Forum Topics WOW WOW ACCC

Pinned straw:

Added 2 months ago

Shares in both Woolies and Coles have taken a hit after the ACCC alleged they misled customers about their pricing.

For Woolies, the market cap dropped by $1.5 billion due to a 3.5% fall in share price, which seems disproportionate to the likely fine they could face if the ACCC is successful.

The maximum possible fine under Australian Consumer Law could be:

  • $50 million per breach
  • Three times the value of the 'reasonably attributable' benefit obtained
  • 30% of the corporation's adjusted turnover during the breach period


However, the last option seems highly unlikely given the legal and political influence of Coles and Woolies. Cynically, one might say the ACCC and the Government are making a show of addressing the 'cost of living' crisis, with these companies as convenient targets.

For context, the largest fine of this kind in Australian history was $125 million, imposed on Volkswagen in 2019. Even if Woolies were fined $250 million, it would represent just 7% of their FY EBIT.

If I thought shares were reasonably valued, this might be a buying opportunity. But in my opinion, they're not close.

Still, it's interesting to compare the numbers with the market reaction.

Tom73
Added 2 months ago

Here we go again…

Roll out the invalid veteran pensioner who was maliciously dupped to pay more for dog food by a red sale tag which is the only thing he can afford because those nasty supermarkets are making massive profits and causing all this cost-of-living pressure!

Welcome to Retailing ACCC… mark it up to discount is a standard business practice.

Below is from ACCC website on what is required for price setting, which is a “reasonable” period before the sale starts and it also requires pricing to not be “False or misleading”. 

As usual – clear as mud!

Price displays | ACCC: relevant ways displayed price can be misleading

  • Stating the sale price is marked down from an earlier price when:
  • the items were not sold at that price in a reasonable period right before the sale started, or
  • only a very small proportion of items were sold at that price right before the sale.
  • Promoting a price as being a sale or special price, when it is actually the normal price.


Given the definition of “reasonable” period is what most people would think is fair in the circumstances then Woolworths and Coles are stuffed, because most people have very unreasonable expectations. Namely that they should just be offered the best prices all the time and not have to think for themselves or shop round.

So, we will see the bandwagon full of opportunists jump on this for political gain to point out:

·        Supermarkets are price gouging consumers

·        Supermarkets are making too much profit at supplier expense

·        The supermarkets are a noncompetitive duopoly that needs to be broken up

·        The supermarkets are the cause of inflation


We need a ROYAL COMMISSION, because that fixes problems (like with the Banks…)!


Improving the information consumers have to make informed product and price choices is important (such as unit pricing), as is protecting the vulnerable and maintaining a competitive market. But the hypocrisy around these issues from politicians who mislead all the time and consumers who want others to be responsible for them getting the best deal and foot the bill for the convenience and choice they demand is quite annoying…


The supermarkets are not saints but they are no greater devil than those that beating the drum on this issue currently. So, lets set the rules, make them clear and then police them – but do so knowing that the less risks of bad outcomes in the system come at a cost for the good outcomes (no free lunches), it’s always a balance.

Rant over…

Disc: I own WOW, but only due to the recent madness – so I welcome it financially…

 

17