Greedflation? There’s no evidence supermarkets are profiteering – and this is why

Published

2 years ago

May 18, 2023

admin

It is hardly surprising that, confronted with the highest levels of food and drink inflation since 1977, some people have concluded that supermarkets are “profiteering”.

Those people, apparently, include Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, and the Unite union’s general secretary Sharon Graham.

Both have used that incendiary term over the past week, with Sir Ed going so far as to call for an investigation into the sector by the Competition and Markets Authority, the UK’s main competition watchdog.

The CMA was quick to close down that option when, on Monday, it made clear that “global factors” had been “the main driver of grocery price increases” and said it “has not seen evidence pointing to specific competition concerns in the grocery sector”.

It did though, presumably following a degree of ministerial coaxing, announce it was stepping up its work in the grocery sector “to understand whether any failure in competition is contributing to grocery prices being higher than they would be in a well-functioning market”.

The CMA’s instincts not to pursue a full-blown investigation into the grocery market are well-founded.

For there is absolutely no evidence to point to profiteering by supermarkets.

Take Tesco, the UK’s largest grocery retailer. It has reported a 7% drop in its operating profits for its retail businesses in the UK and Republic of Ireland in the financial year just ended.

It expects its profits for the financial year just started to be “broadly flat”.

Or take Sainsbury’s, the number two player in the market. It has recently reported a 5% drop in its underlying pre-tax profits for the financial year just ended and, like Tesco, expects profits growth to be flat this year.

These are probably the best indicators of what is going on in the market because Asda and Morrisons, the remaining two members of what used to be called the “big four” in recent years, have both recently changed hands and so their numbers will be less “clean” in the jargon.

But they too, like Tesco and Sainsbury’s, have also seen declines in their pre-tax profits for the most recent reporting periods.

The numbers don’t lie

Falling profits are hardly indicative of a sector that has been profiteering.

A look at some other financial metrics reported by the grocery multiples bear this out.

Tesco’s operating margin for the year just ended was just 3.8%, down from 4.37% the previous year and well down on the 5% or so that it and rivals – most notably Asda – has targeted historically.

Sainsbury’s has just reported a retail underlying operating margin of just 2.99%, down from 3.4% the previous year.

These are not, repeat not, the kind of figures one would expect to see from businesses that were profiteering. To put them into context, Apple has just reported an operating margin of 30.2%.

Another metric which gives the lie to any notion of profiteering among supermarkets is return on capital employed (ROCE) – a measure of how good a business is at generating a profit from the capital it puts to work.

Sainsbury’s has just reported a ROCE of 7.6% for the year just ended, down from 8.4% the year before, while Tesco’s ROCE has fallen from 7.5% to 6.6% during the last year.

Again, to put those figures into context, the Office for National Statistics reports that the typical rate of return achieved by a private sector company in the UK between July and September last year (the latest quarter for which figures are available) was 9.7%.

These numbers are just not what one would expect to see from a company that was profiteering.

The mistake made by people like Sir Ed and Ms Graham, who believe they have detected profiteering by supermarkets, is probably just to look at how big the headline profit is.

Tesco reported a headline retail operating profit of £2.3bn for the UK and Ireland for the year just ended.

A big number, yes, but – as has been shown above – not when set against sales of £53.3bn. These are huge businesses and with them come huge operating costs.

‘Shoppers are blessed’

As Clive Black, head of consumer research at the investment bank Shore Capital, put it to clients this week: “Tesco UK achieves circa 4% margins due to its scale (27% market share) but also a massive capital outlay in superstores that it would not expend today with current returns. Tesco is not opening any supermarkets, what does that indicate?

“Since the early 1990s, major UK superstore margins have fallen by 30% to 50% … Asda, Iceland, Morrison and Waitrose are largely loss-making to break-even at the profit before tax level.

“In the early 1990s, Sainsbury reported profits before tax of over £800m. We are forecasting less than £700m for the current full year after expending billions on capital expenditure.”

Mr Black, one of the City’s most experienced and highly regarded retail analysts, argues that “evidence of systemic profiteering is largely nonsense”.

He says that, on the contrary, the British public and government are “blessed to have one of the most advanced food systems in the world” which has brought down the proportion of household income spent on food from more than a third immediately after the Second World War to just one tenth now.

“That is a massive benefit of innovation, investment, technological change and entrepreneurship to society and an enhancement of living standards. More to the point, we have an amazing choice of safe product,” he added.

Not only is fierce competition in the grocery sector driving down supermarket profits. It may also be hurting other parts of the food and drink supply chain. Intense competition hurts suppliers of essential products such as milk.

Mr Black points out: “A decade or more ago, four pints of milk cost 155p to 160p. Prior to the pandemic, in 2019, that was 109p, despite rising costs in the interim. Presently, four pints of milk in UK supermarkets has fallen from 165p to 155p.

“The public kept quiet as milk was used, particularly by expanding German discount chains [Aldi and Lidl], as a loss leader, killing category profitability through those years.”

He suggests that government policies, such as regulations on packaging and clampdowns on migrant labour that have pushed up the operating costs of food producers, are – along with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – among the main factors stoking food price inflation.

‘Stupid statements’

The example he cites is tomatoes. When bad weather hit tomato production in Spain and North Africa recently, leading to shortages, there were gaps on the shelves of some supermarkets in the UK.

Mr Black explains: “The UK government decided not to support domestic glasshouse growers on energy or labour access and so, understandably, said folks emptied their facilities.

“Continental Europe, which tends now to have higher base food prices and elevated food inflation too, did not go short of such products while the UK did. Why? Well, because the intense competitiveness of the British market meant that African and Spanish product followed the money and, with little domestic produce, the availability matter was compounded.

“If anything shows the stupidity of Mr Davey’s supermarket profiteering statements, then tomatoes display all.”

Still unconvinced?

Well, take a look at the company share price charts.

Strip out the impact of share splits or consolidations and shares of Tesco, despite rallying by nearly 18% since the beginning of the year, have been changing hands this week at the same price they were back in November 2000.

Likewise, shares of Sainsbury’s, despite having risen by 27% so far this year, have been trading this week at the level they did back in September 1990. That is despite billions of pounds worth of investment by both in the intervening decades.

Supermarkets profiteering? Some of their long-suffering shareholders would probably be thrilled if they were.

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

21 hours ago

April 26, 2025

admin

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.

Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.

The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.

Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.

It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.

In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.

“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.

“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”

Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.

His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.

While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.

The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.

Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.

The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.

Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.

More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.

Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.

Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.

In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.

The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.

Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.

“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.

“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.

“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.

“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.

In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.

The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.

HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.

“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.

“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”

The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.

Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

2 days ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.

Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.

Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.

Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.

Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.

The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.

In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.

A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.

Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.

Business

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn’t add up

Published

2 days ago

April 25, 2025

admin

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn't add up

As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.

The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.

In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.

Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.

For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.

The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.

That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.

The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.

The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.

That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.

Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.

That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.

You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.

“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.

That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.

Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.