Shopping not going too well for Sainsbury’s and Asda.

A typical UK family spends approximately 10% on food, with the figure being 4% higher for low income families. Therefore, what happens in the grocery industry is of significance to all consumers in the UK.

The proposed merger of Sainsbury’s and Asda would, if no changes are made in their operation, create a business which has 29% of the grocery market (Sainsbury’s 15% and Asda 14%), employ 343,000 workers (Sainsbury’s 187,000 and Asda 156,000), have 2,104 stores (Sainsbury’s 1,428, Asda 676) and revenue of £50.7bn (Sainsbury’s £28.5bn, Asda £22.2bn). The new business, which joins Britain’s second and third largest supermarkets together, would push Tesco out of first place

The arguments in favour of the merger focus on the economies of scale which the new firm would gain, such as bulk buying and marketing economies. It would allow it to build a stronger on-line presence and counter the competition from the discounters Aldi and Lidl and also from the entry of Amazon into the grocery market. According to the Chief Executive of Sainbury’s, consumers would benefit from price cuts of 10% on “everyday products”.

Elsewhere, there were concerns that the merger would reduce competition. The CMA has identified 694 areas of the country where it would fall because both Sainsbury’s and Asda have stores (either supermarkets or convenience stores) which currently compete. However, Sainsbury’s and Asda argue that the physical presence of stores is increasingly unimportant as more shopping is done on-line. Consumer groups and trade unions fear that the merger would effectively create a duopoly among the supermarkets (Tesco and Sainsbury’s/Asda) which would allow pressure to be placed on suppliers to lower prices, would involve redundancies as the new firm closed stores and sacked staff and lead to lower quality and higher prices.

Although their final report is not due until April, the Competition and Market Authority announced last month that the proposed merger  was likely to be against the public interest, leading to higher prices and a reduction in the range and quality of products. They have the power to block the deal or, if they allow it, to ensure that the two companies sell off a number of stores and allow another company to buy either the Sainsbury’s or Asda brand.

Big pharma, the NHS, and ‘price gouging’.

Over the past couple of years, the news has reported several incidents of sudden and rapid price hikes in medicines bought by the NHS. Drugs are often patent protected, which, put simply, means that firms are legally protected from another firm reproducing their product. Patents are a barrier to entry that helps to increase monopoly power. They do, however, provide benefits, insofar that without legal protection firms are unlikely to conduct the highly expensive research and development process to develop new drugs if another firm can simply come along and copy their idea. Without the high R&D costs, the rival would be able to charge a lower price and so the ‘creator’ stands to make large losses. Consequently, firms would not invest in R&D and we, the consumers, would not benefit from the advances in medicines we have seen.

On the other hand, firms can exploit this legal protection and monopoly power by charging very high prices to earn abnormal profits. These profits can be reinvested to develop new drugs, as Big Pharma will point out, or returned to shareholders in the form of dividends. However, the consequence of high prices, is, of course, lower consumption, and given the nature of the product, this can have a significant impact on consumer’s health.

The NHS is a very large organisation, Britain’s largest employer, with an annual budget of approximately £122bn. This should give it monopsony power when it comes to buying drugs, approximately £15bn of the budget, countering the monopoly power of the large pharmaceutical firms, such as Pfizer. However, reports suggest that the NHS is not getting value for money and is a victim of ‘price gouging’ – the process of suddenly increasing prices to exploit market power and increase profits. Probably the most famous example of price gouging is when Martin Shrkeli bought a patented drug used to treat AIDS and then increased the price by 5500% overnight. The process of extracting a larger ‘slice’ of wealth without creating new wealth is called rent-seeking. He is not a very popular man.

The UK government can take action to deter firms from this practice, which often takes place when a patent expires and the firm can change the name and distribution chain, a process known as ‘debranding’. Recently, Flynn and Pfizer have been fined for their decision to increase the price of an epilepsy drug by 2000%, although this is being contested in the courts. Further regulation is being discussed by the government and may be processed in the near future.

Given the funding issues the NHS currently faces, an increasing medicines bill creates an unwanted opportunity cost and means that cuts in other areas have to be made. Big pharma does need to make a profit to recoup high R&D costs and fund new medicine development, but how much is enough?

Read the original article here.