Connect with us

Uncategorized

Thinking about retailers right now?

Australian consumer-facing companies have faced unprecedented challenges and undergone significant transformation since the bushfires of 2019. From the…

Published

on

Australian consumer-facing companies have faced unprecedented challenges and undergone significant transformation since the bushfires of 2019. From the profound impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to violent mix-shifts from goods to services, and digital advancements, the sector has navigated a complex landscape.

Economic outlook and consumer spending

Australia’s GDP growth in Q1 slightly underperformed expectations, with a modest increase of just +0.2 per cent quarter on quarte and +2.3 per cent year on year. Notably, GDP per capita experienced a decline during this period, signalling challenges in the broader economic landscape. Furthermore, consumer spending growth exhibited slight weakness, falling marginally below anticipated levels. However, amidst these complexities, domestic demand displayed resilience and recorded solid growth in Q1, but this was primarily driven by robust business and public investment. 

With the RBA raising rates again last week, it is likely further pain, for discretionary retails in particular, is on the horizon.

Inflation, labor costs, and wage increases

In Q1, inflation remained elevated, with services inflation retaining its strength while the goods price deflator remained unchanged. Additionally, labour costs in the retail sector are set to rise by 5.75 per cent as per the Fair Work Commission’s annual wage review for the year starting July 1, 2023. This increase, higher than historical levels, poses a challenge for Australian retailers and the impact on their financial performance, is a major concern for analysts. The wage increase primarily affects the lowest-paid workers, combining an administrative reclassification and a 5.75 per cent increase in the national minimum wage.

Evaluation of labour costs and impact on retailers

Investors must consider the proportion of a retailer’s labour costs to sales, gross profit, and cost of doing business (CODB). Retailers with lower labour costs as a percentage of these metrics are better positioned. For all retailers, it will be crucial to consider ongoing cost-saving initiatives and productivity measures that can offset the impact of higher labour costs. Investors should probably steer clear of retailers that fail to address this issue or communicate it to their shareholders. Additionally, the flexibility of labour costs and the ability to optimize them, such as shifting the mix of full-time casual staff, will be essential. Store size and the nature of products sold, particularly essential goods with resilient demand, are factors that may mitigate the impact of rising labour costs for same retailers.

Australian retailers

Retailers such as Woolworths (ASX:WOW), Wesfarmers (ASX:WES), and Coles (ASX:COL) are relatively better positioned due to their lower labour costs as a percentage of sales, larger store sizes, and their focus on essential products. These companies have implemented cost-saving programs, productivity initiatives, and ongoing efficiency measures to offset rising labour costs.

Retailers like Premier Investments (ASX:PMV), Accent Group (ASX:AX1), Universal Store (ASX:UNI), Lovisa (ASX:LOV), Harvey Norman (ASX:HVN), Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL), and JB-Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH) may face relatively higher labour costs as a percentage of sales, smaller store sizes, and an emphasis on discretionary products. These retailers may find it more challenging to offset the impact of rising labour costs, thereby increasing the risk to their earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) margins.

Of course, the challenges need to be assessed against market prices. If prices are cheap enough, the benefits that accrue from an eventual recovery in the consumer, and the economy more broadly, may offset the negatives currently being experienced at an operational level.

Valuation and other considerations

Trading updates from several key players suggest softer trading conditions. Universal Store, City Chic (ASX:CCX), Treasury Wine Estate (ASX:TWE), and AP Eagers (ASX:APE) all reported challenges recently, with excess stock and increased promotional activity creating headwinds. As a result, most stocks in the sector experienced significant declines.

There have also been some positive developments, with the travel and accommodation subsector experiencing an increased share of wallet at the expense of household goods. 

Webjet’s update confirmed as much, indicating that travel spending remains robust for now.  This reflects our predicted mix-shift from goods to services (including travel) amid what I called ‘the economics of enough’ (consumers just bought too much stuff during the pandemic) bumping up against reopened borders.

From a macro perspective, overall employment conditions continue to be strong, but cost pressures and low consumer sentiment influence spending patterns. The duration of employment strength in the face of decelerating spending is a key question that remains unanswered. Will the RBA’s rate rises begin to translate into rising unemployment or recession?  Most think it will.

Interestingly, Commonwealth Bank’s iQ’s analysis in early May provided surprising insights into consumer behaviour across different age groups and categories before the recent weaker trading updates. The analysis revealed that younger age brackets had exhibited the softest spending, likely due to rising inflation in rent.

Consequently, and perhaps less surprisingly, the apparel category has experienced the largest decline in spending among the under-35 demographic. That explains why Universal Stores took a serious share price hit; its CEO surprised analysts by confirming the age of its target market was much higher than analysts had assumed. Its share price is down 50 per cent since January 30 this year.

Universal Store’s share price decline of 40 per cent in May, was not unique. Other ‘youth’ brands such as Lovisa and Accent Group, the latter being the owner of Hype DC and Platypus shoe stores, declined 22.5 per cent and 30 per cent in May, respectively. 

With cost pressures expected to rise further in the coming year, thanks in no small part to twelve RBA rate rises, it is expected trading updates will continue to soften. Forecasting the performance of retailers is challenging due to their significant operating leverage. Small changes in sales and gross margin assumptions can have substantial impacts on earnings, considering the inflationary pressures on staffing and rents.

For that reason our domestic investment teams are maintaining a very cautious posture towards most retailers.

The market however tends to focus on short-term headwinds in valuations, often overlooking long-term prospects, even in cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary.

There will eventually be a price at which higher-quality retailers become very attractive even amid the doom and gloom. Identifying alpha opportunities within this sector is an activity that shouldn’t be ignored over the next twelve months. Factors to consider include earnings expectations relative to the macro backdrop, valuations in relation to sustainable earnings, management’s strategies for different macro scenarios, and each company’s positioning with regard to inventory and cost-base contingencies.

Conclusion

For investors considering the Australian consumer sector, it is important to acknowledge rising labour costs, interest rate increases, declining consumer savings, and recessionary fears. While these challenges pose complexities, they also present opportunities.

When assessing potential retail investment opportunities over the next twelve months, it’s going to be crucial to consider their ability to effectively manage labour costs in relation to sales, profitability, and operational expenses. Companies with lower labour costs as a percentage of key metrics may be better positioned to withstand near-term economic uncertainties, maintain their competitive advantage and even take market share. Evaluating their strategies for cost-saving initiatives, productivity improvements, and operational efficiencies can provide valuable insights into their potential for resilience and profitability.

And then there’s the growth outlook for store openings. Retailers with a long runway for expanding their store footprint may see more share price volatility in the short-term, especially if they are selling discretionary goods, but any share price weakness may simply serve to boost future returns when the market regains its appetite for risk and growth.

For now, investors need to consider the impact of rising interest rates on retailers’ borrowing costs and consumer spending and their effect on sentiment towards owning retail stocks. In the past, P/E ratios have fallen into the mid-single digits before and during the early stages of a recession. Companies with prudent capital structures (less debt) may be better equipped to navigate higher borrowing costs and adapt to changing market conditions.

The Montgomery Funds own shares in Woolworths and Treasury Wine Estates. This article was prepared 13 June 2023 with the information we have today, and our view may change. It does not constitute formal advice or professional investment advice. If you wish to trade these companies you should seek financial advice.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending