Pepsi Case Study

43614 Words 175 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Bottler case sales (BCS) and concentrate shipments and equivalents (CSE) are not necessarily equal during any given period due to seasonality, timing of product launches, product mix, bottler inventory practices and other factors. However, the difference between BCS and CSE measures has been greatly reduced since our acquisitions of our anchor bottlers, The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (PBG) and PepsiAmericas, Inc. (PAS), on February 26, 2010, as we now consolidate these bottlers and thus eliminate the impact of differences between BCS and CSE for a substantial majority of PAB’s total volume. While our revenues are not entirely based on BCS volume, as there continue to be independent bottlers in the supply chain, we believe that BCS is a valuable measure as it quantifies the sell-through of our products at the consumer level. See Note 15 for additional information about our acquisitions of PBG and PAS in 2010. Europe Either independently or through contract manufacturers, Europe makes, markets and sells a number of leading snack foods including Lay’s, Walkers, Doritos, Cheetos and Ruffles, as well as many Quaker-brand cereals and snacks, through consolidated businesses as well as through noncontrolled affiliates. Europe also, either independently or through contract manufacturers, makes, markets and sells beverage concentrates, fountain syrups and finished goods under various beverage brands including Pepsi, 7UP and Tropicana. These branded products are sold to authorized bottlers, independent distributors and retailers. In certain markets, however, Europe operates its own bottling plants and distribution facilities. In addition, Europe licenses the Aquafina water brand to certain of its authorized bottlers. Europe also, either independently or through contract manufacturers, makes, markets and …show more content…
In 2009, we recognized $274 million ($173 million after-tax or $0.11 per share) of mark-to-market net gains on commodity hedges in corporate unallocated expenses. (b) In 2010, we incurred merger and integration charges of $799 million related to our acquisitions of PBG and PAS, as well as advisory fees in connection with our acquisition of WBD. In addition, we recorded $9 million of merger-related charges, representing our share of the respective merger costs of PBG and PAS. In total, these charges had an after-tax impact of $648 million or $0.40 per share. In 2009, we recognized $50 million of merger-related charges, as well as an additional $11 million of costs in bottling equity income representing our share of the respective merger costs of PBG and PAS. In total, these costs had an after-tax impact of $44 million or $0.03 per share. See Note 3. (c) In 2010, in connection with our acquisitions of PBG and PAS, we recorded a gain on our previously held equity interests of $958 million ($0.60 per share), comprising $735 million which is non-taxable and recorded in bottling equity income and $223 million related to the reversal of deferred tax liabilities associated with these previously held equity interests. See Note 15. (d) In 2010, we recorded $398 million ($333 million after-tax or $0.21 per share) of incremental costs related to fair value adjustments to the acquired inventory and other related hedging contracts included in PBG’s and PAS’s balance sheets at the acquisition date. (e) In 2010, we recorded a one-time $120 million net charge ($120 million after-tax or $0.07 per share) related to our change to hyperinflationary accounting for our Venezuelan businesses and the related devaluation of the bolivar. ( f ) In 2010, we recorded a $145 million charge ($92 million after-tax or $0.06 per share)

Related Documents