admin
December 20, 2022
Metro AG global chief executive officer Steffen Greubel said the company is at a “very advanced” level of discussions on its India business, suggesting for the first time that it could be looking at an exit from the country soon.
“We are very advanced in the process regarding India and are at a certain maturity level in the process. It’s too early to share any information, but we have discussed it greatly,” Greubel told analysts when asked if he is looking at a possible withdrawal from India and the status of talks. “We are very deep in the (sale) process in India,” he said last week while announcing annual earnings.
The German wholesaler grew its Indian business by 21% to $982 million during the year ended September, as per its latest annual report.
Last month, ET reported that Reliance had agreed in principle to buy Metro AG’s cash-and-carry wholesale India business for ₹4,000-4,500 crore.
Its unit Reliance Retail is already the biggest grocery retailer in the country with over 2,400 stores across formats while Metro operates 31 wholesale stores in India with seven of them on company owned land in prime locations. The company hasn’t publicly stated that it’s looking to leave India. Metro would be the second big international wholesaler retailer to exit India, if this happens. French retailer Carrefour wound up its India business in 2014 after struggling with sales for four years.
Globally, Metro is the world’s fourth-largest retailer by revenue. In India, it doesn’t sell directly to consumers and is an organised wholesaler or cash-and-carry operator that sells merchandise to local kirana stores, hotels and catering firms.
It decided to put the India business on the block as part of a global decision to exit the country due to heightened competition, a tougher regulatory environment and the lack of a level playing field between local and foreign retail companies, industry executives said.
Experts said the difficult European and global economic environment, regulatory restrictions in India, tough competition from domestic Indian groups and thin margins in the B2B business in India may have led Metro to focus on growing its core markets in Europe.
“Though India is, indeed, a long-term strategic market for companies looking at global growth, whether retail or B2B, not every business model from other geographies can be successfully transplanted or rapidly scaled in India, and Metro’s business footprint in India may be far smaller than they may have expected in the two decades of presence here,” said Devangshu Dutta, founder of retail consulting firm Third Eyesight. The choice to be present in different countries is always a dynamic one for global retailers and entry or withdrawal is driven by individual strategies, rather than solely on the merit of the market itself, he said.
“In September, the management board reported on the current status of the audit of strategic options for Metro India,” according to the annual report.
Overseas investment in offline trade has been a tricky issue, despite India allowing 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) in wholesale trade on a cash-and-carry basis. Metro was one of the first companies to enter the segment in India in 2003. Lobby groups representing small Indian retailers have accused overseas retailers of violating FDI rules, which the foreign companies have consistently denied. Some trade lobbies have complained to the government that a few global wholesalers have been flouting FDI rules by selling to consumers directly, which is not allowed as per current regulations.
(Published in The Economic Times)
admin
September 16, 2022
Over the past five years, legacy players have made a slew of investments in D2C startups.
Marico has acquired men’s grooming brand Beardo, beauty brand Just Herbs and breakfast brand True Elements. Similarly, Emami acquired vegan cosmetics brand Brillare Science and grooming brand The Man Company. It recently picked up a minority stake in nutrition company TruNativ. Colgate-Palmolive and Reckitt both hold minority stakes in Bombay Shaving Company, whereas Wipro Consumer Care has invested in The Ayurveda Company. ITC has invested in baby and mother care brands Mother Sparsh and Mylo.
Devangshu Dutta explained the reasons behind the trend of larger FMCG companies acquiring D2C brands.
admin
June 24, 2022
Written By Christina Moniz
Prashanth Aluru, a former Facebook and Bain hand, will be behind the steering wheel for this venture
The Aditya Birla Group has just announced the launch of its ‘house of brands’ business entity, TMRW, to support digital fashion and lifestyle brands. TMRW, which will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail (ABFRL), aims to build and buy over 30 brands in the next three years, the company said in a statement.
With this move, the company expects to make its entry into the D2C market, which is expected to be reach $100 billion by 2025. “What a brand like Shoppers’ Stop does in brick and mortar, ABFRL is doing online. While in the past, the company was known for certain brands, it is now pivoting itself towards a wider pitch with bigger variety of brands that could potentially appeal to a wider range of consumers,” said Ankur Bisen, senior partner and head, food and retail, Technopak Advisors. The launch could be ABFRL’s next step in positioning itself as a fashion major, he said.
Prashanth Aluru, a former Facebook and Bain hand, will be behind the steering wheel for this venture.
ABFRL will compete with start-ups like the Good Glamm Group and Mensa Brands, among others. The number of D2C brands and online sellers in the country have grown over the last couple of years, and experts believe that TMRW could be the company’s endeavour to become relevant to new-age consumers. Brands like Reliance Retail and Myntra are going down the same path, says Bisen.
The opportunity is immense; according to a report by IMARC Group, the Indian textile and apparel segment reached $151.2 billion in 2021 and is set to grow at a CAGR of 14.8% between 2022 and 2027.
ABFRL, which has a network of over 3,300 stores across India, is home to brands like Pantaloons, Van Heusen, Louis Philippe and Allen Solly, and has partnerships with labels like Forever 21, American Eagle and more recently, Reebok. The retail company has also forayed into the ethnic wear business and has forged strategic partnerships with designers such as Sabyasachi, Masaba and Shantanu & Nikhil.
Having reported losses for the last three years, the company narrowed its losses to `108.72 crore in FY22 on the back of revenues of `8,136.22 crore. The company reported a 55% surge in revenues during the last fiscal. While Madura Fashion & Lifestyle contributed 68.4% to the company’s FY22 revenue, the remainder 31.6% came from Pantaloons, according to Bloomberg data.
Ambi Parameswaran, author and founder of Brand-Building.com, said ABFRL has already built a good retail presence for the brands in its portfolio. “There must be significant synergies at the back end, but the brands are managed separately,” he said. “I suppose the new venture, TMRW, will offer all these brands as well as all the other ethnic brands that ABFRL has acquired in the last three years.”
He said the synergies will probably lie at the back end with supply chain, logistics, finance and HR. However, the brands will most likely be given the space to build strong individual identities.
This is not the company’s first foray into the e-commerce space. ABFRL shut down its e-commerce venture, ABOF (All About Fashion) in 2017, though in August last year, it said the brand would be made available on Flipkart and Myntra.
A concept like ‘house of brands’ is potentially beneficial to both — the large conglomerates and also to the smaller, emerging brands that are acquired. In a D2C framework, niche brands that would otherwise find it difficult to navigate the established multi-layered distribution and retail channels see greater feasibility in connecting with their customers directly through digital channels.
According to Devangshu Dutta, CEO of retail consultancy Third Eyesight, this makes it viable to launch a product range, which would not be immediately entertained in established channels, and allows them to retain their distinctiveness. With the passage of time and with their growth, some of these brands could also expand into established modern retail and traditional retail formats and to a more mainstream audience.
“Large companies, on the other hand, can find it difficult to grow their existing brands beyond a certain pace, and often may not be able to break new ground in terms of product development and customer experience. At some point, inorganic growth by acquiring other businesses and brands becomes an important element of their strategy,” Dutta said.
The house of brands model, to be sure, comes with its fair share of challenges. Angshuman Bhattacharya, EY India partner and national leader – consumer products and retail, said the strategy must have clear synergies from an operations and distribution perspective. “Possible challenges could emanate out of the non-compatibility of categories with the distribution. Another potential challenge could be in supporting multiple brands with marketing investments, failing which the realisable value envisaged during acquisition could stay unfulfilled,” Bhattacharya said.
The other downside, as Dutta pointed out, is that over time there is consolidation of market power within a handful of companies. This has happened across the globe and across sectors, and can negatively impact consumer choice, supplier dynamics and pricing.
Source: financialexpress
admin
April 24, 2022
Written By Suvashree Ghosh, Bijou George, and Sankalp Phartiyal
It was a contentious plan to repay overseas bondholders in full that brought what would have been India’s biggest retail deal to a grinding halt.
Debt-laden Future Retail Ltd.’s offshore bondholders — a relatively smaller part of the creditor pool — were promised 100% payment in the rescue offer from billionaire Mukesh Ambani, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Indian lenders were asked to take a haircut of as much as 66%, the people added, asking not to be identified discussing confidential information.
The unequal treatment led to the move last week, when the local banks rebuffed the $3.2 billion offer from Ambani’s conglomerate. Reliance Industries Ltd. announced the purchase plan in August 2020 but struggled to complete the transaction in the face of legal challenges mounted by Amazon.com Inc., which argued it had the first right of refusal contractually.
Bank of India and State Bank of India, the main bankers to Future Retail, didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment on reasons for voting down the deal. Representatives for Future Group and Reliance also didn’t immediately comment.
State-run lenders risked probes from federal agencies if they accepted these discriminatory terms, they said, explaining their preference now for a court-mediated insolvency process where bids are called in and there’s no risk of them being accused of cutting a bad deal. Bank of India has already requested an Indian court to initiate the process.
Hard-Nosed Decision
The hard-nosed decision by Indian banks has pushed the teetering Future Retail, which ran one of the nation’s largest retail grocery chains before the pandemic struck, one step closer to bankruptcy. Future Retail is almost certain to default on its $500 million bond coupon payment due July 22, S&P Global Ratings said Tuesday, while downgrading the company’s ratings deeper into junk territory.
The lenders’ action has also taken the wind out of a tortuous two-year-old litigation between Reliance and Jeff Bezos-owned Amazon — the e-tailer had started arbitration proceedings in Singapore to block the deal — but left the door open for Ambani to snag these retail assets, possibly at an even cheaper price, under the bankruptcy process.
“Reliance and other parties could be eligible to bid for its assets by submitting their resolution plans” even if Future Retail ends up in bankruptcy, according to Satwinder Singh, New Delhi-based partner at law firm Vaish Associates Advocates. “This would also lead to moratorium on any or all ongoing arbitration proceedings against Future.”
While the local lenders were agreeable to the deal when it was first announced, a lot changed in the past year or so, the people said. While the Amazon lawsuit dragged on, the asset value eroded and the pandemic worsened the cash crunch at Future Retail that began defaulting on its debt repayments.
Secured Indian lenders were promised recoveries ranging between 34% to 88% of the total $4 billion in dues and even those payouts were staggered over seven years, the people said.
Bloodless Coup
Reliance dealt a body blow to the Kishore Biyani-led Future Group in February when it quietly began poaching employees and taking over rental leases of hundreds of stores earlier run by Future Retail and Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd. Ambani’s bloodless coup prompted Amazon to suggest settlement talks on the bitter dispute and alarmed Future’s investors and lenders who worried about asset-stripping.
Reliance’s unexpected takeover of Future’s stores eroded bankers’ confidence in the deal as it stripped off value from the chain and potentially could erode Reliance’s offer terms.
The out-of-court truce talks between Amazon, Future and Reliance collapsed soon after the store-purchases were initiated, the companies informed India’s top court on March 15. Amazon will continue with its arbitration proceedings against Future Group in Singapore, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified as the deliberations are private.
“A major turning point was when Reliance physically took over Future’s stores, which turned it into a no-holds barred situation,” said Devangshu Dutta, head of New Delhi-based retail consultancy Third Eyesight. “Before this the battle was being fought in courts and across the negotiating table. But at this point it moved over to the real business.”
Source: bloomberg
admin
March 24, 2022
Written By Aditya Kalra & Abhirup Roy
MUMBAI, March 6 (Reuters) – At a large Future Retail (FRTL.NS) supermarket in Mumbai last week, workers were unloading hundreds of bright blue grocery crates belonging to India’s biggest retailer Reliance.
Prospective customers were turned back by security, disappointed at the closed state of the store that still carries the signage of Future’s biggest brand, Big Bazaar, but which will likely soon be rebranded as a Reliance outlet.
Across India, similar scenes are being played out as Reliance Industries (RELI.NS), India’s biggest conglomerate run by Mukesh Ambani, the country’s richest man, presses ahead with a shock de facto takeover of prized retail real estate that Amazon.com Inc has been keen to take part-ownership of.
The high-profile bitter dispute between corporate titans in which Amazon has sought to block Reliance’s planned $3.4 billion purchase of Future Group’s retail assets is currently before India’s Supreme Court.
Reliance’s takeover began with utmost stealth on the night of Feb. 25 when its staff began arriving at Future stores. Many in Future’s management were in the dark about the plans as store employees from all over the country frantically began to call, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
“It was tense, everybody was panicking. We didn’t know who they were. They wanted access and seniors didn’t know about it,” a New Delhi Big Bazaar store employee said, describing what happened around 8 p.m. that day.
At a Future store in Sonipat town in northern Haryana state, announcements were made asking customers to leave as Reliance seized control, one source said. In Vadodara in western Gujarat, Future employees arriving for work the next morning were asked to go back home with no explanation, said another source.
Citing unpaid payments by Future, Reliance has taken control of operations of some 200 Big Bazaar stores and has plans to seize another 250 of Future’s retail outlets. Combined, they represent the crown jewels of Future’s retail network and around a third of all Future outlets. read more
Although Reliance had not played a large public role in the legal dispute, it had, according to sources, for some months assumed many of the leases held by cash-strapped Future, India’s No. 2 retailer and Amazon’s estranged business partner.
Reliance’s sudden possession of the stores appears to have landed what some analysts are calling a coup de grace that spoils Amazon’s chances of untangling the transfer of Future’s assets to Reliance. That’s despite a series of legal battles won by the U.S. e-commerce giant to date blocking the 2020 deal announced between the two Indian companies.
“What will Amazon fight for now?” said a source close to the U.S. company with knowledge of the legal dispute. “The shops are gone.”
Representatives for Reliance, Amazon and Future did not respond to Reuters queries for this article. Sources asked not to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the dispute.
AFTER THE TAKEOVER, TALKS
Future Retail said on Feb. 26 it was “scaling down its operations” to cut losses although it made no mention of Reliance in its statement. Future Group as a whole has more than $4 billion in debt.
Reliance plans to retain Future’s employees at the stores it takes over, sources have said.
Amazon, which has a stake in a separate Future Group unit that it argues prevents Future from selling retail assets without its permission, has called the supermarkets and other stores an “irreplaceable” network in a sector worth $900 billion in revenues annually.
The legal wrangles had over time become increasingly high-stakes and marked by ugly rhetoric. At one point, Amazon sought for Future Chief Executive Kishore Biyani to be detained in prison for disobeying a legal order. And Future once likened Amazon to Alexander the Great and his “ruthless ambition to scorch the earth”.
But on Thursday, six days after Reliance’s move, Amazon at a Supreme Court hearing unexpectedly called for cordial talks to end the dispute – a proposal Future agreed to.
“People have taken over shops … let’s at least have a conversation,” Amazon’s lawyer Gopal Subramanium said.
Discussions are expected to begin soon. read more
Whatever the outcome of the talks, analysts say Amazon had gravely underestimated Reliance.
“If anybody should have seen this coming, it should have been Amazon and they should have prepared against it,” said Devangshu Dutta of retail consultancy Third Eyesight.
“Clearly, they didn’t.”
Source: reuters
