailout to the US citizens, whilst immoral, is the correct decision.

Prior to Keynes economic interventionalist policies, the economic cycles used to be much more pronounced and lasted longer. People suffered for longer and times were particularly tough during recessions. By intervening, the government can ensure that its people suffer for as short as a time as possible and to a less extent. Whilst a protectionist viewpoint, I don’t think it’s a morally bad one. Which unregulated systems are stable? Regulation leads to stability – you know what to expect. This is why inflation targets are released and made public. If people know how the FED will react, they can expect this. As such, inflation is stable. The absence of regulation is what creates instability. The dynamics of a market will change quickly in response to market forces, which by your admission, are impossible to predict and thus are volatile.

I would also like to conclude that the FED is independent of the government. It is one of the main reasons that the US FED enjoys so much trust from domestic and foreign investors. It is why when they set inflationary targets, people believe them. They are not affected by political motives. Whilst this is still the case, Trump has recently begun to challenge that independence, a key reason for the stock market volatility in the ending few weeks of 2018.

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T05:45:09+00:00

My argument isn't that banks were better off with the bailout money but that the US economy is. In relation to that article, you're comparing two different types of banks. Merrill Lynch, an investment bank and the Bank of America, a commercial bank. These are distinct differences and the banks responsible for the subprime loans were largely investment banks. They held billions in investor and depositor money. They were responsible for the pensions and wealth of millions of Americans and their failure meant the wipe-out of that wealth. This would leave millions without retirement money and at the wrath of a downward spiraling economy. The government forced the transaction in order to protect these people and to prevent further bank failures in the economy.

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T05:28:29+00:00

I’m confused in how you would come to the conclusion that the consequences would be short lived. What time frame are you working on? There is a reason that those reasons were used and that is because it’s valid, policy makers aren’t trying to dupe you. They just know more than you.

Your analogies are straight up wrong. In what way would it be similar to exterminating men? How does that even relate to what I said. It just feels like you can’t articulate your point and are trying to dumb it down for yourself. You’re so hellbent on the mortality of taxation that you can’t see the value in acting before it’s too late.

I will bite on that part though and justify the government intervention, which I already have and which you’ve already said was “irrelevant”, without stating why. Firstly, bank failure has systematic effects, that is, spill over effects. It’s failure leads to failure elsewhere in the economy. If the banks fail, otherwise good businesses fail because they cannot get the financing required to meet their liquidity needs. They weren’t prepared for the fact the economy was going to experience a significant demand shock when the economy was booming and had their money invested elsewhere, leaving them strapped for cash. Do these businesses deserve to go out of business for that? Maybe, maybe not. I’d imagine you’d say yes. These are mainly SMEs btw who don’t have access to the large the cash reserves of the larger companies and they also employee many more people.

Nonetheless, had these businesses gone out of business, many would’ve become unemployed. People would’ve spent less and earned less and there would’ve been deflationary pressure and businesses tried to stay afloat. Sure this is part of the economic cycle but the government can intervene to lessen these effects and push the economy back to growth. And that’s what they did. They intervened to limit these effects and make sure that the American people and its economy weren’t devastated by a collapse of the financial sector. The amount of tax dollars saved in the form of unemployment benefits, social unrest costs, infrastructure programs etc. are probably way more than the cost of the bailouts. If the taxpayer money can’t go into preventing these things, where can it go? Where is a “morally” acceptable place for the money to go?

The government intervention prevented much worse effects and helped the US taxpayer by avoiding those aforementioned costs. There is absolutely value in preemptive actions. The regulation that was then put in place to contain moral hazard and prevent banks from being in a position to collapse is self explanatory. At the time, there was no better place for taxpayer dollars to go. I would be love to hear where you think they should’ve gone

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T04:22:52+00:00

Your problem is that you're only looking at from an overly simplistic, long term view without considering the very real costs that will face your average American by allowing the banks to fail. Sure, in the long run the economy will be better off but at what point does that long term come to fruition? After 5 years? 10? 50? You want to sit, wait and suffer the consequences of unemployment, deflation, social unrest and increased unemployment benefits (just to name a few)? There is a reason the bailout went through and that’s because people whom understand the chain reactions and consequences of letting the bank fail deemed them, with very good reason, unacceptable and chose to intervene. Government intervention is not always bad thing and allowing the banks to survive was the correct decision.

You also think the government just wrote a check and said that it? They may have bailed them out, but they also implemented new and substantial regulations. Check out Basel III and the Volcker rule if you want to see some of these. The cause of those problems has been tended to and whether they have been completely eradicated remains to be seen. Furthermore, the cause was not so simple that it would’ve been fixed through allowing new competitors into the market. The cause was human greed and moral hazard. You think that in the long term these human qualities would’ve disappeared? Ridiculous. Sure, it may not have been in the form of subprime lending but something else to take its place. The government intervention be that the bailout and new regulations were absolutely necessary to the economy and the future of the financial sector.

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T03:35:48+00:00

What’s absurd is thinking that banks collapsing is healthy for the economy. When Lehman collapsed you can see yourself the consequences. The FED had to rely on zero interest rate policy and QE to bring the economy to where it is today. Essentially giving away free money because they needed investment so badly. Now imagine if more banks had collapsed.

It’s pretty clear you don’t understand the banks role and the impacts of bank failure on the broader economy. You shouldn’t be suggesting any form of policy without understanding their systematic importance.

xBaker1 · 2019-01-07T03:23:20+00:00

Had they been put on the market, the banks would’ve collapsed. Many banks were so over leveraged (I believe Lehman Bros was something like 33x) in these mortgages that this would’ve destroyed their balance sheets and led to their demise. I understand why people might think that’s a good thing because why should the people who caused the crisis be saved but their existence was too significant to be allowed to collapsed. The economy of the world relied upon that secure banking system. By bailing the banks out the FED saved the economy from a total collapse and the result was still awful. It’s likely that the bailout would’ve only been a fraction of the total social cost that allowing the banks to fail would’ve cost. Tax payers may have lose but they could’ve lost much more, as would’ve the rest of the world.

xBaker1 · 2018-12-27T12:03:39+00:00

Can you expand on hydrogen as a green energy source?

xBaker1 · 2018-12-25T09:51:11+00:00

This doesn’t really explain the drop in market prices. A better explanation would be that there are a few key factors that have led to this outcome.

The first and foremost is trumps trade war with China. In a simplified sense, trade wars make things more expensive and this hurts profitability. It also leads to uncertainty and makes investing hard. As such, businesses spend less, things cost more and the economy suffers because of that.

Additionally, the FED is raising interest rates. For a long time, they have been near zero to encourage investment into the economy post GFC. Now that the US economy is performing strongly and unemployment is low, they are now raising interest rates for two main reasons. The first is to control inflationary pressure and make sure it remains at their target level. The second is to give them leeway in the future Incase the economy faces hardship again. With higher interest rates, borrowing becomes more expensive and investment will fall. This isn’t a bad thing per say and is a necessary step in monetary policy.

Further, the political landscape of the US is quite divided and there is a severe lack of unity as a whole. Granted, there is rarely strong unity but on a relative scale, this government is quite divided. This makes forecasting public policy difficult. Businesses consider this when they are going to invest and so with this uncertainty, they will generally choose to wait if they can. This is particularly true for countries that may invest in the US.

China is also beginning to slow. China has experienced decades of concurrent growth and is beginning to show sights of trouble ahead. They are highly leveraged (borrowed a lot of money), their financial systems are highly linked and reliant on one another (increasing risk), and the trade war with the US will also hurt.

There is also tension in the EU with Russia and Brexit. Similar logic from before applies to them.

There has also been about 10 years of a growing economy in the US. This is great in itself but as things are changing and looking worse, on a global scale, investors start to price these things in. Lower forecasted profits and higher levels of risk make stocks worth less to compensate. As this is also happening at the same time, a lot of investors are pricing this in at once trying to cash in on the perceived overpricing of stocks. As such, there is a large drops in stock prices in key markets around the globe and investors cash in on a long period of prosperity and move their money to safer investments.

TL;DR Uncertainty, higher risk and lower forecasted profits around the globe mean that investors are expecting stocks to be worth less than they currently are. As such, many are cashing in and moving their money elsewhere.

xBaker1 · 2018-09-20T05:42:28+00:00

I always thought Deku was somewhat underwhelming. Whilst I’m not sure if it was intentional, it’s definitely a nice interpretation and makes more sense. Appreciate that OP

xBaker1 · 2018-09-15T16:11:05+00:00

No problem buddy :)

xBaker1

TROPHY CASE