Sainsbury's, ASDA WalMart and Morrisons

The news is that supermarkets ASDA and Sainsbury's are looking to merge.  Lots of reportage discusses how they will look for efficiencies, and improved leverage over suppliers (presumably to match Tesco).

According to industry stats here the combined ASDA/Sainsbury will have a larger market share than Tesco (30% compared to 28%) but after required divestments that may mean they are of very comparable size.

 The question is  - What next for Morrisons?  Currently in 4th place with 10% they will automatically go up to 3rd, but be a third of the size of the two big supermarkets.  This is stick or bust time I suggest.  They could pick up retail units that ASDA/Sainsbury have to relinquish to please the authorities.  But do they then go all out to get to, say, 15% share?  OR do they stay where they are and hope to fend off Aldi on 7%?

I live in the home of Morrisons, Bradford, and would hope they go for growth, but part of me thinks that a better deal would have been for ASDA to take over Morrisons - roughly comparable market positions, whereas ASDA and Sainsbury now bracket Tesco in brand proposition.  Maybe that is the idea - leave Tesco no where to go either upmarket or downmarket.  But what do Morrisons do? Stick or Twist?

Marmite and Brexit

So the great "Marmite dispute" between Unilever and Tesco is over, but what did we learn?

There is a "Remain" analysis here at the Independent , an over from the FT here, and a Brexit analysis here at the Sun.

There is an interesting analysis that shows both sides suffered reputational damage (Marketing Week), but that of course is what promotional budgets are there for.

What we can be clear about is that this negotiation will be going on between Unilever and ASDA (and Morrisons etc.) and between P&G and Tesco (and ASDA, Morrisons etc.).  In fact they go on all the time.  This particular spat was very nicely timed for me because I had just been discussing with delegates a hypothetical similar battle between Tesco and Coca-Cola.

Unilever will be trying to maintain their profit margin, which is about 10%.  Tesco will be doing the same on a profit margin of about 1.7% (which is way down from the 5% or so it was earlier in the decade).  So on the face if it Unilever has lots of room to deal with material cost rises caused by the falling pound/euro exchange rate.  But why should it?  It's stock price will be in part based on the strong margins, so accepting lower margins would be a doubly whammy. 

Tesco of course in this cannot afford to absorb 15% price rises, and gets to look like the good guy looking after customer interests.

This negotiation between the 2 will go on all the time - it is just rather public this time, though interestingly the resolution is not as public as the spat.

Over time prices will rise - the weak pound means that imported raw materials will increase in costs, and products Unilever makes overseas will cost more when imported (they have no reason to reduce their internal transfer price and reduce profits elsewhere).  The public will pay more. 

Another factor is that the big discount competitors (Aldi, Lidl, Netto) are European and so their own brand products (if made in the EU) will also cost more in sterling.  Despite the competition, all the supermarkets have an interest in prices going up, none can afford to absorb the exchange rate impact, and none of their suppliers will do so either.  The size and speed of the drop means that currency hedging will only have limited some of the impact, and only for a limited time.

So what is the impact?  Sterling has fallen about 15%, but in any manufactured goods the cost of materials is only part of the total cost (maybe half or two thirds) so if products are made in the UK we might expect prices to go up 7.5% or 10%, and if imported 15%. 

In addition petrol and diesel prices should rise because oil is priced in dollars. Luckily (in a way) most of the pump price is tax and so the increase will not be 15% or anything like that.

Overall some commentators who know supermarkets are saying prices will on average rise by about 5%, which is low compared to the drop in sterling.  Efficiencies, competition, UK costs and other factors will keep it low.  Inflation will rise - for a year.  Assuming that there no further drops in sterling then this will be a spike in inflation unrelated to consumption and demand, which is why the Bank of England seem rather relaxed about it.

What does it mean for Buyers?  It means overseas products will be more expensive.  And that I wish I had bought my Euros for next month's holiday in France a month ago rather than waiting.  And bizarrely, I might be taking my own wine to France!

Tesco - late payment scandal

So Tesco have been rapped on the knuckles for late payment - see BBC here.

Almost a year ago I was writing about this here. 

Let's be clear - this was a deliberate breaking of agreed contracts by a large customer taking advantage of smaller suppliers.  Tesco are claiming they are undertaking "reorganising, refocusing and retraining our teams".  This is disengenous.  They knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it as a deliberate policy.  If they are serious about the apologies they need to sack the managers responsible immediately - all the way up to the board.  Don't pretend they have already gone, or did not know what was going on.  Fraud is a hard word but what else do you call signing contracts you have no intention of honouring?

People could have (and may have) lost jobs and businesses so that Tesco managers could claim inflated profits and cashflow, and falsely claim bonuses.  Those bonuses must be recovered, and the victim businesses compensated.

In the end the accouting scandal of which this is part might cost Tesco £500m in fines.  Was it worth it?

Bullying in the supply chain: Tesco

Following on from Sainsbury, the media is now focussing on Tesco and late payment.  The BBC had a very relevant interview with a small supplier from October 2014 to illustrate this week's story - Moo Chocolate.  Their point was that after contract Tesco decided to pay them late (or in their words to extend payment terms), and that the £6k involved was small change to Tesco but their monthly wage bill and late payment would have meant closure.

The interest on £6000 for an extra month is maybe £60 (based on 10%pa, which is probably too high as interest paid, and too low as interest charged).  I know that the cumulative sum of all these £60 is going to be a big number, but let's think about this in more detail. 

Firstly, if the buyer thought there was another £60 to be taken out of the price why didn't they go for it at the initial contract? If not, what do they think the consequences are going to be?

So, secondly, from working with ASDA Walmart years ago I believe that products are only going to be put on a supermarket shelf if they can make more money from the product than from whatever is on the shelf at the moment.  How much more?  Well I don't know.  But maybe 10% more is realistic.  Note that that is 10% more profit, not 10% more on the price.  In the case of small niche products like this chocolate bar the price is likely to be higher than Cadbury's anyway, but the profit margin will depend on a wide range of factors (raw materials, marketing, order costs, economies of scale in manufacturing, supplier power, contribution to supermarket promotions etc.).  So if the small supplier closes because of trying to get £60 extra out of the deal, you lose £60 in extra margin.  (yes, it will be replaced but if it could be replaced by something with a higher margin it already would have been).  That seems quite a risky way of doing things, unless you are absolutely certain that you can get the money out of the supplier - in which case see point 1.

And of course Tesco are now tarred with the same brush as Sainsbury, and in fact more publicly - which does not help their public relations and may have subtle longer term damage to the brand.

Was the £60 worth it?  Are the other £60s (from other suppliers) worth it?

I (oddly) hope that it is part of a considered strategy.  But I fear it was just opportunistic.

By the way, I was helping ASDA Walmart with bringing in these smaller suppliers.  The team there was well aware that small suppliers needed support before they were handed over to the "beasts" in category management who are as tough as they need to be.  And I don't underestimate how tough you need to be to do those jobs (I don't think I could) but you also have to be careful not to cross the line into being tough all the time when it is actually damaging to your long term interests