[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Makan Delrahim to FBN: DOJ looking at 'failing firm defense' in Sprint, T-Mobile merger Yahoo FinanceFBN's Charlie Gasparino talks to the Department of Justice Antitrust Chief Makan Delrahim on the review of the potential Sprint merger with T-Mobile.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/makan-delrahim-fbn-doj-looking-172126735.html 2019-04-30 17:21:00Z
Washington’s Lao food movement is no longer contained to the family of restaurants that Thip Khao made famous.
Laos in Town (250 K Street NE) opens for lunch and dinner today in NoMa, bringing Northeast D.C. an approach to the Southeast Asian country’s cuisine from a pair of Thai partners, owner Nick Ongsangkoon and executive chef Ben Tiatasin. The interest from Thai entrepreneurs is particularly telling because Lao cooks have often catered to American tastes by opening Thai kitchens instead of cooking their own food, which is known to crank up the volume on funk and spice.
Ongsangkoon is a partner at Soi 38, a street food spot in Foggy Bottom that landed on Eater’s list of essential Thai restaurants this year. He spent his childhood in Bangkok before moving to Virginia as a teenager. According to a release, he has fond memories of visiting Lao food stalls in his hometown and also traveling across Thailand’s eastern border to Laos.
Tiatasin got her start working in the front of the house at Bangkok Golden, the Falls Church Thai restaurant from Lao chefs Seng Luangrath and Bobby Pradachith, her son. The Lao menu at Bangkok Golden became so popular that the owners eventually changed the name to Padaek, launching a popular restaurant group that now includes Thip Khao in Columbia Heights, Sen Khao in Tysons Galleria, and the soon-to-open Hanumanh in Shaw.
Tiatasin, who’s also from Bangkok, gained kitchen experience working at Esaan, the lauded Northeastern Thai restaurant in McLean that’s been listed in Washingtonian’s top 100 for the past two years.
With an emphasis on fiery flavors, fresh herbs, and sticky rice, the Northeastern Thai style that made Little Serow a hit in D.C. boasts similarities to Lao food.
At Laos in Town, Tiatasin is doing her own version of a grilled pork shoulder and roasted rice powder that’s popular at Esaan. She’s dubbed a green papaya salad as her signature dish, mixing the unripe fruit with a tame variation of fermented fish sauce along with green beans, tomatoes, bean sprouts, pickles, and pork loaf. Grilled banana with caramelized flower sauce and banana ice cream is an intriguing option on the dessert section.
https://dc.eater.com/2019/4/30/18523977/laos-in-town-opening-menu-noma-northeast-dc 2019-04-30 15:45:12ZPavan Moryani, Little quizzed for entire day
Nagpur: The police could not get any clue in transporter Bobby Makan murder case. Jariptaka police along with Crime Branch are putting all their efforts to crack the case.
Police are questioning every individual who had dispute with Bobby. However, it is learnt that Bobby had dispute not with just one or two persons but with over dozens of people. In this backdrop, the probe cannot move further unless police get some concrete evidence. Bobby’ s relatives and friends are in shock. His friends say someone very close to him must have killed him.
It is learnt that Bobby never mingled with unknown persons. Some known person took him to some place and killed him. According to sources, a white Innova car stopped in front of his office on Thursday night. A person got down from the car and talked to Bobby signaling to another person sitting inside the car. Bobby then talked to the person sitting on the rear seat of the car after which the car along with Bobby moved towards Automotive Square.
Police are trying to find out the details of the car and the people travelling in it. During the last two days, police have gathered information about people who had dispute with Bobby, which include dozens of persons. Bobby and one Little had suddenly developed friendship following a dispute for long period. On the other hand, Bobby had dispute with Pavan Moryani regarding possession of land worth crores of rupees at Kamal Square. Moreover, Bobby had dispute with a person from Pardi locality named Goldy. Bobby had also a disputed matter in Chhindwara.
Working on all these leads, the Crime Branch team questioned Little. The Jaripatka police simultenously quizzed Little and Pavan Moryani for the entire day on Monday. Cops say that unless they get a clue, the investigation will not head in proper direction. The cops are equally focusing their investigations on the technical side. It is suspected that people who had dispute with Bobby, might have purchased a new SIM card and new mobile handset. Cops are busy in tracing the mobile location, but this would take considerable time. Meanwhile, the last rites on Bobby were performed on Monday evening after he post-mortem.
https://www.nagpurtoday.in/cops-still-clueless-in-bobby-makan-murder-case/04301053 2019-04-30 05:24:00Z
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO — A restaurant manager was robbed at gunpoint in South San Francisco late Sunday night, police said.
The suspect walked into the restaurant on the 600 block of Dubuque Avenue about 11 p.m., confronted the manager with a gun and demanded all of his cash, according to South San Francisco police.
Police said the suspect stole an undisclosed amount of money from the manager and from the cash register.
The suspect made his escape in a white SUV, described possibly as a white newer model BMW X5.
The suspect was described as possibly Asian, 5-foot-5 and 150 to 160 pounds. His eyes were brown.
Anyone with information can contact South San Francisco police at 650-87-8900. Those wishing to remain anonymous can call 650-952-2244 or email tips@ssf.net.
First On CNBC: CNBC Transcripts: CNBC’s David Faber Speaks with U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim and Goldman Sachs Chairman & CEO David Solomon Today
WHEN: Today, Monday, April 29, 2019
WHERE: CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” – Live from the 2019 Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, CA
The following are the unofficial transcripts of FIRST ON CNBC interviews with CNBC’s David Faber, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim and Goldman Sachs Chairman & CEO David Solomon, from the 2019 Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, CA. Both interviews aired live on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” (M-F 9AM – 11AM) today, Monday, April 29th. Video of both interviews are linked below.
Get the entire 10-part series on Warren Buffett in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues
Q1 hedge fund letters, conference, scoops etc
All references must be sourced to CNBC.
DAVID FABER: Okay. Sue, thank you very much. Well, we’re here at the Milken Institute, of course, a big meeting here in Los Angeles. Makan Delrahim is the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, and he joins me here at the global conference in your hometown.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: This is. It’s nice to be back in L.A.
DAVID FABER: Right? Nice to always come home. I want to start off with what is arguably the largest single, certainly from our vantage point, case before you, if you can call it that, which is Sprint and T-Mobile. A couple of weeks ago, “The Wall Street Journal” reported that your staff is, at least has some resistance, that was the word they used, to the deal, at least without structural remedies. Is that true?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, I can’t comment on a pending merger. But, you know, suffice it to say our regular process allows for the staff to communicate to the parties if there are particular issues, if there’s additional data or economic support we need and I think that was probably what was being reflected in some of the reporting that went on. But we will see. The investigation is ongoing and we have had meetings with the parties and it will continue.
DAVID FABER: Yeah, how long -- how many more meetings? I know they have been quite active. And obviously your role here is a very important one, in addition to the staff’s. Have you made up your mind yet?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: I have not made up my mind. The investigation continues. We have requested some data from the companies that will be forthcoming. We don’t have a set number of you know, meetings or necessarily a timeline. We have a timing agreement with the parties, which they can’t close the transaction sooner than a certain period of time. But, you know, as I’ve said, I’ve been very open and transparent with merging parties that we would be open to meeting as long as there is a need to meet and we will continue to do so.
DAVID FABER: It’s an interesting transaction in terms of some of the ways that they are portraying it, Maken, in that obviously the idea of a market of 4 going to 3, some say that’s a red flag for antitrust. They’re also making strong argument on the national security grounds for the deal. The advent of 5G, that, in fact, their combination separately capital starved, together have the ability to really bring 5G in a way that Verizon and AT&T don’t. Does that resonate at all with you and the staff? Is that an important argument to be made from the antitrust point of view or does that not really – actually part of the argument you’ll be considering?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, sometimes those factors do figure into our consideration. So, where it is important is when they raise efficiency arguments. When a merger creates efficiencies, which is actually good for the consumer, we factor those in, but there are strict guidelines about those. You know, the efficiencies that a merger provides needs to be merger specific. Meaning that you couldn’t otherwise get these benefits from it. They also need to be verifiable. They are not -- they can’t be pies in the sky. And it has to be an important element. As far as the number of 4 to 3, obviously the more competitors you have in any market, you know, you might have more competition. But there is no magical number in any particular market. Where you don’t have barriers to entry for new competitors to come in, and restrain prices, there could just be one competitor. That could be fine. Obviously, you know, in these types of industries that are regulated, you can’t just go out and put up sell sites all around so there is a barrier to entry, there’s a regulatory barrier to entry and those are factors we consider. But there is no magical number, there’s no 3, 4, 5, 2, it is what the facts and the economic evidence show us.
DAVID FABER: And so, what is your sense in terms of that, in terms of what will happen to pricing? This is arguably the most important bill that every American pays each month. And there are those who argue that price competition will come to an end as a result of the -- of three large competitors as opposed to sort of an insurgent in the form of T-Mobile and of course, Sprint.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: So those are exactly types of issues that we’re investigating. Will there be a price effect? Will there be an increase in the ultimately the price of the consumers for their cell phone bills, as well as their broadband. You know, with the advent of the innovations that is happening with 5G and other technologies, you know, you’re going to be able to use that phone for more than just communicating with your best friend or texting. You’re getting your media, you’re getting video. And we want to be sure to encourage that. But the – ultimately, is there going to be a price effect when those two combine? There is the other theory, you have the combination and there’s few competitors, will there be what is called coordinated effects between them? Meaning you won’t have the same incentive to compete with the other players because it is in their best interest to not compete, to not compete on prices. And so those are the factors and there’s you know, strict guidelines that we follow, based on case law handed to us. And we are continuing to investigate that.
DAVID FABER: So, if the staff comes to you and says, ‘Well, we think that is in fact going to be the case, that consumers conceivably will suffer as a result of this.’ Do you just go along with it?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, I mean, part of my job, one of the great privileges of being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is to be able to make a judgment there. Now, a lot of times we’re all one team. The antitrust division. So, I don’t view myself as the judge sitting there between a staff and merging parties. We will make a decision, collectively. My job is to make sure that the analysis is done properly. Make sure that the facts are there. And if we’re going to challenge a case in court, that we are looking at all the evidence properly and meet the legal guidelines, and, you know, if the case is there for us to challenge a transaction or suggest changes, we will do that.
DAVID FABER: Right. Back to this national security question, because I don’t feel like you answered. Does national security play a role in the decision you’re making? Because they’re making this argument that -- and, by the way, the President certainly has said it and many of his advisers as well, 5G is the next battle front with China, for example. We need to be ahead in 5G. And these two companies have seized in that theme, it would seem, to say, ‘You need us to be together in order to be able to fight that fight.’
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, that’s certainly an argument the parties have made. The issue is do you need this merger to happen for 5G to develop? Or is this something that it would develop regardless of this merger? And that is what we call, you know, one of the efficiency arguments that the party would raise. So, it’s not so much a -- creating a national champion to beat out, you know, a foreign country. That’s not something that necessarily factors into our decision. But is that an efficiency that the innovation will provide for the benefit of the consumers? Because that dynamic competition that they could bring with 5G is something that certainly factors into our decision.
DAVID FABER: Now, there is also the possibility here that even if you were at the DOJ to approve this transaction there are a number of state AGs that may still have objections. Do you work with those state AGs prior to making your decision? And what do you think is the likelihood that perhaps a number of states could get together and still try to block the transaction?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: So, I don’t know. But we do, you know, I don’t know as far as what is the likelihood. There are independent law enforcement authorities in each of those states. There are some phenomenal antitrust lawyers and enforcers and many of these states. We work closely with them. So, we have what are called confidentiality agreements and common interest agreements in place that is routine in every merger transaction where specific states have an interest in a transaction. And this is a merger we have worked closely with the states. Ultimately, they could make a different decision. You might recall the American Express case, the Justice Department prosecuted through the District Court and the Court of Appeals was later appealed to the Supreme Court not by the Justice Department, but by the State of Ohio and a group of other state AGs which went up to the Supreme Court. They make independent decisions from us. And, of course, the Federal Communications Commission is also reviewing this transaction because they’ll have to approve the license transfers as part of that. And we all work closely together.
DAVID FABER: Right. And, again, back to timing. The two parties to the extent that they have been sharing anything seem to indicate June is sort of where they’re working with as a timeline to have an understanding or actual fact as to whether the DOJ is supportive or not. Is that sort of a timeline you’re working with as well here?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: We work with the parties to make sure that, you know, the evidence that we need to make a decision is there. And -- but there is no specific timeline. If it continues on--
DAVID FABER: Is your sense it could be June?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: It could possibly be that. Yeah. Yeah, it could possibly be. But, you know, the FCC has this 180-day shot clock that they can stop and continue. If you look at that timing, what has been reported is that that will be sometime in the June range. But, look, if the parties and we continue to work out, you know, if there is a solution, that time could continue on because we don’t have a specific deadline by which to work on.
DAVID FABER: And your meetings with them I would assume continue? Or the prospect of further meetings with management continue?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: It could. You know, if there is a need for that, we’re not reclosed to not meeting with them.
DAVID FABER: Before I let you go, moving on for a moment, Judge Leon—not a name you probably like to hear that often.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: He’s a friend. And is a good man.
DAVID FABER: Of course, the Judge in the original AT&T Time Warner case that you brought. He’s doing some strange things with CVS and AETNA. Is there -- what is he doing there?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, that’s a merger as you’ve –
DAVID FABER: A merger that is done. That has been approved. That has actually occurred and closed. And yet he continues to hear arguments or –
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Well, we challenged a portion of that merger and we required divestiture of I think about 1.5 million lives to be insured, that was sold to Wellcare. I believe that portion of that divestiture has also been closed. The Judge has a role to – under a law called the Tunney Act, to review our decisions, to make sure that that portion of the challenge has been settled and what is called in the public interest and there is specific guidelines. We’re before the judge and it is a -- you know, it is unprecedented. But certainly, the Judge has a role to review our judgments.
DAVID FABER: But it is unprecedented, you just said.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: It is unprecedented.
DAVID FABER: Nothing like this has ever happened. There is the possibility that he could try to undo the deal?
MAKAN DELRAHIM: What is interesting is in preparation for this, one of my predecessors, Anne Bingaman, who was President Clinton’s – the head of the Antitrust Division, in fact, we just named an auditorium at the Antitrust Division after her. She was the first woman --
DAVID FABER: I saw your speech actually.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Thank you for that. And she has -- she had argued in the Microsoft case with Judge Sporkin who challenged a settlement and tried to look into that. I was actually working for Judge Buckley on the Court of Appeals at the time. I had the great privilege on that particular case when it was appealed to the D.C. Circuit. And it raised certain issues about what the role and the limits of the Tunney Act are. And we will see what happens in this case. But we are complying with the Judge’s order. We just made some filings last week. And I think he’s going to have a hearing sometime in May. And we look forward to that.
DAVID FABER: Well, Mr. Delrahim, it’s always a pleasure to get some time with you. I’M Sorry we don’t have more, of course, to talk about some of the larger issues that you and I discussed in the past, including right here a year ago. But we look forward to future appearances. Thank you.
MAKAN DELRAHIM: Thank you for having me.
DAVID FABER: Of course. Makan Delrahim, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust the. Carl, back to you.
DAVID FABER: Welcome back to "Squawk on the Street" live from the Milken Institute Global Conference here in Los Angeles. Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon joins me right now at the Milken Global Conference. It’s nice to see you.
DAVID SOLOMON: Great to see you.
DAVID FABER: An annual sit-down for us here, at least here. I’m always happy to do it more often, but my colleagues sometimes like to have some time with you as well. You know, in preparation, I reread a number of your transcripts from your last two earnings calls and it struck me as to how much change you’re bringing to this organization, in so many different ways. Do you feel like your investor base fully appreciates the change that Goldman Sachs is currently going through?
DAVID SOLOMON: Well, it is something we’re spending a lot of time talking about and thinking about and working hard to communicate with investors as to how we would like the firm to evolve. And I would say we are working on a lot. I think it is natural as a new CEO, you really come in, you take a hard look at all the businesses, you re-underwrite the plans and you also look for natural areas to grow, expand and move the franchise forward. And so, we’re working away at all that stuff. We’re making a lot of progress. And I think one things that I’ve been very focused on is how I can approve the transparency we have with the investing community around Goldman Sachs. Now, I say when I look back on our evolution since our IPO, that’s been a slower for us. And so, we’ve changed our presentation format of the earnings call.
DAVID FABER: Yep.
DAVID SOLOMON: You probably noticed I was on the last two earnings calls.
DAVID FABER: I have. Yes.
DAVID SOLOMON: Which was, you know, which was new and different. We have a pretty formal plan to continue to provide more information as we, you know, roll forward, and we’re in a place to better articulate the continued evolution of our plan. But things are going well. And I feel good about what we’re finding and the energy in the organization, you know, to continue to focus on our clients and evolve our franchise.
DAVID FABER: Well, as specific to transparency you’ve talked about performance targets that you will at some point provide.
DAVID SOLOMON: Yes.
DAVID FABER: Any update in terms of when you see that. Is that something this year that your investor base will get ahold of?
DAVID SOLOMON: Yeah. We have said publicly we’re committed to putting out performance targets this year, and as we move forward, we’ll add to that and evolve to that. But we’re committed to performance targets out during the course of the year.
DAVID FABER: What does a multitiered digital wealth platform look like?
DAVID SOLOMON: We’ve talked a lot about our view that starting with a white piece of paper, we could build a digital platform to serve consumers around their financial needs broadly. And so, if you think about the way most of us deal with our financial affairs, still pretty analog, still relatively siloed but can you use it in an integrated way so people can save, spend, deal with insurance and protection issues, invest? And when you think about our asset management business and the access to products and services we have, we’re looking to build something that in a very integrated way can help with their overall financial wellness. And that’s a vision we’ve begun to articulate. We’re in the early stages of starting to develop it. But we’re encouraged by the feedback to the initial products and services on our markets platforms that are developing.
DAVID FABER: Yeah, tell me, why? What has that feedback been like? By the way, it’s for all the years that I’ve covered this company to hear a CEO talking in that way, it’s kind of bizarre, I have got to tell you.
DAVID SOLOMON: Well, I think you have to step back. You know, the world has changed a lot over the last decade and we’re looking at things through the lens of who are our clients and what are the opportunities for us to use our franchise to help a variety of different clients. And at a high level we’ve dealt with corporations and governments --
DAVID FABER: Institutional client base--
DAVID SOLOMON: -- Institutional firm. Corporations and governments. We’ve also dealt with institutions. And we’ve had some businesses with individuals. We’ve had a very high-end wealth management business for very, very affluent people around the world. We also sell some mutual product, mutual fund products, third party distributors, off our asset management platform. But if you think about the brand and the way the regulatory environment has changed who we are, it makes sense for us to have direct relationships with consumers. The most important thing was to start to develop a deposit base. And digitally, which we’ve been doing, it’s been going quite well. So, if you start with a digital deposit platform, you then say, ‘How can you use that platform to potentially bring in an integrated way other products and services to these customers?’ And it’s, a—
DAVID FABER: But to the extent, David, you’re going after a consumer in the way you hadn’t in the past or even a smaller enterprise value company, $2 billion now you’re looking at or even below in terms of hiring people. Does it change the perception or the brand from your typical corporate/institutional client?
DAVID SOLOMON: I think the important thing for us to do is to think about how we serve our clients across the spectrum. And if we do it in a way where we’re really adding value, where we have really good people really making a difference, we have good technology-- we link those things together, and at the end of the day, we’re providing a very valuable service, it’ll be differentiated. And I think the brand can remain very, very strong. Obviously, we’re thinking a lot about the fact that being in these businesses where we’re serving consumers is different, it’s new for us, we’re going to go very slow in a very thoughtful way. And we don’t have to be a huge market share player. We can have nice businesses where we’re adding value and grow slowly. And we’re building something for the long-term.
DAVID FABER: Do you feel you have the metrics by which you want to judge whether you’re making the progress that will actually amount to something meaningful?
DAVID SOLOMON: Sure. I think we have the metrics in place and we’re building the metrics to make sure we do. But this -- if you look at the history of the firm and the way the firm has grown over time, we started in the 1980s building an asset management business from scratch. And sure, we’ve done some inorganic add-ons but we built organically a very, very large global deep asset management platform. And we think we’re good, patient, long-term builders of businesses. We think we’re good at marrying people and technology. And we believe that we can really build some interesting and differentiated –
DAVID FABER: Something that good people’s attention of course was Apple’s announcement over credit card with you. We don’t have a lot of details there, other than this word disruptive was used a number of times. Is it really going to be disruptive?
DAVID SOLOMON: There was an opportunity that I think Apple saw and we saw to redesign certain aspects of the credit card. We can’t talk, you know, more than we’ve talked about it because it’s not yet formally, publicly launched. But in the coming—
DAVID FABER: When will it be? When is that going to happen?
DAVID SOLOMON: Coming soon.
DAVID FABER: What’s soon? A couple months?
DAVID SOLOMON: A few months. Like I said, coming soon. And we’ll talk more about it. But we’re trying again -- and it’s the same thing where when we’re talking about markets, less friction for consumers, no fees. What can we do to have lower overall rates, cash back instantly, more flexibility? And so, it was an opportunity because we don’t have any legacy platform to really think creatively and think, ‘How can we make changes at the margin that are good for consumers?’ as we develop the platform. And so, with all this stuff, David, what I’d say is none of this is going to fundamentally change Goldman Sachs, who we are, how we’re making money in the short-term. But we think we can build successful platforms that over time will make a meaningful contribution for our business, our franchise, and will be value-added for our shareholders.
DAVID FABER: Well, and you need to. I mean, you’ve said this. You’ve said, quote: the available wallet in market intermediaries—intermediation for large institutions has materially declined over the last five years.
DAVID SOLOMON: It has.
DAVID FABER: That was your business.
DAVID SOLOMON: And that was our business. And you know, I think back and I said this publicly on the earnings call, you know, the firm had $36 billion of revenue last year. If five years ago someone said,’ Hey, your thick ICs franchise would be $6 billion of revenue and the firm will be a $36 billion revenue business,’ we would have said, ‘Kind of hard to see.’ But—and the reality is that wallet has shrunk and it’s shrunk for everybody. We’ve actually gained market share in the institutional client business.
DAVID FABER: In a shrinking market, you gained market share.
DAVID SOLOMON: Right. We gained market share in a shrinking market. But we’ve also built around other businesses. We’ve grown our asset management business, we’ve expanded our banking footprint and our banking business, we’ve continued to grow our investing platforms. I think we’ve done a good job, you know, slowly over the last decade, rebalancing our business. But there’s more to do.
DAVID FABER: You’ve spent, what, about $1.1 billion so far in your consumer efforts, at least that was from the last call.
DAVID SOLOMON: Yes. Yes.
DAVID FABER: What’s the number going to look like when we start to really look at them meaningfully contributing to earnings?
DAVID SOLOMON: There’s an opportunity for this to be a significant business over the course of the next five years, significant in the scale of Goldman Sachs, not significant when you look –
DAVID FABER: You’re talking about 4 trillion of deposits out there. You don’t need to get a lot it have for it to start to add up.
DAVID SOLOMON: Absolutely. And you know, we’re very, very pleased with the progress we’re making on our digital deposit platform. It’s grown very, very nicely and it continues to grow quite well.
DAVID FABER: 1MDB. We had to talk about that, of course.
DAVID SOLOMON: Sure.
DAVID FABER: You know, I was looking back, I think it was on the 16th of January. Again, you were on the call which is a bit different, you said there are always important lessons to be learned from difficult situations. So here we are five months later, any lessons learned?
DAVID SOLOMON: Well, we’re spending a lot of time being reflective and really thinking about how it was that we wound up having somebody we hired at the firm and promoted at the firm, became a partner of the firm, turned out to be a criminal. And you know, I think that’s something that’s worth really thinking about. We own that. That’s on us. As far as 1MDB more generally, we’re working hard to get it behind us. There’s not a lot more that I can say. I’d like to say more about it. But we’re working as diligently to put it behind us and move on and stay focused on our clients and our business.
DAVID FABER: Beyond figuring out and making sure you’re not hiring people who conceivably become felons, what about the risk management side? Which, of course, you’ve always been lauded for but some wonder, ‘Come on, 10% on a government bond, shouldn’t that have raised more concern in the institution?’
DAVID SOLOMON: We’ve spent a lot of time talking about this. We committed a significant amount of capital and a part of the world where the distribution process isn’t clean and simple in those transactions, one was sold quickly, one took almost a year to distribute. The risks are real. And if you look at other transactions in other developed economies where you’re committing sizable capital like that, the risk premium for making that commitment, then structuring, rating and distributing the paper, this was not out of the ordinary.
DAVID FABER: It wasn’t, so it wasn’t necessarily something that should have been immediately sort of tagged.
DAVID SOLOMON: No. But they were big transactions and there was an enormous amount of scrutiny around the transactions. Look, when you step back and look at the overall fraud around 1MDB, it went on a long time before we raised money for 1MDB and after. And we and others were fooled by the government and others that were involved and perpetrated the fraud.
DAVID FABER: We usually spend most of the time during this annual interview talking about the markets.
DAVID SOLOMON: Sure.
DAVID FABER: But we can’t do that anymore. You’re CEO now. There’s other things. But I’ll end of that. You’d indicated on your last call that things seemed to be picking up to the end of the first quarter—the March period. Has that still been the case in April?
DAVID SOLOMON: You know, I think April has been more constructive. And I’d say overall from a macro perspective, the U.S. economy is doing well. I think there’s no question China has responded better to stimulus. I was in China, you know, two weeks ago and spent a little bit of time there. Europe and Japan are lagging a little bit. But generally, from a macro perspective, the global economy is moving along pretty well. Markets has been--
DAVID FABER: But what are you seeing in terms of client activity?
DAVID SOLOMON: Client activity has been better. We had a -- after the kind of fourth quarter speed bump and with the government shutdown we had a very slow start to the year. But we saw pickup particularly in March, and activity has been more constructive in April. And particularly we see it in capital markets activity. You see obviously IPO activity and that’s really starting to gain some momentum. So, I would say more constructive. You know, better, more constructive.
DAVID FABER: Got it. We’ll leave it there. David, thank you. Appreciate your taking the time.
DAVID SOLOMON: Absolutely. It was great to see you, David. Appreciate it. Good to see you.
DAVID FABER: Of course. David Solomon is the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Back to you guys.
https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/04/interview-makan-delrahim-david-solomon-cnbc/ 2019-04-29 17:30:00Z
Restaurant Brands International (RBI) will be the first to admit that it has yet to take full advantage of the potential sales opportunity in Popeyes, the relatively small fried chicken chain.
RBI bought the 2,600-unit chain for $1.8 billion in February 2017. Since then, Popeyes has grown to 3,120 restaurants globally, but it has yet to truly outperform on key sales metrics.
Popeyes generated system-wide sales of $955 million in the first quarter of 2019, up 7 percent from the same period last year. Comparable store sales came in at just 0.6 percent growth. For comparison, in the first quarter of 2018, Popeyes’ overall sales were up by 11 percent and comparable store sales were up by 3.2 percent.
RBI’s leadership continued to hammer on the brand’s potential on the company’s first-quarter earnings call, saying that the chain is still in the early days of a strong growth period.
Popeyes has just started to modernize: 1,300 restaurants now offer delivery, up from practically zero restaurants one year ago. In mid-April, the chain launched an official partnership with delivery service Postmates to better integrate the delivery sales channel at participating restaurants.
“Over the years we’ve made hundreds of thousands of deliveries from Popeyes, so we are thrilled to officially partner and work closely with them to continue to drive growth,” Dan Mosher, SVP, Merchant Lead at Postmates, said in a statement at the time of the announcement.
Franchisees are just now receiving standardized practices around which point-of-sale systems they can install in their restaurants, and how to implement back-office technology.
“Technology at Popeyes remains the key focus for us and we’re really excited about the opportunity both near term and long-term,” RBI CEO José Cil said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call with analysts.
Once the chain’s operational system is appropriately streamlined, RBI hopes to start seeing big returns on its investment.
“Our global network of proven, well-capitalized operating partners combined with the strength of the brand and product offering gives us conviction that Popeyes can be one of the fastest growing quick-service brands in the world,” Cil said on the call.
RBI’s total sales for the quarter were $1.27 billion, up slightly from $1.25 billion in the same period last year.
Coffee chain Tim Horton’s dragged on the company’s overall sales growth, reporting just 0.5 percent growth in system-wide sales in the quarter, and a 0.6 percent decline in comparable store sales.
Out of RBI’s three brands, Burger King reported the highest system-wide sales growth, generating an 8.2 percent bump in the quarter. Comparable store sales were up 2.2 percent.
RBI’s shares were trading down slightly immediately after the call, as Tim Horton’s low sales caused the company to miss analysts’ earnings estimates for RBI.
Subscribe to Skift newsletters covering the business of travel, restaurants, and wellness.
When Venorica Tucker was in high school, she worked as a server in a restaurant owned by the Marriott Corporation in Washington, D.C. It was the mid-1960s and her wage was 66 cents an hour, plus tips.
Now 70 years old, Tucker currently serves food and bartends as a contractor at the U.S. House of Representatives, and while her wages have risen significantly over the past 50-plus years, she still often finds herself scrambling.
Her salary, she says, varies with the congressional calendar. “In this job, when there’s no work, there’s no pay. I had a really hard time during the government shutdown. Remember, it lasted more than a month and even though I was able to collect unemployment benefits, being without a job for so long meant that I fell behind on my bills. I’m still playing catch-up four months later.”
Tucker emphasizes that she works extremely hard and believes that she deserves to be compensated fairly and treated with respect, free from the economic exploitation and sexual harassment that are rampant in the industry. And she is not alone in voicing these basic demands.
According to Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a nonprofit organization and worker center that supports and connects restaurant workers throughout the country, more than 13 million U.S. residents, the majority of them women of color, are employed in restaurants. In 18 states, they earn a base pay of $2.13 an hour plus tips, a sub-minimum wage that has been frozen since 1991. Twenty-six states pay a somewhat higher sub-minimum, while just seven — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — provide the full federal minimum to those who serve our food when we dine out.
This leaves hundreds of thousands of workers in poverty; in New York City alone, a winter 2019 survey conducted by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and the Community Service Society found that 36 percent of tipped workers employed in eateries, nail salons and car washes lived at or below the federal poverty line — $16,460 for a two-person household; $25,100 for four — and more often than not, had to rely on food stamps, soup kitchens and Medicaid.
New York is not an anomaly. The Economic Policy Institute found that in states that allow payment of a sub-minimum wage, 18.5 percent of workers are impoverished; in states where everyone earns the federal minimum, the poverty rate drops to 11.1 percent. Furthermore, the institute notes that closing the loophole in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that allows payment of a sub-minimum wage, and upping the hourly minimum to $15 by 2024, would boost the wages of 38.1 percent of African American and 23.2 percent of white workers.
This is why Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is supporting the Raise the Wage Act, H.R.582, legislation to abolish the sub-minimum wage and bring tipped workers up to the federal standard. The bill was introduced by Bobby Scott (D-Virginia); a Senate companion bill, S.150, was introduced by Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is also supporting state efforts to enact what they are calling One Fair Wage laws.
Anthony Advincula, public affairs officer at Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, notes that 16 states are presently considering One Fair Wage bills, but emphasizes that opposition from the National Restaurant Association — dubbed “the other NRA” — has been fierce.
“If passed, H.R.582 would stifle new job creation, impose undue harm to the nation’s small business owners, and harm those it proclaims to help,” National Restaurant Association spokeswoman Mollie O’Dell wrote in an email to Truthout.
Not surprisingly, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United disagrees. “They’ve created a fake grassroots organization, called Restaurant Workers of America, to invoke fear that restaurants will close and jobs will be eliminated,” Advincula says. “The truth is that the industry does not want to eliminate the sub-minimum wage because it will cost them. But this is a racial and gender justice issue. The majority of workers who are exploited by the sub-minimum wage are immigrants, people of color and single mothers who live in poverty despite working full-time.”
Furthermore, an in-depth investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review confirms that Restaurant Workers of America is wholly funded by restaurant owners. In addition, the investigation found that its representatives have missed few opportunities to appear with “restaurant industry trade groups and Republican politicians” since coming together in 2017.
That said, the National Restaurant Association and Restaurant Workers of America have been effective in undermining One Fair Wage campaigns in New York, Michigan and Washington, D.C.
In New York, Advincula says, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has the authority to instruct the commissioner of labor to end the sub-minimum wage — something he said he intended to do. Seven hearings on this issue were held in different parts of the state between April and June 2018. “Everything was set in motion to make this change but Cuomo has not fulfilled his promise,” Advincula reports. “The issue seems stalled. We have contacted the governor again and again to say that he should listen to the majority of restaurant workers. Instead, he has listened to the Restaurant Workers of America and the National Restaurant Association. Their campaign has been appalling. It’s obscene to hear restaurant workers argue that no, they don’t need an increase in the minimum wage, that things are fine as they are. We assume that this is why Cuomo has backed off on his pledge to abolish the sub-minimum [wage].”
Diana Ramirez is the senior policy advocate at Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, but, until recently, she led the Washington, D.C., chapter of the organization and coordinated last year’s ballot initiative to bring One Fair Wage to the District of Columbia. As the campaign unfolded, the D.C. chapter of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United zeroed in on endemic, industry-wide sexual exploitation — as well as the inadequate base pay — since workers whose wages rely on tips often feel silenced when it comes to fighting back against predatory behavior. “The rate of sexual harassment for restaurant workers is the highest of any industry,” she says. “The ‘customer is always right’ mentality has made it hard for tipped workers who have to depend on the generosity of patrons.”
A broad coalition of women’s rights, labor and racial justice groups came together in 2016 in support of One Fair Wage — coalition members ranged from the D.C. chapter of the National Organization for Women, to Forward Together, the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Jews United For Justice. The goal was to put a One Fair Wage measure — called Initiative 77 — on the July 2018 ballot.
Opposition from the Restaurant Workers of America and the National Restaurant Association was immediate. “They got workers, mostly white male bartenders working in high-end establishments, to come out and yell at women of color wherever we went,” Ramirez told Truthout. “It’s a Trumpian effect: Somehow you doing better will make me worse off.”
Despite the pushback, the ballot initiative in Washington, D.C., passed with 56 percent of the vote, and voters in all but one neighborhood supported One Fair Wage. But the victory was short-lived. Ramirez points out that after the ballot measure passed, the restaurant association went into high gear and successfully lobbied the D.C. City Council to overturn the measure.
“The Council essentially told Black people, the majority population in D.C., that their vote did not matter,” Ramirez explains. “People were outraged and after the vote was repealed, an influx of racial justice and pro-democracy groups came to Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and said, ‘We want to work with you to protect democracy.’”
A referendum on this is now before the courts. “It can take a year, until late 2019 or early 2020,” Ramirez says, “but this is not something we’re going to drop. We’re continuing to organize for One Fair Wage. It’s the future of the restaurant industry, whether they like it or not.”
A similar fight is unfolding in Michigan. “Most Michiganders in the restaurant industry — tipped and non-tipped — earn less than $12 an hour,” Deputy Director Alicia Farris from the Michigan branch of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United begins. “We’re talking about parents and kids. Since we know that kids growing up in poverty start out at a deficit, we worked hard to get One Fair Wage on the 2018 ballot.” Farris says that Restaurant Opportunities Centers United mobilized hundreds of volunteers to collect the 253,000 signatures required by the Board of State Canvassers and despite a challenge from the National Restaurant Association, they got the go-ahead to bring the issue to Michigan’s voters.
Then something unexpected happened. On September 5, 2018, the state legislature passed One Fair Wage. “The lame duck session began the day after Election Day and ended right before Christmas,” Farris says. “It turned out that the legislature had passed [One Fair Wage] in order to gut it.” According to the Michigan chapter of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, the lame duck session voted to raise the state’s overall minimum incrementally, not getting to $12.05 an hour until 2030. Their raise to the sub-minimum was even paltrier: They raised it by seven cents an hour, from $3.52 to $3.59, effective March 29 of this year. The original measure raised the sub-minimum from $3.52 to $12 by 2024.
An editorial in USA Today elaborates further: “Faced with ballot initiatives that would have raised the minimum wage and established sick time for all the state’s workers, Republicans instead passed both proposals last summer as a way to keep them off the ballot and make them easier to change.”
The courts are presently considering whether a 1964 opinion barring the legislature from “amend[ing] a citizen-initiated proposal in the same legislative session” will hold sway.
Meanwhile, Farris says that members of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United are continuing to speak to legislators, doing Get Out the Vote work and educating the community about the legislative process. “You’d be surprised how many people don’t know what lame duck means,” she says, noting that because many restaurant workers have little time to research political policy in depth, the organizing challenge is enormous. “People get scared when someone persuasive comes along and tells them that ending the sub-minimum wage will lead to job losses,” she adds. But this is why the Michigan chapter of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is working overtime to counter the misinformation being pushed by astroturf groups like the Restaurant Workers of America.
Meanwhile, the majority of tipped restaurant workers continue to face economic insecurity. Trupti Patel has been a Washington, D.C.-area server for the past nine years. “Most restaurant managers in the U.S. are white men,” Patel says. “If they feel miffed by you, or if you did not jump when they flirted, you can end up with crappy shifts or a station that does not get much traffic.” Patel believes that abolition of the sub-minimum wage will reduce this dynamic. “The income in restaurant work fluctuates; it is not stable but our bills are a constant,” she continues. “The U.S. is the only country in the world where hospitality is not considered a profession. I do not get health insurance even though I work full-time. I pay $423 a month out of pocket for it. Workers in non-tipped industries have predictable pay, retirement benefits, health insurance and paid time off. This is rarely offered in the hospitality trade.”
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Watch CNBC's full interview with US Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Yahoo FinanceMakan Delrahim, U.S. Assistant Attorney General, joins CNBC's David Faber for a first on CNBC interview to discuss the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, ...
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-us-152606026.html 2019-04-29 15:26:00Z
Check out the companies making headlines before the bell:
Restaurant Brands International — Restaurant Brands reported weaker-than-expected quarterly earnings as sales in its Tim Hortons business unexpectedly fell. The company posted a profit of 55 cents per share. Analysts polled by Refinitiv expected earnings of 58 cents per share. Tim Hortons sales fell 0.6% in the quarter, while analysts expected a 2% increase.
Target — An analyst at Barclays upgraded the retailer's stock to "overweight" from "equal weight, " noting the company is ahead of Amazon in same-day deliveries and "has built a supply chain that fulfills e-commerce primarily from stores (where next-day delivery is much easier), which stands in a stark contrast to most retailers."
Anadarko Petroleum — Anadarko announced it will retake sale negotiations with Occidental Petroleum after agreeing to sell its business to Chevron. Anadarko said Monday that Occidental's bid could be "superior" Chevron's.
American Airlines — The airline was upgraded to "buy" from "hold" by Deutsche Bank even though American recently lowered its full-year earnings guidance. "We think the resetting of expectations by management essentially establishes a 'floor' for AAL's share price and provides the company a bit more 'cushion' around its earnings targets," the analyst said in a note.
Gardner Denver — Shares of the Gardner Denver surged nearly 30% in the premarket after The Wall Street Journal reported the industrial company was in talks to merge with a division of Ingersoll-Rand. The deal, the report said, would value Gardner Denver at around $15 billion and would involve cash and stock.
Walt Disney — J.P. Morgan hiked its price target on Disney to $150 per share from $137 a share after Marvel's "Avengers: Endgame" movie shattered box office records, hauling in $1.2 billion in its global debut. "The underlying business continues to perform very well with several notable catalysts ahead that we believe may continue to drive outperformance," according to J.P. Morgan.
Spotify Technology — The music streaming company said it now has 100 million paid subscribers for its premium service, overshadowing a larger-than-forecast quarterly loss. Spotify shares rose nearly 4% before the bell.
CVS Health — CVS slipped in the premarket after Credit Suisse downgraded the stock to "neutral" from "outperform," citing "historically high" leverage and its pharmacy operations being negatively impacted by efforts to lower prescription drug costs.
Boeing — The Wall Street Journal reported the airplane maker did not tell Southwest Airlines, its largest 737 Max customer, that a safety feature in the plan was turned off. The report also said Southwest did not know about this until after the Lion Air crash last month.
Travelers order food in automated self-ordering kiosk at fast-food Burger King restaurant chain.
Bundrul Chukrut | LightRocket | Getty Images
Restaurant Brands International on Monday reported quarterly earnings that fell short of analysts' expectations as Tim Hortons' struggles continue.
Shares of the company fell nearly 4% in premarket trading.
"Overall, we are confident in the long-term growth prospects for each of our three iconic brands, and remain focused on providing a great guest experience while driving franchisee profitability," CEO Jose Cil said in statement.
Here's what the company reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by Refinitiv:
Burger King's parent company reported fiscal first-quarter net income of $246 million, or 53 cents per share, down from $278.6 million, or 59 cents per share, a year earlier. The company attributed the decline to higher expenses from taxes.
Excluding costs from acquiring Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, the relocation of its support centers and other unique expenses, Restaurant Brands earned 55 cents per share, missing the 58 cents per share expected by analysts surveyed by Refinitiv.
Net sales rose 1% to $1.27 billion, beating expectations of $1.26 billion. Restaurant Brands said currency fluctuations drove the change in revenue.
Burger King and Popeyes reported same-store sales growth that beat estimates, but Tim Hortons came up short. Burger King, the company's biggest chain, saw same-store sales increase by 2.2%, topping Wall Street's expectations of 1.8%. Popeyes reported same-store sales growth of 0.6%, beating estimates of 0.1%.
Sales at Tim Hortons open at least a year fell 0.6%, but analysts were expecting same-store sales growth of 2%. With growth of the Canadian coffee chain slowing in its home market, Restaurant Brands is trying to push into the rapidly expanding Chinese market with its first three stores there. Tim Hortons accounts for nearly 60% of the company's total sales.
Travelers order food in automated self-ordering kiosk at fast-food Burger King restaurant chain.
Bundrul Chukrut | LightRocket | Getty Images
Restaurant Brands International on Monday reported quarterly earnings that fell short of analysts' expectations as Tim Hortons' struggles continue.
Shares of the company fell nearly 4% in premarket trading.
"Overall, we are confident in the long-term growth prospects for each of our three iconic brands, and remain focused on providing a great guest experience while driving franchisee profitability," CEO Jose Cil said in statement.
Here's what the company reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by Refinitiv:
Burger King's parent company reported fiscal first-quarter net income of $246 million, or 53 cents per share, down from $278.6 million, or 59 cents per share, a year earlier. The company attributed the decline to higher expenses from taxes.
Excluding costs from acquiring Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, the relocation of its support centers and other unique expenses, Restaurant Brands earned 55 cents per share, missing the 58 cents per share expected by analysts surveyed by Refinitiv.
Net sales rose 1% to $1.27 billion, beating expectations of $1.26 billion. Restaurant Brands said currency fluctuations drove the change in revenue.
Burger King and Popeyes reported same-store sales growth that beat estimates, but Tim Hortons came up short. Burger King, the company's biggest chain, saw same-store sales increase by 2.2%, topping Wall Street's expectations of 1.8%. Popeyes reported same-store sales growth of 0.6%, beating estimates of 0.1%.
Sales at Tim Hortons open at least a year fell 0.6%, but analysts were expecting same-store sales growth of 2%. With growth of the Canadian coffee chain slowing in its home market, Restaurant Brands is trying to push into the rapidly expanding Chinese market with its first three stores there. Tim Hortons accounts for nearly 60% of the company's total sales.
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Shots fired, Far East Side restaurant windows broken during early morning incident Madison.comGunshots damaged two windows at a Far East Side restaurant early Sunday, police said.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/shots-fired-far-east-side-restaurant-windows-broken-during-early/article_f437243d-b2c6-5d47-80b7-ad7586b056ea.html 2019-04-29 03:45:00Z[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Early morning fire damages Phoenix restaurant | Arizona News AZFamilyAn early morning fire burned a popular Phoenix restaurant Sunday.
https://www.azfamily.com/news/early-morning-fire-damages-phoenix-restaurant/article_1deda132-69ef-11e9-8033-37104f7497d4.html 2019-04-28 19:52:00Z[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Woodinville restaurant earns a spot on the prestigious '30 Best in America' list seattlepi.comSeattle definitely has its share of good restaurants, and recognition for the robust food culture we have around here. And now we can add USA Today to the list, ...
https://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/food/article/Woodinville-restaurant-earns-a-spot-on-the-13801905.php 2019-04-28 16:02:00Z
Nagpur: The decomposed body of a transporter identified as Bobby Makan was found near Kondhali on the outskirt of Nagpur on Sunday. Makan’s body was spotted by a local who alerted Kondhali police station. There were no injury marks on the body which was later sent to Katol hospital for post-mortem examination. Makan was learnt to have enmity with some gangsters in the city over a property but police are yet to confirm the motive behind his murder. Jaripatka police had earlier registered a missing person’s complaint after Makan’s car was found abandoned near Sai temple.
Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.
Stay updated with all the Latest Nagpur headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.
Source:-https://www.nagpurtoday.in/kidnapped-nagpurs-transporter-bobby-makan-found-dead-in-forest/04281525
https://www.nyoooz.com/news/nagpur/1367323/kidnapped-nagpurs-transporter-bobby-makan-body-found-in-forest/ 2019-04-28 09:55:00Z
Customers who wander in a few minutes before closing may be confronted by not only unhappy servers, but also an unhappy kitchen staff, eager to go home, Dublanica said.
“You will never see food cooked faster than the food that’s cooked for the last customer of the night,” said Dublanica, noting that it’s not uncommon for a kitchen staff to rush through the preparation of the last meal of the night, and might be more inclined to cut corners.
Customers who are the last diners of the night also run the risk of having unwelcome ingredients around their food, including cleaning sprays and solutions, Dublanica said.
“The staff is typically starting to clean up the kitchen and the restaurant near closing time,” Dublanica said. “And that stuff can and does get in and around the last meals of the night.”
If you arrive late to a restaurant and know that the kitchen is about to close, Dublanica advises it’s best to order an entrée only, and to ask for the check right away, which sends a message to the kitchen that you’re not trying to be a difficult customer.
“The staff will be nicer to the customer who they know is just hungry and not trying to add three more hours to their night.”
Ever wonder if restaurants keep track of customers they like — and customers they don’t? Dublanica says they do. And that means being a good customer can pay off — and being a bad customer can come back to haunt you.
“Nowadays people can change their plans on the fly, and that can hurt your relationship with a restaurant,” Dublanica says. He notes that in an age in which reservations can be easily made online, using OpenTable and other apps, people sometimes double book and fail to inform a restaurant when they decide to go elsewhere. “People often don’t show up or they cancel at the last minute. Restaurants definitely keep a record of that.”
If you have to cancel, Dublanica says, call the restaurant directly and apologize. The worst offenders, he said, are those who fail to show up at all — leaving the restaurant to hold their table needlessly and potentially turn customers away.
Repeat offenders score a black mark in the restaurant’s book. And yes, Dublanica said, the restaurant keeps written track of customers.
And just as restaurants keep track of who doesn’t show up for reservations, he said, they also keep a running list of good tippers. He said most restaurant have codes in their reservation system, which allow hosts, managers and wait staff to note good customers.
“You don’t have to be an extravagant tipper — but all the waiters remember if you’re cheap,” Dublanica said. “A standard decent tip is 15 to 20 percent. But if you fail to tip a server an appropriate amount, they’ll remember you. And word often gets around. Suddenly you may not be getting a table on a busy night or you may not be getting reservations at all.”
Dublanica said cash tips are always appreciated over credit card tips, so even if you pay the bill with a credit card, servers appreciate the tip in cash, if possible.
“It’s not necessary, but it can go a long way to cultivating a good relationship with your server. And if that server likes you, he’s going to take better care of you.”
Dublanica notes that it’s also important to remember to tip 15 to 20 percent based on the full amount of the bill — so if you’re using a gift certificate or a Groupon, tip based on what the full amount of the bill would have been, without discounts applied.
“Servers are counting on those tips to help cover their own bills. Tips are built into their salary. And the last thing you want to do is come across as a cheap or difficult customer.”
Dublanica said if you’re intent on scoring the best table in the restaurant, it’s wise to do your homework.
“If it’s an important business dinner or you’re going to propose or try to impress a significant other, stop by the restaurant a few days in advance and take a look at the place,” Dublanica said. “Talk to the manager or the staff. Tell them what you have in mind and select the table that you think will work best for you.”
Dublanica said that restaurants are often eager to please the person who does his or her homework — and the personal contact will ensure that your romantic dinner or business dinner will go off without a hitch, with you and your guests dining at your chosen table.
Ever hear about servers spitting in the food of customers they don’t like?
Dublanica says he’s heard about that, too — though he insists he never witnessed anyone doing that in all the years he waited tables.
Still, he says, servers are known to take action against customers who behave badly.
“If someone was very rude and they asked for decaffeinated coffee, I am aware of times that customer was given caffeinated coffee,” Dublanica said, laughing. Dublanica said he has since come to recognize the health risks that can pose — and would never encourage a server to intentionally give a bad customer caffeinated coffee. Still, he said, rude customers should keep in mind that servers sometimes work to “get even” with those who are impolite.
“If someone was really rude to me at my table, I used to tell them in front of a table full of people that their credit card had been declined,” Dublanica said, noting that the maneuver would inevitably mortify the rude customer. Dublanica said he would run and then re-run the card a couple of times until the card would “magically” work.
Finally, Dublanica said, if you do get bad service in a restaurant and want to report it, don’t turn to Yelp or other online reviews. Instead, he said, sit down to write a letter.
“A lot of restaurant managers and owners don’t take Yelp and other online reviews seriously any more,” Dublanica said — noting that the online reviews are often riddled with fake reviews, often posted by a restaurant’s competitors. “Even if the online reviews are legitimate, they’re often ignored. If you really want to get a manager to take you seriously, write a real letter. Managers who see a real letter signed by a real person, who uses their full name and provides an address, tend to take those letters very seriously and will sit down with wait staff to address those problems.”
Want more tips like these? NBC News BETTER is obsessed with finding easier, healthier and smarter ways to live. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/how-get-better-service-restaurant-according-ex-waiter-ncna996481 2019-04-27 19:49:00ZIn a move that sent shock waves through San Francisco, chef Traci Des Jardins announced last month that her flagship Hayes Valley restaurant, Jardiniere, would close after a final dinner service on Saturday.
There’s arguably no Bay Area restaurant that better personifies the aesthetic opulence of San Francisco dining in the late 1990s — white table cloths, supple leather booths, exposed brick, illuminated ice buckets along mezzanine railings — than Jardiniere.
“It was one of those places that I never thought would close,” said Michael Dellar, founder and managing partner of San Francisco’s One Market restaurant. He described Jardiniere as one of the most influential restaurants of its generation.
For many locals, layered within the closure is an acknowledgment of culinary mortality — every restaurant has its time and, no matter how iconic it may be, will be forced to adjust to changing dining demographics. Jardiniere’s closure, to many restaurant industry folks, represents the end of an era of San Francisco dining.
When Jardiniere made its debut in fall 1997, it was a blockbuster, staffed by a dream team from San Francisco’s top restaurants. The project was primarily a stage for Des Jardins, a culinary talent who was already on the national radar, having been named America’s top rising star chef by the Beard Foundation in 1995 during her time at Rubicon on Sacramento Street. Her partner at Jardiniere was Pat Kuleto, a generational talent in restaurant design who, at the time, was coming off two massive hits in Boulevard (1993) and Farallon (1997). (Des Jardins bought out Kuleto in 2012.)
Des Jardins’ Hayes Valley cathedral quickly attracted crowds and racked up the accolades, from both local and national press.
Here “was a young, queer, woman chef who was turning the city on its ear. The place felt old school and modern at the same time, which is awfully difficult. But when we achieve that balance, we are realizing what is truly good about San Francisco,” said Thad Vogler, who worked as a bar manager at Jardiniere and now owns several local restaurants, including Bar Agricole and the newly opened Obispo.
Following the traditions of Alice Waters and Jeremiah Tower, Des Jardins pushed forward California cuisine. While doing so, her restaurant became an incubator for stellar culinary talent.
“Jardiniere was a sought-after kitchen for many young chefs seeking to hone their technique and learn more about fine dining,” said One Market chef Mark Dommen, who staged (interned) at Jardiniere and saw the kitchen become a hub for chefs in the region.
Then there was the impact on the neighborhood: In the 1990s, Hayes Valley was a far cry from the culinary destination it is today. When it opened, Jardiniere served as the area’s most ambitious enterprise.
“She went into a location knowing that, at some point, it would be the spot,” said Kim Alter, chef-owner of Nightbird a few blocks away in Hayes Valley. “Hayes Valley was not the nicest neighborhood, but she was smart.”
In 1999, City Hall reopened after a seismic upgrade, a few years after the central freeway came down. With the work complete, Jardiniere quickly became a beacon for a demographic headed to symphonies and operas in the area.
Jardiniere’s best years, according to its chef, were in the late 1990s and early 2000s. On nights when the theater crowd flocked to the neighborhood, Des Jardins said it wasn’t unusual to see the restaurant do three turns, meaning each table got three separate dining parties, so the kitchen could serve 600 or so meals in a night.
Multiply that number by three to four courses, composed of dozens of menu options, each dish containing multiple components, and you can understand what an undertaking such restaurants can be — and what happens when things slow down.
“With Jardiniere, you want to see growth, year-over-year. When you get into a period like we were where you stop seeing that, it makes you pause,” Des Jardins said. “We weren’t in a dire situation or anything like that. It just seemed like the right time to make this decision.”
Upscale dining, in general, is still thriving in the Bay Area, which is home to the most Michelin three-star restaurants in the United States and a place where a new tasting menu restaurant seems to pop up on a weekly basis.
What has changed is the business model.
High-end Bay Area restaurants with 75 or more seats that have closed since 2010 as different business models have proved more sustainable.
Ame
Aqua
Bacar
Bourbon Steak
Camino (Oakland)
Dirty Water
Fifth Floor
Fleur de Lys
Pican (Oakland)
Redd (Yountville)
Rose Pistola
RN74
Terra (St. Helena)
Volta
Waxman’s
“I think restaurants of Jardiniere’s size may be obsolete,” said Umberto Gibin, co-owner of the 12-year-old Perbacco in San Francisco. “You have to have a steady clientele in the dining room each day. You have to have fannies in seats.”
Jardiniere’s closure is emblematic of the plight of high-end, a la carte restaurants in San Francisco — operating costs are too grand and profit margins too slim. There’s a reason that small restaurants — often fewer than 40 seats — that serve only one tasting menu option are proliferating, while choose-your-own-adventures restaurants like Jardiniere, which has more than 180 seats over two levels and myriad menu combinations, are fading away.
“Jardiniere was the high-end place that took all comers: a five-course meal at midnight after the opera, drinks after work, oysters at the bar. To staff for this kind of place is difficult,” said Vogler. “You need to have the labor to cover whatever happens, which means being careful and maybe keeping too many people on the clock and to over staff these days is to die.”
Colossal fine dining restaurants in San Francisco are rapidly becoming relics of the industry’s past, a time when chef ambitions weren’t limited by square footage. Real estate has skyrocketed over the past two decades, as have minimum wages, thus taking overall restaurant operating costs to new levels.
Meanwhile, more chefs like Des Jardins are finding solace in more casual ventures, as success is no longer measured by fine dining accolades. Once Jardiniere closes, Des Jardins plans to focus on Mexican cooking and casual service, two avenues running through some of her other San Francisco restaurants, such as Arguello and Mijita.
Large restaurants are still opening in San Francisco. The lasting lesson from Jardiniere’s run, however, may be the importance — and some may say, perils — of a built-in audience.
Michael Mina’s Trailblazer Tavern opened in December 2018 with 215 seats over 7,000 square feet, but resides within the Salesforce East building where it has a captive crowd. The same could be said for the Vault, the new 160-seat, 4,800-square-foot restaurant in the bottom of the Bank of America building at 555 California, home to thousands of employees at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Mourad Lahlou’s eponymous Moroccan restaurant in the Pacific Bell Building at 140 New Montgomery has more than 150 seats over two levels; it has 26 stories of office space above it.
Jardiniere could have catered to other crowds, like the various tech workers over the decades, Des Jardins said, by adding trendy items to the menu or tweaking aesthetics to fit the rest of the dining scene, but that wouldn’t have felt right.
“We could have done those things. We just didn’t, and we weren’t able to get those new regular guests a place needs,” Des Jardins said.
The business represented the highs of a bygone generation of restaurants — a la carte menus, large crowds and ambitious floor plans. The restaurant was also a harbinger of change as Hayes Valley became a culinary destination. But now, as it bids adieu, Jardiniere will be the latest addition to the growing list of bygone San Francisco restaurants.
“Virtually no restaurants are remembered once they close. This fact is sad but also kind of beautiful; they come and go. Jardiniere is an exception to that rule,” Vogler said. “I think it will join a few places, like Ernie’s, like Stars, that are discussed for years to come.”
Justin Phillips is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jphillips@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JustMrPhillips
https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/For-San-Francisco-restaurants-Jardiniere-s-13799556.php 2019-04-27 11:00:00Z
