Skip to main content

Tesco income overstatment and the financial press

I don't know the details of Tesco's income overstatement -- the total looks large from here but not earth-shattering.  There are clear problem there but not really of my concern.  I know little about the company aside from the fact that I think my sister works there -- but in a non-retail division (maybe there are two Tesco's?) and that I used to shop there for groceries. Now this is a big company with annual profits in the STG 2 billion range (USD 3 billion with US$ 100 billion turnover) , so a STG 250 million error in net profit is a problem but its not about to kill the company (another story for its management).

This story is about analyst and financial reporters.  Last night flying back from Europe (on Air France -- man were we lucky that our flight was not cancelled) I was reading "Les Echos"  which is the French equivalent to the Financial Times.  There was a long winded article on the Tesco saga.  I was not very interested but one bit of information was fascinating:

The journalist was quoting an analyst that said that Tesco was overstating its revenues by not paying its suppliers.  According to the analyst Tesco would only pay 95% of the invoice and declare the balance as a profit.  My first reaction is that this has to be the most stupid comment on earth!  If you have an invoice for $100 and you only pay $95 aside from gross stupidity there is no way for the $5 difference to end up in profits... unless you decide not to eventually pay the $5 that you owe to the suppliers.  Even then this would not be ordinary income it would be extraordinary (not from operations).

Now this is where it gets tricky (and by the way the journalist never mentioned this bit).  Lets say that you buy $100 from a supplier -- but you have a deal with the supplier, if you order another $100 you get a 5% discount on your order.  In other words the next $100 of goods you buy only cost you $95. So it would be possible for Tesco to realize an additional profit on the next $100 of goods in bought of $5.

The question is then, when do you book this real profit.  As soon as you've order the next $100 of goods or once you have sold them?  This is not an easy question -- in fact there's a famous case study of discounts with the Arthur Murray School of danse ("AMS"). Guess what in AMS' american operations this kind of discount is accounted as profit at after the sale of the goods (the second $100) but in Australia the profit is booked as soon as the second $100 of good is bought.  Clearly there are different ways at looking at profits.

As a side note its always interesting to look at companies account in different jurisdiction (dual listing) the P&L are often very different -- for the same company.

Overall, and this is what is important as with regards to the article.  The fact that Tesco didn't pay the whole amount due to suppliers doesn't constitute a potential profit event; the only thing it does is that paying the $95 invoice will reduce payable by that amount -- in itself it has no profit impact.  if Tesco decided not to pay the $5 balance this is not an "ordinary profit"!

This is my point, this is a complex problem:  little of the information is available on why Tesco mis-stated profits by such a significant amount.  Grocery stores are notorious bad payers (to suppliers) because they operate in such tight margins.  But the article gave a false impression as to the nature of the problem.  I have serious doubts that an analyst (this was  a quoted statement in the article) actually said something as stupid, but I am confident that the journalist didn't understand what the nature of the problem was that could have generated this mis-statement of profits.

anyway that's it!

I have no position on Tesco (or any grocery operator for that matter)


Popular posts from this blog

Trucker shortage? No a plan to allow driverless rigs

There are still articles on how America is running out of truckers -- and that its a huge problem, except its not a problem, if it was a problem salaries would rise to so that demand would clear. Trucking is one of those industry where the vast majority of participants are owner/operators and therefore free agents.

Salaries and cost are extremely well know, "industry" complains that there are not enough truckers, yet wages continue to fall... Therefore there are still too many truckers around, for if there was a shortage of supply prices would rise, and they don't.

What there is though is something different; there is a push to allow automatic rigs to "operate across the US", so to encourage the various authorities to allow self driving rigs you talk shortage and hope that politicians decided that "Well if people don't want to work, lets get robots to do the work" or words to that effect.

This has nothing to do with shortage of drivers, but every…

Every punter says oil prices are on the rise: Oil hits $48/bbl -- lowest since September 2016

What the hell?

How could this be, punters, advisors, investment bankers all agreed commodity prices  in general and oil prices in particular are on the rise...its a brave new era for producers and exporters -- finally the world is back and demand is going through the roof, except not so much!

What happened?  Well energy is complicated, the world operates in a balance -- 30 days of physical reserves is about all we've got (seriously) this is a just in time business.  So the long term trend always gets hit by short term variations.

Global production over the past 12 months has risen by somewhat less than 1.5% per annum.  As the world market changes production becomes less energy intensive (maybe), but the reality is that the world is growing more slowly -- America Q4 GDP growth was around 1.9% (annualized) Europe is going nowhere fast (the GDP growth in Germany is overshadowed by the lack of growth in France, Italy, Spain (lets say 27 Euro members generated a total GDP growth of 1.2…

Paying for research

This morning I was reading that CLSA -- since 2013 proudly owned by CITIC -- was shutting down its American equity research department -- 90 people will be affected!

Now the value of a lot of research is limited, that is not to say that all research is bad. In fact, I remember that GS's Asia Aerospace research was considered the bible for the sector.  Granted, there was little you could do with the research since the "buy" was for Chinese airlines...that were state owned.  Still it was a vey valuable tool in understanding the local dynamics.  It seems that the US has introduced new legislation that forces brokers to "sell" their research services!  Figures of $10,000 an hour have been mentioned...

Now, research can be sold many times; if GS has 5000/6000 clients they may sell the same research 300x or 400x (I exaggerate) but this is the key -- Those who buy the research are, I presume, prohibited from giving it away or selling it, at the same time the same rese…