Benchmarking

for success 2018

Financial performance
and trends within the
North American food and
beverage processing industry
Table of contents
Welcome message 01
Summary of results 02
Industry analysis 04
Subsector performance 10
Top quartile performance 14
Capital and input markets 17
Food retail environment 18
The economy 20
Trends and a look ahead 21
Participant perspectives 23
Merger & acquisition activity 24
Valuation snapshot 27
Closing remarks 29
Appendices 30
Contacts 32
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Leaders message

Strong performances
and growing uncertainty
We are pleased to present the 14th edition social media and information sharing. Not
of Benchmarking for success. This report has surprisingly, consumer trends have changed
been providing insights to the food and M&A appetites, and we have witnessed
beverage (F&B) industry since the early increased investment in health and
1990s. As in previous releases, we bring wellness, ethnic, organic and sustainable,
financial analysis, industry trend analysis, convenience, and technology‑focused F&B
and key insights from the North American companies.
F&B industry.
Unpredictable growth forecast for the
Our last report in 2014 illustrated that the Canadian and United States economy driven
F&B industry was demonstrating impressive by various macro components F&B players
growth following the 2008 recession. This to seek ways to remain nimble, whether it
report outlines the current state of the be through defensible product offerings or
North American F&B sector, how the sector investments in technological and process
has recently performed, and what the future efficiencies. The pressure to stay current and
may look like. on top of the consumer and technological
trends demonstrates the need to actively
In this report, we found that the industry engage in potential strategic acquisitions to
and the market as a whole continued preserve and grow market share.
its bullish run. However, the markets
are currently facing uncertainty due Our survey results highlight the financial
to unpredictable political, economic, and attributes of a broad range of F&B
social factors. Despite this uncertainty, the companies and segmenting those that are
market remains robust, profitability ratios achieving top quartile growth or top quartile
across the sector increased year over year, profitability. Along with the quantitative
with the United States generating stronger analysis in the following pages, our insights
profitability as compared to Canada, from working with many leading F&B
primarily due to size and scale. companies provide important qualitative
insights and assist us in getting behind
We also found merger and acquisition the numbers and understanding many
(M&A) activity remained strong, indicating important priorities and capabilities
that strategic and financial purchasers that are driving success.
alike continue to have confidence to
invest in high‑ growth and well‑managed We hope you find the survey insightful and
companies, which demonstrates confidence useful. If you have any questions or would
in the economy and industry. The F&B like to explore any of the topics further, we
market is transforming as a result of easy would be happy to address your questions
access to information. Consumer trends or commentary by whatever means you
and preferences have been influenced by find convenient.

01
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Summary of results

Summary of results
Benchmarking for Success 2018 analysed to act vigilantly to maintain margins to
industry data for the fiscal years 2014, 2015, ensure sufficient liquidity to service growth
and 2016 for F&B companies in Canada and initiatives and service existing debt.
the United States. Financial information
for public companies was gathered from In both Canada and the US companies
publicly available audited financial numbers. in the top-quartile for profitability had
Financial information for private companies higher than or similar to average revenues,
was gathered from surveys collected on a suggesting that the most profitable F&B
confidential basis. A glossary of terms and companies tend to be the large players.
financial ratio definitions is included in Most significantly, top-quartile performers
the appendices to this report. In this report, realized high gross margins compared to
78 F&B processors were analysed, including other companies in this study. However, the
23 Canadian companies. fastest growing companies in both Canada
and the United States in terms of revenue
The findings for this year vary for growth were smaller than the average
F&B processors, reflecting current market Canadian and US processors studied. This
sentiment. Ratios for return on investment could be a result of smaller companies
(ROI) and return on equity (ROE) show entering niche, high‑demand segments of
upward trends, indicating better returns the market, resulting in high growth.
for shareholders. While the previous survey
highlighted consistent profitability ratios, Over the past number of years, M&A activity
the consistency was primarily driven by a has continued to be very active in terms
return to normal levels from the market of number of deals, as both strategic and
momentum witnessed after the 2008 financial buyers continue to invest. High
recession. Conversely, there is market, multiples and record uninvested capital
volatility, reflective of broader economic, from financial buyers have contributed to
political, and social trends. Events such record M&A activity. Based on the number
as Brexit, flattened yield curves, and the of transactions in 2017, M&A activity is back
increased use of technology to transform to peak levels it achieved in 2007. However,
traditional distribution channels create a expected interest rate hikes and economic
requirement for incumbent F&B companies uncertainty create an environment where
to actively assess the dynamics affecting investors could potentially become more
competition in the industry such as threat of cautious and strategic with invested capital.
new entrants, threat of substitution, buyer Given the pressures facing current F&B
power and supplier power. companies, such as intensifying use of
technology, the entry of major competition,
As a result of this uncertainty, companies such as Amazon, and rapidly changing
may become more cognizant about their consumer trends, investors will continue to
levels of debt, as access to credit tightens, seek high‑quality, value‑added businesses
as seen through recent and expected and brands.
interest rate hikes. In the periods studied,
debt levels have remained steady. While
capital becomes slightly more restricted,
companies will seek to streamline internal
processes to maximize cost efficiencies and
increase profitability. Increasing interest
rates on current debt reinforces the need

02
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Summary of results

The uncertainty in the market is being driven by increased

political, social, and economic turbulence. US president
Donald Trump's "America First" strategy is causing major
uncertainties on key trade agreements‑, such as NAFTA.
New social norms, centred on food quality and safety are
putting operators under the microscope, and increased
technological advancements are squeezing mid‑sized
operators as they inevitably need to adapt to keep pace
with large‑cap players.
Capital markets in the US and Canada
improved over the past three years, but
have recently seen a correction. Over
the same time period, the Canadian TSX
appreciated in value by 19%, while Canadian
F&B processors, aggregate value increased
by 55%. Similarly, US F&B processors’
aggregate value has increased by 64%
whereas the S&P500 has appreciated 46%.

03
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Industry analysis
Return on investment
Profitability
Return on investment (ROI) has remained
stable from 2014 to 2016 for US companies 25%
21% 21% 21%
while, Canadian companies showed an
20%
improvement of ~2% year‑over‑year. Though 15% 17%
15% 13%
US companies have historically achieved
larger ROIs, Canadian companies are slowly 10%
bridging the gap as they achieve scale and
5%
invest in research and development (R&D).
0%
This represents a slight increase in ROI for FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canadian companies, as our 2014 report Canada US
showed increases of only ~1% over the
2010 – 12 time period.

When profitability is measured using return Return on equity (before tax)

on equity (ROE)—which accounts for the
cost of servicing debt—the results show
30%
a fluctuation of ~2 – 4% for Canadian and 25%
US companies with 2016 being a year 25%
21% 21%
of improvement for both countries. 20%
15% 17%
13%
15%
As the US companies are able to benefit 10%
from economies of scale, they tend to 5%
have higher earnings before interest, tax, 0%
depreciation and amortization, which in FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
turn results in higher ROE and ROI ratios Canada US
compared to Canadian companies.

While the Canadian tax system is commonly

Tax rate
cited as a reason for lower overall Canadian
profitability, analysis shows the tax rate paid
by Canadian processors is actually lower 35%
than the US rate in the time period studied. 29%
30%
26% 24%
However, recent US tax reforms have leveled 25% 22%
20% 19%
the playing field between US and Canadian 20%
corporate tax environments. 15%
10%
5%
0%
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US

04
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Efficiency and effectiveness Gross margin & SG&A (Canada)

Based on the data gathered, it appears that
US companies are able to generate slightly
35%
larger gross margins compared to their 31% 31% 30%
Canadian counterparts. Furthermore, while 30%
Canadian margins have been stagnant, US 25%
food processors have shown consistent 20% 20% 19%
20%
improvement over the three‑year period.
15%

The stagnant gross margins 10%

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

for Canadian companies Gross margin SG&A as a

percent of sales
can be attributed to rising
competition, a rise in
price‑conscious Canadian Gross margin & SG&A (US)

consumers, and increased

40%
cost of raw materials 35% 32% 33% 34%

sourced for the US due 30%

to the weakening Canadian 25%

20% 21% 21%
20%
dollar over this time period. 15%
10%
With regards to sales, general and FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
administrative expense (SG&A) ratios, both Gross margin SG&A as a
percent of sales
US and Canadian companies are hovering
around the 20% mark. That being said, it
is important to note that due to Canadian
disclosure practices, SG&A is sometimes
EBITDA as a percent of sales
included in cost of goods sold (COGS),
artificially reducing gross margin and
SG&A as a percentage of sales. 20%
15% 16%
14%
15%
To account for the disparity between US and 13%
10% 11%
Canadian accounting practices, EBITDA as 10%
a proportion of sales, which uses income
remaining after COGS and SG&A have been 5%
accounted for. When comparing EBITDA as a
0%
percent of sales between the two countries, FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
the US companies have outperformed Canada US
Canadian companies consistently by 300
to 400 basis points from 2014 to 2016.

While it’s difficult to neatly attribute the

differences in margin to a handful of factors,
the differences might be due to elements
such as higher premiums being charged
for stronger brands, greater economies of
scale, and higher investments in information
technology, innovation, and consumer
insights.

05
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Over the time period studied, Canadian Asset turnover Net PP&E turnover
processors nearly matched their US
counterparts in asset utilization. That
2.0 10.0
being said, US processors’ asset turnover
7.8x
is negatively impacted by the high amount 8.0
1.3x 1.3x 1.2x 1.3x 1.3x 1.2x 6.9x 6.2x 5.8x
of intangible assets they tend to carry on 5.7x 5.6x
6.0
their balance sheets, due to their more 1.0
4.0
acquisitive nature.
2.0
This is evident when the tangible asset 0.0 0.0
turnover ratio is calculated. The tangible FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

asset turnover ratio measures the amount Canada US Canada US

of sales for every dollar of property, plant

and equipment (PP&E) and net working
capital. This ratio shows the US companies
Tangible asset turnover Days of receivables
outperforming the Canadian companies in
all three years.
3.0 40
31.3 30.4 31.5 30.1 31.3 31.8
When it comes to net 1.9x 1.9x 1.7x 30
2.0
PP&E turnover, Canadian 1.5x 1.6x 1.6x

Days
20
companies have largely 1.0
10
outperformed their 0.0 0
US peers, consistently FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US Canada US
achieving a higher turnover.
This indicates that
Canadian processors are
more effectively using their
investments in fixed assets
to generate revenue.
As noted in past Benchmarking studies, there
is little difference between US and Canadian
companies when days of receivables are
compared. Processors in both countries are
collecting their invoices in ~31 days.

06
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Overall, Canadian processors of F&B Days of inventory

products (excluding wine and spirits
processors, whose ratios would substantially
90
change the data since they routinely 80 76.5 74.3
70.2
holds 350-plus days of inventory) carry 70
55.1 57.0
an average of ~19 days of extra inventory 60 52.1
50

Days
compared to their US counterparts. Based 40
on the companies included in the study, 30
20
US companies appear to carry more fresh
10
products (e.g., perishable products such as 0
protein) whereas the Canadian companies FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

appear to carry more diversified and Canada US

confectionary products, which have a longer

shelf life.
Days of payables
Canadian companies are held on to more
payables than their US counterparts over
the three‑year period from 2014 to 2016. 50
Previous studies have shown a similar 40 34.6 32.3
advantage for Canadian companies in days 27.2 26.6
30 24.7
payable, with Canadian companies typically 23.5
Days

holding their payables for ~6 days longer 20

than their US counterparts. However, this 10
advantage may be misleading as Canadian
0
accounting practices tend to allow Canadian FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
companies to include accrued liabilities with Canada US
trade accounts payable, inflating this metric
relative to their US peers.

US companies appear to show an Cash conversion cycle

advantage in cash conversion, mainly
due to stronger inventory turnover. The
70 69.1
high cash conversion indicates that US 58.6 60.8
60 57.0
companies are more efficient at managing
their net working capital and can reinvest 50

the revenue faster than their Canadian 40

Days

counterparts. 30
20
10
0
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US

07
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Financial leverage Debt-to-total capitalization

Improved market conditions and significant
availability of capital in the time period
50%
studied have resulted in both Canadian and 44% 44% 42%
39% 39%
US processing companies having reasonably 40%
34%
high levels of debt relative to their total 30%
capitalization. It appears that US companies,
20%
are taking on more debt, whereas Canadian
companies are remaining around the 10%
~42 – 44% levels. However, given recent and 0%
pending interest rate hikes, companies may FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

be more proactive in managing their current Canada US

levels of debt.

Even with lower levels of debt as a percent

Interest as a percent of sales
of total capitalization, US companies spent
more on interest as a percent of sales
compared to their Canadian counterparts 2% 1.8%
1.6%
between the period of 2014 to 2016. 1.5%
1.3%
1.1%
US companies show increasing 1%
0.8%
debt‑to‑EBITDA ratios through the
2014 to 2016 period. Though historically,
Canadian debt‑to‑EBITDA levels have been
0%
greater than the US, 2016 showed US FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
debt‑to‑EBITDA levels inching higher those Canada US
of their Canadian counterparts. Canadian
processors saw a significant improvement
in 2016 with their ratio dropping from
3.0x to 2.1x in the span of a year. Debt-to-EBITDA

4.0
3.0x
3.0 2.8x
2.3x 2.4x
2.0x 2.1x
2.0

1.0

0.0
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US

08
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Industry analysis

Canadian companies displayed an Current ratio

improving current ratio through the
years observed, even surpassing their
3.0
US counterparts in 2016. This suggests 2.5x
2.4x 2.4x
that Canadian processors are in a state 2.2x 2.2x 2.1x
of improving financial health and are 2.0
adequately positioned to cover
short‑term liquidity requirements. 1.0

US companies show 0.0

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016

a lower percentage of Canada US

PP&E as a their total

capitalization; this is largely PP&E-to-total capitalization
because US companies
have significant amounts 50%
41% 39%
of intangible assets on 40% 38% 36% 36%
33%

their balance sheets. 30%

As a result, they tend to 20%

10%
have higher values of debt 0%
and equity to fund those FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US
assets, thus increasing
their total capitalization.
Other liabilities/total assets
Similarly, these same US companies
tend to carry higher amounts of “other
liabilities,” which could include employee 15%
12.7%
benefits and pensions. These liabilities
10.0% 10.4%
could be considered as a means to fund 10%
the additional assets carried by US firms.
4.3% 4.3% 4.6%
5%

0%
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Canada US

09
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Subsector performance

Subsector performance
Baked goods/snack foods processors industry as a whole, with the
This year's study included 16 US‑based subsector showing a preferable SG&A as a
baked goods or snack foods processors. percentage of sales figure and an EBITDA as
No Canadian baked goods or snack a percentage of sales figure at par with the
foods processors were included given the average of all US processors.
lack of public Canadian players and survey
respondents in the sector. Therefore, the That being said, this subsector’s cash
analysis below only assesses US baked conversion cycle has deteriorated over
goods and snack foods companies against the years observed, and is almost
all other US processors. 14 days higher than the average
of all US processors in 2016.
The data below suggests that on average,
this subsector scores below the average Finally, this subsector shows a stronger
of other processors in terms of profitability current ratio relative to the average of
with slightly lower gross margins, ROI all US processors throughout the three
and ROE. years observed. This suggests that the US
baked goods and snack foods companies
From an efficiency point of view, the are well‑positioned to satisfy short‑term
performance of US baked goods and snack liquidity or cash requirements.
foods companies is in line with the US food

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

US US US US
Return on equity, before tax 17% 12% 19% 25%
Return on investment 18% 20% 18% 21%
Tax rate in % 32% 34% 20% 24%
Gross margin 30% 30% 31% 34%
Asset turnover 1.4x 1.3x 1.2x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 16% 17% 17% 21%
Days of inventory 51.0 61.4 65.9 57.0
Days of receivables 22.1 25.0 28.9 31.8
Days of payables 15.9 19.9 20.5 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 57.2 66.6 74.3 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 5.4x 5.4x 5.6x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 14% 13% 15% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 32% 36% 34% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 2% 3% 3% 2%
Current ratio 2.6x 2.5x 2.3x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 38% 37% 31% 33%

10
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Subsector performance

Beverage Gross margins for the beverage group in

This year's study included 20 US and 10 Canada were 40% in 2016 compared to 30%
Canadian beverage processors. for all Canadian processors. Similarly, US
beverage processors also demonstrated a
In 2016, the average revenue for US based higher‑than‑average gross margin in 2016 of
beverage processors was US $7.1 billion, 42% versus 34% for all US processors.
compared to $495 million for Canadian
processors. However, these margin advantages are
offset to some degree by higher than
From 2014 to 2016, Canadian beverage average SG&A expenses for the beverage
companies were slightly less profitable than group in both countries. This could be
the Canadian group as a whole, on both a result of higher spending on marketing
ROE and ROI measures. Canadian beverage and promotional activities, which is a key
processors also lagged behind their US driver of sales in the beverage sector,
counterparts on these same profitability particularly alcohol.
measures. The US beverage companies were
less profitable than the US group as a whole, The large inventories carried by the
on both ROE and ROI measures. beverage companies can be attributed
to the wine and spirits processors, which
The beverage group leads all subsectors in skew the results for the beverage group
the gross margin category, in both Canada as a whole. North American beverage
and the US. companies primarily engaged in wine
production or spirit distilling typically
have inventory days as high as 360 days.

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 15% 16% 12% 22% 15% 27% 17% 25%
Return on investment 14% 21% 16% 21% 17% 19% 17% 21%
Tax rate in % 18% 23% 26% 19% 20% 27% 19% 24%
Gross margin 42% 39% 41% 40% 40% 42% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 0.9x 1.4x 1.0x 1.4x 1.0x 1.2x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 25% 28% 25% 29% 23% 29% 19% 21%
Days of inventory 236.1 109.4 219.9 112.2 191.0 121.9 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 37.2 39.2 36.3 37.2 36.6 39.2 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 30.3 28.0 38.7 26.6 37.2 29.8 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 81.5 51.5 64.7 50.2 63.2 56.8 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 8.0x 6.1x 10.9x 6.1x 6.2x 6.5x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 17% 15% 17% 16% 18% 17% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 41% 35% 38% 39% 36% 40% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Current ratio 2.3x 1.9x 2.8x 2.7x 3.0x 2.0x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 34% 41% 37% 41% 37% 37% 39% 33%

11
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Subsector performance

Protein processing While US and Canadian protein processors

This year's study included six typically have lower gross margins than the
US and four Canadian protein processors. rest of the processor group, they also enjoy
lower SG&A expenses.

In 2016, the average US protein processors have higher asset

revenue for Canadian turnover than their Canadian counterparts
and also have higher asset turnover than
protein processors the industry average. Canadian protein
was $1.3 billion. The processors have exhibited asset turnovers in
line with the other non‑protein processors.
average revenue for US
protein processors was The capital structure of Canadian and
U.S. protein processors is markedly
US$9.2 billion. different. Whereas US protein processors
have less debt than the US group as a whole,
While US meat processors were more
Canadian meat processors carry more debt
profitable than US processors overall, their
than Canadian processors overall.
Canadian counterparts fared poorly in 2016,
with a ROI of 11% compared to 17% for
Canadian processors as a whole.

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 23% 30% 22% 24% 17% 30% 17% 25%
Return on investment 14% 33% 8% 31% 11% 35% 17% 21%
Tax rate in % 34% 36% 13% 34% 17% 32% 19% 24%
Gross margin 12% 17% 13% 18% 15% 20% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 1.4x 2.0x 1.4x 1.8x 1.4x 1.8x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 8% 7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 19% 21%
Days of inventory 51.7 34.1 55.6 33.9 53.8 35.5 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 18.4 21.2 16.0 20.7 16.5 18.4 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 20.5 13.9 23.6 14.6 24.9 14.6 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 49.6 41.4 48.0 40.0 45.4 39.3 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 5.2x 6.7x 4.2x 6.7x 5.9x 6.2x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 4% 12% 5% 14% 9% 16% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 38% 10% 52% 22% 49% 22% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%
Current ratio 2.1x 3.2x 2.0x 3.6x 1.9x 3.3x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 32% 41% 40% 40% 25% 44% 39% 33%

12
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Subsector performance

Processed branded foods processors, but their Canadian counterparts

This year's study included 13 US and six showed significantly lower margins in 2016
Canadian branded food processors. (22% compared to 30% for all Canadian
processors). This difference is most likely
In 2016, the average revenue for Canadian a result of lower economies of scale for
companies in this subsector was $578 Canadian counterparts since they are
million while average revenue for US smaller than US peers.
companies was US$8.9 billion.
Secondly, with regards to efficiency,
In 2016, the profitability of Canadian Canadian processors in this subsector
processed branded food processors was had a significantly longer—almost 22 days
comparable to that of the Canadian group as longer—cash conversion cycle than the
a whole (19% versus 17% for both ROE and Canadian processors as a whole, whereas
ROI). Their US counterparts also showed their US counterparts were operating at
strong profitability throughout the years the same level as the other US processors
since ROI and ROE consistent with all of Again, this is probably attributable to the
US processors. The processed branded larger size of American counterparts in the
food subsector shows some differences processed and branded foods sector. Their
between US and Canadian companies. larger size and scale allow them to leverage
First, on a margin basis, US processors in the benefits of economies of scale.
this subsector were at par with the other

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 13% 30% 13% 27% 19% 28% 17% 25%
Return on investment 13% 19% 16% 19% 19% 20% 17% 21%
Tax rate in % 12% 30% 19% 26% 23% 22% 19% 24%
Gross margin 27% 32% 26% 32% 22% 33% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 1.8x 0.9x 1.6x 0.8x 1.7x 0.8x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 20% 19% 20% 18% 18% 19% 19% 21%
Days of inventory 84.3 70.0 92.7 70.3 96.2 64.3 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 30.9 31.2 36.1 29.6 32.8 30.1 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 26.9 30.4 35.1 32.4 28.5 34.4 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 82.5 70.8 87.6 67.6 95.1 60.0 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 6.4x 4.9x 5.1x 4.9x 6.5x 4.9x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 3% 16% 5% 16% 6% 17% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 55% 46% 49% 49% 50% 51% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Current ratio 2.1x 1.5x 1.8x 1.5x 2.0x 1.4x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 51% 26% 49% 26% 43% 25% 39% 33%

13
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Top quartile performance

Top quartile performance

Profitability The most significant advantage that
Companies that formed the top quartile companies in the top quartile for profitability
for profitability were ranked by their appear to enjoy is high gross margins
performance on before‑tax earnings over compared to the rest of the processors
sales. In 2016, the average revenue for in this study. In 2016, Canadian companies
Canadian companies in this group was in this group had an 11% gross margin
$649 million, compared to US$6.9 billion advantage over the rest of their peers
for US companies. In the same period, (41% versus 30%). US companies in this
the average revenue for all Canadian and group had a similar 13% advantage relative
US processors included in the study was to their peers (47% versus 34%). This
$675 million and US$6.1 billion, respectively. translates into higher EBITDA margins,
which is driving the higher profitability.
As both Canadian and US companies in the
top quartile for profitability had higher than While the top quartile companies for
or similar to average revenues, this suggests profitability have a gross margin advantage,
that more profitable companies tend to asset efficiency seems to lag the rest of
be larger on both sides of the border. the industry. For Canadian companies in
this group, asset turnover in 2016 was 0.9
versus 1.3 for all processors. In the US, asset
turnover was 0.8 compared to 1.2 for
all processors.

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 16% 36% 19% 27% 22% 35% 17% 25%
Return on investment 13% 27% 24% 29% 21% 26% 17% 21%
Gross margin 49% 47% 48% 47% 41% 47% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 0.6x 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x 0.9x 0.8x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 33% 24% 27% 25% 23% 23% 19% 21%
Days of inventory NM 48.8 86.4 42.0 55.1 55.1 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 38.5 31.5 27.8 34.0 35.9 36.9 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 38.0 20.7 29.9 22.4 29.7 28.0 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle NM 55.0 67.7 49.4 67.7 59.8 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 12.2x 5.9x 12.8x 6.1x 6.0x 5.2x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 24% 26% 22% 26% 24% 27% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 38% 39% 29% 41% 19% 44% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3% 1% 2%
Current ratio 2.8x 2.0x 3.5x 2.6x 4.6x 1.9x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 20% 27% 39% 31% 40% 26% 37% 33%

14
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Top quartile performance

Revenue growth for all processors combined. The opposite

Companies that formed the top quartile is true for their US counterparts where the
for revenue growth were ranked on their fastest‑growing companies are generating
compound annual revenue growth rate from far lower ROEs compared to their peers
2014 to 2016. In 2016, the average revenue (18% versus 25%).
for Canadian companies in this group was
$423 million and for US companies, it was Conversely, both the US and Canadian
US$2.7 billion. fastest‑growing companies are performing
at par with their peers when it comes to
Note that the fastest‑growing companies generating gross margins.
in both Canada and the US were smaller
than the average Canadian and US Both the Canadian and US companies in this
processor studied ($675 million and group have significantly higher debt-to-total
US$6.1 billion, respectively). This could capitalization ratios. This is due to the
be a result of smaller companies entering fact that to achieve high levels of revenue
niche but high demand markets resulting, growth, both of these companies have to
in high growth. either make acquisitions or invest in R&D to
spur growth, which can result in increased
From a profitability perspective, Canada’s levels of debt.
fastest growing companies outperformed
their Canadian peers, achieving an ROE
of 31% in 2016 compared to 17% achieved

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 17% 9% 24% 7% 31% 18% 17% 25%
Return on investment 13% 12% 19% 18% 18% 16% 17% 21%
Gross margin 32% 32% 33% 33% 32% 35% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 1.3x 0.9x 1.3x 0.9x 1.4x 0.7x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 11% 18% 15% 18% 13% 19% 19% 21%
Days of inventory 84.6 52.0 76.2 58.5 73.7 53.8 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 24.6 34.7 29.1 33.4 28.0 35.5 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 26.4 24.8 34.9 23.5 26.3 26.0 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 81.8 58.4 70.4 65.9 73.4 61.2 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 3.4x 4.7x 3.7x 5.0x 4.2x 4.9x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 7% 15% 10% 17% 11% 19% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 69% 43% 64% 49% 63% 52% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 1% 3% 0% 3% 0% 4% 1% 2%
Current ratio 1.9x 2.3x 2.1x 2.7x 4.6x 2.2x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 53% 23% 54% 23% 62% 18% 37% 33%

15
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Top quartile performance

Size by an advantage in SG&A costs amongst

The largest companies (based on sales in large producers (14% versus 19%) and
2016) were analyzed. Canadian processors can be explained by structural differences
in this group had average sales of between sub‑sectors.
$2 billion, while US processors averaged
US$18.6 billion in sakes. When looking at the current ratio, the largest
processors in both Canada and the US
The profitability of the largest processors trail their respective industries, indicating
varied across countries. In Canada, large deficiencies in their operating cycle. A lower
processors performed poorly compared current ratio suggests weaker financial
with the country average ROE and ROI. health and can result in liquidity issues
if unexpected cash needs arise.
By contrast, in the US, large companies were
far more profitable than the others. Large Lastly, it appears that the largest
US companies had an ROE of 40% in 2016, US processors are far more leveraged
compared to the country set average of 25%. than their Canadian counterparts
and their peers in the US.
While Canada’s largest processors trailed
the Canadian set on a gross margin basis
(22% versus 30%), this is mostly offset

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2016 (All processors)

Cda US Cda US Cda US Cda US

Return on equity, before tax 14% 14% 10% 42% 8% 40% 17% 25%
Return on investment 12% 12% 10% 25% 13% 24% 17% 21%
Gross margin 22% 22% 21% 36% 22% 35% 30% 34%
Asset turnover 1.0x 1.0x 1.1x 1.2x 1.1x 1.1x 1.3x 1.2x
SG&A as a percent of sales 17% 17% 15% 21% 14% 20% 19% 21%
Days of inventory 45.6 45.6 60.5 49.2 62.2 50.5 74.3 57.0
Days of receivables 35.3 35.3 35.2 28.1 34.0 27.9 31.3 31.8
Days of payables 34.8 34.8 53.1 28.6 28.6 31.7 32.3 26.6
Cash conversion cycle 46.1 46.1 63.4 47.2 97.1 45.2 70.7 60.8
Net PP&E turnover 4.6x 4.6x 5.4x 4.8x 6.2x 4.7x 6.2x 5.8x
EBITDA as a percent of sales 11% 11% 10% 18% 8% 18% 13% 16%
Debt-to-total capitalization 45% 45% 40% 56% 40% 56% 42% 39%
Interest as a percent of sales 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Current ratio 1.9x 1.9x 1.7x 1.3x 1.7x 1.2x 2.5x 2.1x
PP&E-to-total capitalization 27% 27% 27% 36% 26% 36% 37% 33%

16
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Capital and input markets

Capital and input markets

Capital and input markets

The capital markets in the US and

Canada have improved over the past Commodity Low High Change
four years. Over the same time period, the
Corn(Maize) $ 147 $ 222 -25%
Canadian TSX appreciated in value by 19%
and the aggregate value of Canadian F&B Barley $ 90 $ 182 ‑28%
processors increased by 55%. Similarly, Sugar $ 227 $ 445 ‑6%
US F&B processors’ aggregate value has Wheat $ 142 $ 335 ‑33%
increased by 64% whereas the S&P500
Rice $ 357 $ 459 ‑10%
has appreciated 46%.
Sorghum $ 144 $ 234 ‑17%
Current trends in commodity prices are DAP Fertilizer $ 315 $ 505 ‑12%
positively affecting the industry. Key
Oil $ 30 $ 108 ‑40%
ingredients for F&B processors, such
as oil, wheat, and barley, have decreased
in price by 40%, 33%, and 28%, respectively All in US$ per metric ton, except oil which
between January 2014 and December 2017. is US$ per barrel. Change reflects
percentage change from January 2014
Despite these downward trends, commodity to December 2017.
prices remain volatile. For example, while
the price of sugar over the period studied
changed by only 6%, the difference between Period Returns: F&B processors versus equity indices
its high and low price was $218. This
volatility is consistent with previous studies.
150%

100%

50%
Jan/14 Jan/15 Jan/16 Jan/17

Dow Jones S&P 500 TSX Canada U.S

17
Benchmarking for success 2018 | F&B environment

Food retail environment

Canada
The food retail industry comprises food sold
at F&B retailers such as supermarkets and
grocery stores, convenience stores, mass
merchandisers, and specialty stores.
In Canada, retail sales of stores offering food
and beverage totalled over $110 billion in
2016, with market value forecasted to exceed
$117 billion by 2019.

Grocery stores make up the

majority of the over 40,000
F&B stores in Canada.
Supermarket chains Costco,
Loblaws, and Walmart are In 2016, Loblaw’s discount banners costs in Canada has contributed to this
among the leading food (Maxi, No Frills, Extra Foods, and Lucky increased demand for value products.
Dollar Foods) saw the biggest increase in
retailers. sales owing to the increase of discounter Although not a pure discounter, Walmart
consumerism in Canada. The discounter also continued to leverage its position
Leading Canadian F&B companies include trend bolstered consumer demand to buy as a competitively priced retailer to lead
food processors such as Saputo, Maple Leaf at discounted prices. The recent rise in food grocery retailers in value terms in 2016,
Foods, and Weston Foods. Maple Leaf Foods, as it did in 2015.
a packaged meats company, generated over
$3 billion in revenue in 2016 and held a 99%
Food Retail in Canada, 2014 – 2019
share of the lunch kits category that year.

With the recent rise in food costs

in Canada, price remained a key factor 140
for consumers selecting F&B products.
Market value in C$B

120
In a recent survey1, consumers in Canada
also indicated that it’s vital for them to know 100
where their food comes from, with many
preferring to buy locally grown products. 80
Only 22% of the respondents said they
support the development and sale of 60
genetically modified foods in Canada as FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019
of March 2016.

1
“Report on Consumer Views of Genetically Modified Foods”; The Strategic Counsel; June 24, 2016

18
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | F&B environment

Food Retail in US, 2014 – 2019

2.0
Market value in C$ Trillion

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

United States The industry is being affected by

The US food retail industry was valued at demographic changes, most notably:
$1.1 trillion in 2014, with the market value
• The increasing number of smaller
forecasted to reach $1.5 trillion by 2019. The
households, creating demand for
beverage industry was valued at $384 billion
convenient, easy‑to‑prepare
in 2014 and forecasted to reach $491 billion
packaged food.
by 2019.
• The rise of health‑conscious millennial
consumers, driving up demand for fresh,
Supermarkets and healthy, and organic products.
hypermarkets make up • The growing Hispanic population, with
the majority of the players specific tastes and preferences.

in the F&B retail industry The industry has also seen the adoption
in the US. Retail players of inorganic growth strategies by means
of mergers and acquisitions. Companies
such as Kroger, Walmart, are striving to increase their market share,
and Costco represent cut costs, diversify, and strengthen their
product lines through M&A activities.
the leading companies in
the sector.
The US F&B industry is highly competitive,
and although prospects for further growth
are modest by global standards, it remains
strong when compared with the other
developed markets.

19
Benchmarking for success 2018 | The economy

The economy
Canada reported a strong H1 2017 with an Primary farm output accounts for Donald Trump's victory in the 2016
annualized growth of 4%, the fastest among 1.5% of GDP, but the agri-food sector, US presidential election has injected
the G7 economies. More recently, the pace including downstream sectors such uncertainty into the US economy.
of economic expansion has cooled, with as food processing, represents President Trump has pledged more
real GDP slowing to 1.7% annualized growth closer to 10% of GDP. protectionist trade policies and sweeping
in Q3 2017. Gains in consumer spending, tax reforms, the implementation and effects
business and government investment and of which remain uncertain.
inventories were partially offset by drags
Canadians are among the
from residential investment and net trade. world’s heaviest internet Physical and online retailers are diversifying
and offering a wider variety of delivery
Canadian consumers have accounted for
users, and online sales options in a bid to deepen customer loyalty
about three quarters of GDP growth since are growing rapidly. About and cater to an ever‑widening array of niche
2015. However, recent income growth trends markets. This trend is spurring competition
haven't kept pace with the very strong desire
1 in 10 Canadians makes and blurring the line between food retailers
among consumers to spend, leading to a an online purchase every and others. On another front, signs are
drawdown in household savings that has emerging of a shift in consumer demand
caused the household savings rate to trend
week. from material goods to services such as
down for several quarters, reaching 2.6% restaurant meals and streaming services.
As part of current talks to renegotiate
in Q3 2017.
NAFTA, the US has proposed that Canada
All major retailers are placing more
push up the value of online purchases in the
The ratio of household debt to disposable emphasis on online services as competition
US from the current US$20 to US$800 so
income was 167% in the first quarter of mounts from e‑commerce. Walmart said in
they can be imported duty‑free. Numerous
2017. House prices continue to rise on an October 2017 that it expected its US online
Canadian sectors have objected strongly,
annual basis, notably in major cities such as sales to climb by 40% in its fiscal year to
fearing fiercer competition from online
Toronto and Vancouver. The Bank of Canada January 2019. It plans to add 1,000 online
giants south of the border.
raised interest rates in January 2018 for the grocery pick‑up locations during that period.
third time in the current hiking cycle pushing Credit Suisse predicted in June 2017 that
up borrowing costs. 20 – 25% of the US's 1,100 shopping malls
would close within the next five years, owing
The Canadian food and beverage retail to the growing popularity of online shopping
market is concentrated, with the top five and of discount chains, which tend to stand
chain stores currently accounting for more alone. The US Census Bureau reported that
than 40% of all sales, compared with less online sales accounted for 8.9% of total retail
than one‑third in the US Health concerns sales on a seasonally adjusted basis in Q2
continue to influence food shopping, and 2017, more than double their share in 2010.
the trend towards organic, hormone‑free,
gluten‑free, and other specialized foods will
continue. Further impetus in this direction
will come from current moves by the federal
government to tighten food‑labelling
regulations.

20
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Trends and a look ahead

Trends and a look ahead

Highlighted below are some of the most Deloitte’s food value equation survey
notable trends that we're seeing in the food showed that approximately half of
and beverage industry, with a focus consumers surveyed say that they weigh
on some interesting examples of M&A evolving drivers such as health and wellness,
activity that these trends are driving. safety, social impact, and experience more
heavily in purchasing decisions than they
Evolving consumer value drivers do traditional value drivers such as taste
Historically, traditional value drivers such and price. This was evident in 2017, as we
as price, taste, and convenience largely saw continued and increasing consumer
determined consumer purchasing decisions. demand for sustainable, plant‑based protein
Today, however, an increasing number food products. Naturally, traditional players
of consumers are making purchasing in the protein market have begun to respond
decisions based on the “full plate” to this trend in part by acquiring high‑
(Figure 1) by combining traditional growth, early‑stage companies specializing
and evolving value drivers—a shift that in plant‑based products. Acquisitions of
is fundamentally altering the value equation plant‑based companies increased from just
for retailers and manufacturers. four in 2016 to seventeen in 2017. Notable
transactions in 2017 included:

• Maple Leaf Foods' acquisitions of

Figure 1: The consumer Lightlife Foods, a U.S.-based producer
value driver plate of refrigerated, plant‑based protein, and
Field Roast Grain Meat Co., a leading
brand of premium grain‑based and vegan
Transparency cheese products. The acquisitions are
part of Maple Leaf Foods' shift toward
achieving its vision of becoming a leader in
Price Health & sustainable protein.
Wellness
• Nestlé USA acquired Sweet Earth,
Safety a plant‑based foods manufacturer
Taste based in California, as it works to build
Social
out its portfolio of vegetarian and
Impact
flexitarian choices.
Convenience Experience

In addition, ethnic influences continued to

find their way into the mainstream, enabling
innovative twists to traditional food product
as consumers looked to further enhance
Traditional Value Drivers their eating experience. A recent transaction
Evolving Value Drivers was Parmalat acquisition of Karoun Dairies,
a producer of ethnic cheeses and dairy
products.
Source: Deloitte food value equation
survey 2015, Deloitte analysis

21
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Trends and a look ahead

Shifting retail landscape The coming of the e‑commerce age

and e-commerce in the food and beverage industry
The grocery retail sector in 2017 saw food means consumers will now have more
retailers using innovative approaches to choices than ever before. What required
shift from conventional methods of selling a trip to a specialized health food store
to offering online and home delivery options. 5 to 10 years ago will now be available with
a click of a button. This will only amplify the
• Loblaws and Costco partnered with
importance of the consumer’s value drivers
Instacart, a California‑based company that
and accelerate the rate at which the market
enables customers to shop from local
responds to them.
stores’ inventory and use an app to place
their order which is then delivered
to the customer’s door.

• Amazon acquisition of Whole Foods Outlook for 2018

sent shockwaves throughout the North 2017 was a noteworthy year for
American grocery sector. The deal is the industry as a whole. We expect
viewed as perhaps the most significant further growth in food and beverage
step to date in the transformation of M&A activity in 2018 driven by
the grocery retail sector as the largest increasing scale and efficiency,
e‑commerce company in the world enters further innovation and e‑commerce
the space. integration, continued digitization,
and analytics implementation, and
• Walmart announced a partnership with
ongoing globalization.
Buzzfeed’s social food network Tasty,
prompting users to purchase Walmart.com
and Jet.com products directly from recipes
in Tasty’s app. They also plan to integrate
Walmart's online grocery services
directly into the app.

The North American online grocery market

is expected to grow at a considerable
rate over the next several years as more
consumers adopt buying groceries online.

22
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Participant perspectives

Participant perspectives
A number of Canada’s leading privately What % change are you expecting What do you consider the biggest
owned F&B companies were surveyed in total sales in 2018 versus 2017? threat to your business is at present?
as part of our assessment and asked to
provide a perspective on what is currently
‘top of mind’. Although the responses varied,
Projected sales Percent of Business threat Percent of
there was a neutral outlook from both
responses responses
the economy and in the general business
environment. This was evident as 43% of (-5%) – 0% 0% Commodity prices 38%
the Canadian private companies surveyed
0% 0% Labour Issues 25%
are expecting marginal growth of only
0 – 5%, with another 43% expecting growth 0 – 5% 43% Competition – CAD 0%
of 5 – 10%.
5 – 10% 43% Competition ‑ US 25%

Over half of the respondents reported that Other 14% Potential NAFTA affects 12%
improved gross margins over the last
12 months were primarily because of price
efficiencies. In terms of future business
opportunities and profitability, companies What do you believe to be the cause of What do you consider to be the
cited customer growth, product expansion, the improved gross margins realized in biggest opportunity to your
geographic expansion, and new customers the industry over the past 12 months? business at present?
as key areas of growth. Participants were
also asked what they considered the
single biggest threat to their business and Business Percent of Business opportunity Percent of
growth. Respondents cited fluctuations Improvement responses responses
in commodity prices, labour issues (such
as the recent minimum wage hike in Raw materials 10% Customer Growth 14%
Ontario), competition, and potential NAFTA Price increases 30% Product Expansion 29%
effects as threats that could potentially
jeopardize growth. Price efficiencies 60% Consolidation 14%
Geographic Expansion 29%
NAFTA remains top of mind as the
New Customers 14%
agreement's future remains uncertain.
If NAFTA is terminated, what area of
Among the participants surveyed,
your business would be most impacted?
respondents claimed that increases
in raw materials and inventory procurement
costs and a potential decrease in
revenues could surface if the agreement Business impact Percent of
is terminated. responses

Similar to our previous benchmarking Raw materials 40%

studies participants cited technological Revenues 60%
innovation as a top priority in 2018, as
Skilled Labour 0%
operators look to survive in an increasingly
evolving market. Expect industry players Decrease in
0%
to place an emphasis on further innovation Investments
and e‑commerce integration, continued
digitization, and analytics implementation.

23
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Merger & acquisition activity

Merger & acquisition activity

North American M&A activity in the F&B In line with the trend of recent years, Legacy brands are struggling:
sector has remained strong. Start‑ups saw 12% of all M&A transactions from 2014 Campbell’s has seen negative growth
significant profit increases in 2017, and new to 2017 targeted Canadian companies. for 11 consecutive quarters. General Mills
companies are seeing explosive growth Additionally, the vast majority of North and Nestlé have experienced considerable
across the industry. American F&B M&A activity continues to reduction in profits. Kraft–Heinz has been
involve privately held companies; almost profitable; however, the gains largely
Not surprisingly, the majority of M&A activity 9 out of 10 target companies were private. resulted from cost-cutting efforts.
occurred in the US during 2014–2017,
with the total number of transactions Recent transactions in the space indicate PepsiCo has proven to be one of the active
rising considerably in 2015. Similar to consumers have redefined the food supply legacy brands that has driven revenue
previous years, 10 – 15% of all M&A chain through their willingness to pay more growth with its healthier product lines.
transactions targeted Canadian for healthier products. Other legacy brands will likely need to follow
companies over this period. similar suit if they’re to remain competitive.
Key trends likely to drive F&B M&A
The beverage sector has experienced record activity
M&A levels, whereas retail grocery saw
a decline in number of transactions, Start-ups gain market share:
with 27 deals in 2017 as compared Large F&B companies are attempting
to 39 deals in 2014. to adjust their business models from
a high-volume, low-profit margin model
Additional M&A activity is expected focused on affordability, convenience,
in 2018 and beyond as consolidation and taste to fit the new consumer profile.
continues to be perceived as a viable Start‑ups focused on producing healthy,
route to short‑term growth. Private equity fresh, local, and organic ingredients are likely
investors are looking for opportunities to continue their exponential growth and
among legacy food companies similar challenge legacy brands for market share.
to the synergies developed from the
2015 Kraft-Heinz merger. However, market
uncertainty and recent interest rate hikes
Number of Transactions By Sub-Sector, 2014 – 2017
may decrease M&A volume.

Furthermore, investors are investing in 300

disruptive start‑up F&B companies with
innovative and healthier product choices 250

that appeal to modern consumers. In 2017,

# of transactions

200
there were approximately 270 transactions
in the F&B space as compared to 271 150
transactions in 2016 highlighting the stable
100
nature of M&A activity in North America.
50

0
2014 2015 2016 2017
Baked Goods / Snack Foods Beverage Food Distribution
Processed Branded Foods Protein Processing Retail Grocery

24
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Merger & acquisition activity

Proportion of M&A Transactions By Target Country, 2014 – 2017

100% 276
274

Number of total transactions

80% 272
% of transactions

270
60% 85% 268
89% 90% 86%
266
40% 264
262
20% 260

15% 258
11% 10% 14%
0% 256
2014 2015 2016 2017
Canada US Total

Select F&B M&A activity 2014 – 2017: Canadian targets

Buyer Target/issuer Year Deal value

(C$ millions)

Marine Harvest ASA (OB:MHG) Northern Harvest Sea Farms Inc. 2017 315
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Daiya Foods Inc. 2017 405
Lantic Inc. L.B. Maple Treat Corporation 2017 160
Metro Canada Holdings Inc Alimentation Couche‑Tard Inc. (TSX:ATD.B) 2017 2,016
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board Arterra Wines Canada, Inc. 2016 1,030
Mark Anthony Group, Inc., Ready‑to‑Drink, Cider and Craft Beer
Labatt Brewing Company Limited 2015 464
Brands in Canada
Twin Rivers Technologies – Entreprises de transformation de graines
Viterra Inc. 2015 190
oléagineuses du Québec inc.
Agropur Dairy Cooperative Sobeys Inc., Four Plants in Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Burnaby 2014 356
Davide Campari‑Milano S.p.A. (BIT:CPR) Forty Creek Distillery LTD 2014 198
ARYZTA AG (SWX:ARYN) Pineridge Bakery, Inc. 2014 378
Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (BMV:BIMBO A) Canada Bread Company Ltd. 2014 1,837

Note: Transactions listed include those with deal values of $150 million or greater only.

25
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Merger & acquisition activity

Select F&B M&A activity 2014 – 2017: U.S. targets

Buyer Target/issuer Year Deal value

(C$ millions)

The Hershey Company (NYSE:HSY) Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. (NYSE:BETR) 2017 1,975
Campbell Soup Company (NYSE:CPB) Snyder's-Lance, Inc. (NasdaqGS:LNCE) 2017 7,893
Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE:HRL) Columbus Manufacturing, Inc. 2017 1,096
Post Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:POST) Bob Evans Farms, Inc. 2017 2,157
Refresco Group N.V. (ENXTAM:RFRG); Traditional Carbonated Soft Drinks & Juice business
2017 1,564
Refresco US Holding Inc. in US, Canada, Mexico and UK
Groupe Lactalis S.A. Stonyfield Farm, Inc. 2017 1,137
Diageo North America Inc. Casamigos Spirits Co. 2017 1,331
Amazon.com, Inc. (NasdaqGS:AMZN) Whole Foods Market, Inc. 2017 19,336
Mott's, LLP BAI Brands LLC 2016 2,284
Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company
Bellisio Foods, Inc. 2016 1,444
Limited (SET:CPF)
Onex Corporation (TSX:ONEX) Moran Foods, LLC 2016 1,795
Danone (ENXTPA:BN) The WhiteWave Foods Company 2016 16,229
Apollo Global Management, LLC (NYSE:APO) The Fresh Market, Inc. 2016 1,848
Monster Beverage Corporation
American Fruits and Flavors, LLC 2016 950
(NasdaqGS:MNST)
Acorn Holdings B.V. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. 2015 19,427
Pinnacle Foods Inc. (NYSE:PF) Boulder Brands, Inc. 2015 1,341
Constellation Brands, Inc. (NYSE:STZ) Home Brew Mart, Inc. 2015 1,365
Molson Coors Brewing Company (NYSE:TAP) MillerCoors LLC 2015 15,955
The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR) Roundy's, Inc. 2015 1,109
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. (NasdaqGS:LNCE) Diamond Foods, LLC 2015 2,560
JBS USA Lux S.A. Cargill Pork, LLC 2015 1,820
Hormel Foods Corporation (NYSE:HRL) Applegate Farms LLC 2015 963
The Kraft Heinz Company (NasdaqGS:KHC) Kraft Foods Group, Inc. 2015 68,946
Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC The Pantry, Inc. 2014 2,098
Cott Corporation (TSX:BCB) DSS Group, Inc. 2014 1,425
Arthur T. Demoulas Market Basket, Inc. 2014 1,719
Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) The Hillshire Brands Company 2014 9,779
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE:ETP) Susser Holdings Corporation 2014 2,796
Post Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:POST) MFI Holding Corporation 2014 2,747
Suntory Holdings Limited Beam Suntory Inc. 2014 17,418

Note: Transactions listed include those with deal values of $950 million or greater only.

26
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Valuation snapshot

Valuation snapshot
Baked goods and snack foods
Baked goods and snack foods companies are trading above the long‑term average of 11.8x EBITDA.
(All values in trading currency $ millions)

14.0x
Company Currency Enterprise Value EV/EBITDA 12.0x
(EV) ($) 10.0x

George Weston Limited CAD 32,359 7.4x 8.0x

6.0x
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. USD 5,987 21.3x
4.0x
Flower Foods, Inc. USD 4,897 11.9x 2.0x
J&J Snack Foods Corp. USD 2,685 16.8x 0.0x
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
John B Sanfilippo & Son Inc. USD 779 10.8x
Quarterly Enterprise Value to EBITDA
Adjusted average 13.2x 5 Year Average Enterprise Value to EBITDA
Adjusted median 11.9x

Source: Capital IQ Note: EBITDA multiples taken as of January 1, 2018

Beverage
Beverage companies are trading above the long‑term average of 16.3x EBITDA.
(All values in trading currency $ millions)

25.0x
Company Currency Enterprise Value EV/EBITDA
(EV) ($) 20.0x

15.0x
The Coca‑Cola Company USD 217,322 19.9x
10.0x
PepsiCo, Inc. USD 191,395 15.2x

Constellation Brands Inc. USD 53,523 19.6x 5.0x

Monster Beverage Corporation USD 34,597 26.3x 0.0x

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Molson Coors Brewing Company USD 29,240 11.9x Quarterly Enterprise Value to EBITDA
Brown‑Forman Corporation USD 28,143 24.6x 5 Year Average Enterprise Value to EBITDA

Cott Corporation CAD 4,751 11.3x

National Beverage Corp. USD 4,407 21.7x
Lassonde Industries Inc. CAD 2,018 11.7x
Adjusted average 17.8x
Adjusted median 19.6x

Source: Capital IQ Note: EBITDA multiples taken as of January 1, 2018

27
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Valuation snapshot

Protein processing
Protein processing companies relatively close to the long‑term average of 9.2x EBITDA.
(All values in trading currency $ millions)

14.0x
Company Currency Enterprise Value EV/EBITDA 12.0x
(EV) ($)
10.0x

Tyson Foods, Inc. USD 40,300 10.2x 8.0x

6.0x
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation USD 9,945 8.2x
4.0x
Maple Leaf Foods Inc. CAD 4,360 11.8x
2.0x
Sanderson Farms, Inc. USD 2,748 5.2x 0.0x
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Adjusted average 8.9x
Quarterly Enterprise Value to EBITDA
Adjusted median 9.2x
5 Year Average Enterprise Value to EBITDA

Source: Capital IQ Note: EBITDA multiples taken as of January 1, 2018

Processed branded foods

Processed branded foods companies are trading above the long‑term average of 14.7x EBITDA.
(All values in trading currency $ millions)

16.0x
Company Currency Enterprise Value EV/EBITDA
(EV) ($) 11.0x

Mondelez International, Inc. USD 82,200 18.1x

6.0x
General Mills, Inc. USD 43,656 13.5x

Kellogg Company USD 31,475 13.7x 1.0x

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
The Hershey Company USD 26,827 15.2x
-4.0x Quarterly Enterprise Value to EBITDA
The J. M. Smucker Company USD 19,187 11.9x
5 Year Average Enterprise Value to EBITDA
Hormel Foods Corporation USD 19,085 13.9x
ConAgra Foods, Inc. USD 18,832 13.1x
McCormick & Company,
USD 18,557 23.3x
Incorporated
Campbell Soup Company USD 17,765 9.0x
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. USD 5,038 18.2x
SunOpta Inc. CAD 1,550 23.7x
Adjusted average 15.6x
Adjusted median 13.9x

Source: Capital IQ Note: EBITDA multiples taken as of January 1, 2018

28
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Closing remarks

Closing remarks
The North American F&B industry As the industry continues to evolve with
experienced a strong three years. While the increased innovation and technological
majority of profitability and key operating advancement, it will not come without some
ratios improved in the years studied, there challenges. Current political, social and
is some uncertainty in the market, due economic pressures are creating uneasiness
to political, social, economic pressures, in the marketplace as operators try to adjust
and more importantly, a rapidly evolving to a rapidly changing landscape. In North
consumer dynamic. Operators within the America, key trade agreements such as
F&B industry will need to remain vigilant NAFTA pose a major risk to Canadian
and nimble to remain ahead of the operators, especially those who depend
curve and maintain strong growth and on exports to the US. Minimum wage
profitability. hikes in both Ontario and Alberta will
squeeze operators as they must adjust to
Overall, the F&B industry has experienced a mandatory payroll increase. Competition
a competitive decade which is expected will remain fierce, with the full impact of
to continue as disruptions test market Amazon's surprising acquisition of Whole
players in the coming years. As the industry Foods yet to be felt, as well as the increasing
becomes more technologically advanced, number of high‑growth and on‑trend
participants will continually need to innovate products accessible to consumers.
and refocus their strategic priorities in order
to maintain and capture market share. An In conclusion, we are excited to see
uncertain economic outlook and tighter what lies in store (or online) for the F&B
capital restrictions will require companies industry as the sector continues to adapt
to be thoughtful with their money. to a fundamentally different landscape. We
look forward to sharing this report with the
In today’s global community, technology F&B community and engaging in dialogue
is driving pervasive disruptions across many and idea sharing around these findings.
industries. Technological developments
are exerting profound changes on the
way people live, work, access information,
and even how they perceive the goods
and services they consume. Historically,
traditional value drivers such as price,
taste and convenience largely determined
consumer purchasing decisions. Today,
however, an increasing number of
consumers are making purchasing
decisions based on the “full plate,”
combining traditional and evolving
value drivers (e.g., health and wellness,
social impact, safety)—a shift which is
fundamentally altering the value equation
for retailers and manufacturers.

29
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Appendices

Participating companies
Participating companies
Participant Profile Canadian U.S.
A total of 77 food and beverage processors were
Public companies 11 55
included in Benchmarking for Success 2018.
Private companies 111 0
Participating public companies - Canada
1. The names of private company participants are being withheld
• Andrew Peller Limited for confidentiality purposes.
• Brick Brewing Co. Limited
• Corby Spirit and Wine Limited
• High Liner Foods Incorporated
• Lassonde Industries Inc.
• Liquor Stores N.A. Ltd.
• Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
• Molson Coors Canada Inc.
• Premium Brands Holdings Corporation
• SunOpta Inc.
• Ten Peaks Coffee Company Inc

Participating public companies - U.S.

• Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. • Lifeway Foods, Inc.

• B&G Foods, Inc. • McCormick & Company, Incorporated
• Bob Evans Farms, Inc. • MGP Ingredients, Inc.
• Bridgford Foods Corporation • Molson Coors Brewing Company
• Brown‑Forman Corporation • Mondelez International, Inc.
• Cal‑Maine Foods, Inc. • Monster Beverage Corporation
• Campbell Soup Company • Nathan's Famous, Inc.
• Castle Brands Inc. • National Beverage Corp.
• Coffee Holding Co., Inc. • Pepsico, Inc.
• Conagra Brands, Inc. • Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
• Constellation Brands, Inc. • Pinnacle Foods Inc.
• Cott Corporation • Post Holdings, Inc.
• Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. • Potbelly Corporation
• Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. • Primo Water Corporation
• Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc. • Reed's, Inc.
• Dean Foods Company • Sanderson Farms, Inc.
• Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. • Seaboard Corporation
• Farmer Bros. Co. • Seneca Foods Corporation
• Flowers Foods, Inc. • Snyder's-Lance, Inc.
• General Mills, Inc. • The Boston Beer Company, Inc.
• Hormel Foods Corporation • The Coca‑Cola Company
• Hostess Brands, Inc. • The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
• Inventure Foods, Inc. • The Hershey Company
• J&J Snack Foods Corp. • The J. M. Smucker Company
• John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. • The Simply Good Foods Company
• Kellogg Company • Treehouse Foods, Inc.
• Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. • Tyson Foods, Inc.
• Lancaster Colony Corporation

30
 Benchmarking for success 2018 | Appendices

Glossary of terms
Category Ratio Original calculation / interpretation Unit

Year‑end income before interest, taxes, depreciation

Return on investment & amortization / (year-end value of total shareholders’ equity N/A
+ minority interest + total debt)
Profitability
Year-end income before taxes / (year-end value of
Return on equity, before tax N/A
total shareholders’ equity + minority interest)

Tax rate Year-end tax expense / year-end income before taxes %

(Year-end value of net sales - cost of goods sold) / year-end

Gross margin %
value of net sales

Year-end value of sales, general & administrative expenses /

SG&A as a percent of sales %
year‑end value of net sales

Year‑end income before interest, taxes, depreciation

EBITDA as a percent of sales %
& amortization / year-end value of net sales

Asset turnover Year-end value of net sales / year-end value of total assets N/A

Tangible asset turnover Year-end value of net sales / year-end value of tangible assets N/A
Efficiency
Year-end value of net sales / year-end value of net property, plant
Net PP&E turnover N/A
& equipment

(Year-end values of inventory * 365) / year-end value of cost

Days of inventory days
of goods sold

(Year-end values of accounts receivable * 365) / year-end value

Days of receivables days
of net sales

(Year-end values of accounts payable * 365) / year-end value

Days of payables days
of cost of goods sold

Cash conversion cycle Days of inventory + days of receivables ‑ days of payables days

Year-end value of total debt / (year-end value of total

Debt‑to‑total capitalization %
shareholders’ equity + minority interest + total debt)

Interest as a percent of sales Year-end value of interest expense / year-end value of net sales %

Total debt / year-end income before interest, taxes, depreciation

Debt‑to‑EBITDA %
& amortization

Solvency Year-end value of current assets / year-end value of current

Current ratio N/A
liabilities

Year-end value of net property, plant & equipment / (year-end

PP&E‑to‑total capitalization %
value of total shareholders’ equity + minority interest + total debt)

Deferred taxes / total assets Year-end value of deferred taxes / year-end value of total assets %

Other liabilities / total assets Year-end value of other liabilities / year-end value of total assets %

31
Benchmarking for success 2018 | Appendices

Data Sources
Deloitte obtained financial data for reports generated therefrom, regardless When compiling financial data a small
Canadian and US publicly held food and of the cause or source of such error or number of data points were deemed
beverage processors through public omission. In no event will you have any “extreme outliers” which substantially
filings available through CapitalIQ. cause of action against Deloitte for any altered the profile of the data set and
losses or damages (including any lost in our opinion obscured the “story” told
Neither CapitalIQ nor any third‑party profits or indirect, special consequential, by the financial data as it pertains to the
suppliers of data or software to Deloitte punitive or exemplary damages), even “typical” or “average” company in the
make any warranty, express or implied, if Deloitte is advised in advance of the study. The proportion of data points
as to results to be obtained by you or possibility of such damages. deemed extreme outliers and removed
others from use of the databases or from consideration represented
software or any reports generated Financial and qualitative data on approximately 2% of all data points
therefrom, and there are no express or privately held processors was gathered included in the analysis.
implied warranties of merchantability by surveying industry participants on a
or fitness for a particular purpose or confidential basis. Commodity prices and indices
use. The accuracy and completeness performance over the studied time
of any reports generated by CapitalIQ’s Consistent definitions were used to period were collected from Index Mundi.
software and databases are not ensure data consistency and to allow Historical stock price performance for
guaranteed, and Deloitte’s third-party for comparison. Identical formats and public companies was collected from
suppliers shall have no liability to you definitions were used for the compilation CapitalIQ.
for errors or omissions with respect to of Canadian and U.S. processors’
CapitalIQ’s databases or software or financial information.

Contacts
Authors To learn more about how Deloitte Key contributors
can help your business succeed,
Doug McDonald contact any of the authors of this Kristian Rochon
Americas Food & Beverage Leader report or industry leaders below Umer Randhawa
[email protected] Aileen Zablan
+1-416-568-5286 Stephen J. Brown Manan Shah
Canadian Consumer Industry Leader
David Lam [email protected]
Canadian Consumer Leader, +1‑416‑464‑9624
Financial Advisory
[email protected] Jim Kilpatrick
+1‑604‑219‑3878 Canadian Consumer
Products & Food Leader
Paul Hamam [email protected]
Executive Director +1-416-566-5929
Food & Beverage M&A
[email protected]
+1-416-601-4851

32
This page has been intentionally left blank.
www.deloitte.ca

Deloitte provides audit & assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory,
tax and related services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries.
Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies through a globally
connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories
bringing world-class capabilities, insights and service to address clients’ most
complex business challenges. To learn more about how Deloitte’s approximately
264,000 professionals—9,400 of whom are based in Canada—make an impact
that matters, please connect with us on LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook.

Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm
of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its
network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent
entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal
structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Designed and produced by the Deloitte Design Studio, Canada. 18-5613T