Woolworths goes into administration

The high street retailer Woolworths, fondly known as Woolies, has been forced to go into administration after it failed to find a buyer to snap it up for a nominal £1. So, why didn’t anybody buy it, surely £1 for a whole company seems like a bargain? That’s because the buyer would have not only acquired Woolworth’s assets (things it owns), but also its huge liabilities (money it owes), £385 million to be exact.

So, what is administration and when does a business go into administration? With regards to business, it is when a business doesn’t have enough funds to trade, also known a cash flow crisis. Cash flow is not the same as profitability of a business, but refers to the cash flowing into and out of the business. If cash coming in is less than the cash going out, then the cash flow is negative and it means that the business does not have enough funds to meet the current liabilities, like creditors and suppliers.

Up to 50% now on at House of Fraser – click here to shop

However, going into administration isn’t still the end of the story for Woolworths. In fact, administrators, in this case the accountancy firm Deloitte, protect the company from creditors seizing stock to pay off the money that is owed to them. The administrators are trying to find a buyer for Woolworths, failing which it will be forced to go into liquidation. This is where the administrators try to sell off the assets to recover any money they can to pay off the debts. Woolworths competitors are dreading this because although it will mean less competition in the long term, since there is one less player in the market, in the short term, it will mean a price war during Christmas as the administrators will slash prices to sell off all the stock.

So, is the reason for Woolworth’s difficulties due to the credit crunch? Well, the increase in household bills has meant that consumers are spending less. This is evident from the fact that Woolworth’s like-for-like sales have decreased whereas their costs have increased leading to increased losses. Many analysts say that Woolworth’s difficulties should come as no surprise, as Woolworths didn’t have a clear brand image, what its brand stood for, and its purpose in the market. Additionally, suppliers of Woolworths found it expensive to insure themselves against the risk that it wouldn’t be able to pay them and hence, Woolworths had to pay upfront for the supplies, unable to take advantage of buying on credit that some of its competitors enjoy.

Woolworths has around 815 stores and employs around 30,000 employees. If the business does go into liquidation, all these employees stand to lose their jobs. Also, the businesses that supply to Woolworths will also suffer losses. The question many people are asking is why isn’t the Government bailing Woolworths out, after all, it did bail out the banks. Well, the Government can’t bailout every business in difficulty; it’s a natural business process where the one with the weakest business model fails hence making the others stronger due to decreased competition.

Other than its retail business, Woolworths Plc. also owns Entertainment UK and 2Entertain. Entertainment UK specialises in the supply of CDs and DVDs to retailers such as Tesco, Zavvi, W H Smith, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and of course Woolworths itself. EUK is said to be a profitable business and the administrators are looking for a buyer for it as well. If EUK is shut down, it will no doubt affect the retailers it supplies, especially during the crucial trading period of Christmas. BBC Worldwide and Woolworths Plc., on the other hand jointly own 2Entertain, and there are talks of BBC Worldwide buying Woolworth’s share of the business.
It has also been reported that MFI is also going into administration, and it looks like a few more will follow, certainly after Christmas. If you want to see Woolworth’s Interim report for 2008, click here.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

First the Chancellor giveth, then the Chancellor taketh away.

Yesterday, the Chancellor Alistair Darling announced in his Pre-Budget Report the much talked about 2.5% cut in the VAT, bringing it down to 15% from 17.5%. In the same breath, he also announced an increase in income tax for those earning £140,000 and above. From April 2011, people falling into this income bracket will have to pay income tax at the rate of 45p.

The cut in VAT is to come into effect from the 1^st of December. This leaves ample time for businesses to revise their prices and change the all the labels in the stores, but at the same time, being just in time before the Christmas shopping.

So, how will the change affect the prices? Will a loaf of bread or a bunch of carrots be any cheaper? No, because food products do not attract VAT. Surely, utility bills as a result will go down. Sadly, no because the VAT on utilities such as gas and electricity already have a lower rate of VAT charged at 5%. A cut of 2.5% doesn’t look as if it will make a huge difference in prices, especially compared to the generous 20%, 35%, 40% discounts offered by the retailers already.

To find your cheapest energy provider click here.

Then, the motive behind the cut is to give confidence to the consumers to go out and spend. But, confidence cannot be used to pay for a brand new PlayStation 3, can it? You need something else, namely, money. The primary reason why people are spending less money on the high street is because they have very little surplus left over after paying the high utility and food bills. And those who have enough surplus choose to save it for a rainy day.

That’s because it’s almost impossible to see a news report nowadays without it mentioning yet another company announcing job cuts. This creates uncertainty among those who are employed about the security of their jobs. Those who have recently been made redundant have no choice but to save money. But those who have a job also save since they don’t know how they are going to put food on the table next month or meet their mortgage repayments.

Another thing that’s hard to miss in a news report is an interview with the boss of a SME (Small & Medium Enterprise) business who has been denied a loan from his bank, or has had his overdraft facility cancelled. This leads to cash flow problems which means the business cant pay its staff, pay its utility bills, or even buy raw materials to maintain production. In addition, creditors, who owe money to the business, are unable or reluctant to part with their money. As a result, staff numbers have to be cut down adding to the number of unemployed across the country.

How can such news create confidence?

Perhaps, the Chancellor should look at reducing the VAT temporarily on utilities, or even get rid of them for the time being. More importantly perhaps, he should make sure that SMEs, who are perfectly healthy, should have access to loans and overdrafts at a reasonable cost to maintain their cash flow. After all, the SMEs are not asking for charity, just for funds which they are prepared to pay back with due interest. It makes sense for the Government to ensure that businesses that are perfectly sound to not go bankrupt just because they do not have enough cash or credit to meet their current liabilities. After all, the SMEs employ a lot of people in the private sector of the economy and contribute to the Treasury in the form of National Insurance and Corporation Tax. Since people are employed, it saves the Government the trouble of have to pay job seekers allowance, hence reducing its outflow.

So, it is perhaps job security and income security that will encourage the consumers to go out and spend, as Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown along with countless retailers are eagerly hoping, fingers crossed.

But it seems highly unlikely that the cut in VAT will have the intended purpose of instilling confidence among the consumers and going on a spending spree, but for the sake of the economy and the countless people who are unemployed, lets hope its not all in vain. The high earners are certainly hoping for it, since they are going to be paying for it, come 2011.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

http://www.moolanomy.com/998/money-hacks-carnival-39/

All the latest phones FREE on T-Mobile exclusively online

Spend, Spend, Spend

According to recent figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC), the value of total UK sales as of October 2008 were down 2.2% on a like-for-like basis as compared to last year. Food and Drink was the only sector to have shown an increase in sales. Consumers are cutting back and postponing purchases that are not needed and focusing on the wants instead. Buying patterns are changing as well since many now prefer to cook at home from scratch and are focusing on products that offer them value for money and are actually actively seeking out promotions, discounts and offers.

This is bad news for retailers who are desperately depending on Christmas sales this year more than ever. No wonder then that for many high street retailers, Christmas has indeed come early this year. Discounts and promotions which are normally seen after Christmas are beginning to make their way into stores at a high street near you- five weeks before Christmas.

Leading the way is Debenhams, who is having a “spectacular” three-day sale, starting today, where many of the products are going to be 20-25% cheaper. But its Marks & Spencer who is receiving the most attention and media coverage for its “20 % off” sale for only one day-tomorrow. Other high street retailers are likely to join the battle to fight for every penny of the consumer’s disposable income this season. In the coming weeks leading up to Christmas, more and more such promotions will come out to entice people to come in and spend their money.

Up to 50% now on at House of Fraser – click here to shop

But, as Gillian Lacey-Solymar pointed out on BBC’s Working Lunch, these promotions are likely to happen on weekdays. This is because the promotions are meant to draw people into the stores, which they do anyways on weekends, and so there is no point offering them heavy discounts then if they are likely to settle for less.

It is highly unlikely that these promotions will have a huge impact since people will only buy it if they perceive it as value for money and more importantly, if it is on the top of their priority list. The truth is, people are still being squeezed by rising utility prices and high food prices. Also, almost every other day a well known business announces job cuts which is likely to make those still in employment worry about their security and hence, save every penny they can.

Undoubtedly, all these promotions are good for the consumers. But, offering such huge discount means that retailers are effectively cutting their profit margins, or sometimes even making a loss just to shift their stock. What this means is that in the long term, many retailers will not be able to sustain themselves and it will not be financially viable for them to operate any longer, and hence will go bust.

So what? Well, this would result in job losses, numerous suppliers losing their orders and so on. When the economy does recover, it will mean one less competitor in the marketplace and hence, less competitive prices.

So, in the short term, the promotions are good for the consumers, in the long term however, maybe not.

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com

Children help their parents spend their money

According to recent news, parents are unwittingly spending £191 million a year to fund their children’s shopping habits. Or rather, the children are doing it for them on their behalf to save their parents the trouble of doing so. According to a survey consisting of 500 parents and 500 children, around 20%, or 1 in every 5, children have admitted to using their parents’ credit card for their online purchases.

The items in the shopping basket include the latest electronics, games, etc. Put simply, items that are on every child’s wish list. The age of the children ranges from 8 to 16 years and the value of the average purchase is said to be around £25. Of the parents surveyed, only 2% felt that their children would purchase goods online without their permission. 20% of the children also knew their parents’ username and password for their shopping websites. This made it easy for them to access their accounts and place orders.

Great deals at the Kodak Online Shop. Buy now >

The recent strain being put on personal finances due to the rise in prices and unemployment would have undoubtedly led to parents cutting back their spending on buying the latest gadgets and gizmos and branded fashion accessories for their children. This means that the children feel “left out” when all their peers have the latest mobile phone or mp3 player and they are stuck with the “old” one.

Certain companies prey on this insecurity that the children harbour by pressurising them to purchase, or rather pester their parents to purchase the products that are endorsed by their “heroes” whom they “look up to”. The advertising method is such that it sends out the message to youngsters that a brand name is much more important than they product itself. It is endorsed by a well-known celebrity and therefore it’s cool and fashionable to own it and most certainly well worth the expensive price tag.

Often, the prices of these products are 2-3 times the price of their unbranded, store own-brand or less known branded counterparts. The obvious reason for this is that it allows the companies to “skim” the market, or in other words, pricing their products higher than the competitors since they know that the consumers will still want to buy them.

In August this year, The Association of Teachers and Lecturers expressed concern when their research showed that children who didn’t have the latest gadgets or wear garments that didn’t sport a fashionable logo were often bullied and mocked by their peers.

The report also highlighted how “brand aware” the children are and how in the race to be up-to-date, they end up having low self esteem and self confidence because their “net worth” or “net value” amongst their peers is judged by the brands they own.

In essence, what these companies are doing is “adding value” to a product by merely associating it with their brand. So, what you end up paying for is the brand. Of course, many might argue that many branded products do offer good value for money because they are of a better build quality. And what you get in return for the premium charged is peace of mind that the product will last. No doubt, this is true. But then, this isn’t true in all cases.

Interestingly, 30% of the parents’ admitted to saving their banking details online.
If the children can easily access them, just imagine how easy it might be for a fraudster to access the details. Then the orders might not be for £25, but more like £2500.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_9ZhcHk7F5v3WAReNAjjeFmrMxg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7549770.stm
http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com/

Profits at Starbucks go Skinny Latte

Profits for the coffee chain Starbucks fell by 97% in the fourth quarter to $5.4 million, as compared to $158.5 million this time last year. Although the sales revenue were up 3% to $2.52 billion, like for like sales actually decreased by 8%.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise then since consumers are cutting back on what they deem “luxuries” and are more cautious about their spending and are literally watching their pennies. Starbucks is perhaps well known for its high prices as much as it is for its coffee. Its share price dropped by 3% after the news broke out and was trading at $9.91. Last year, it would have been worth around $20-$30.Starbucks said that it has seen a decrease in customer traffic, in other words the number of customers visiting its branches, and also, crucially, the value of each transaction per customer. So, it is likely that the increase in sales revenue is likely to be due to the increase in prices.

Although drinking coffee is one of life’s little pleasures, its prices in the cafés are anything but little. A cup of coffee for $4 or £2.50 may seem insignificant on its own, but multiply them up for every working day of the month and you are left with a sizeable figure. Starbucks could lower its prices, but it is seen as a premium brand and would as a result devalue its brand value. Think of Marks & Spencer’s food range competing on its prices with Tesco’s Value range or Sainsbury’s Basic range and you get the picture about devaluing the brand value.

It’s likely that other coffee chains like Café Nero and Costa Coffee would now be worried about their own situation while the likes of McDonald’s will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of attracting coffee drinkers with their cheap prices. McCoffee anyone?

http://www.bizeasy.wordpress.com