pricing out a low-end shirt: investment implications

A while ago, I wrote about pricing out a polo shirt that retailed for $150 then ($175 now).

Today’s post goes to the other end of the fashion spectrum:  pricing out a “fast fashion” shirt that might sell at H&M or Zara for, say, $15.  The source of my information about Bangladesh is an op ed column, “The Economics of a $6.75 Shirt,” by Rubana Huq, who owns a garment business there.

Just for reference, the factory gate cost of the KP MacLane  luxury polo is:

–materials           $10.35

–manufacturing          $11.05

= $21.40.

These figures are unusually high for a shirt, mostly because of the small initial lots involved.  The unit price could easily be below $15 now, depending on how successful KP MacLane has been in its sales efforts.

in comparison, costs in Bangladesh…

…for an order of 400,000 fast fashion shirts:

materials      $5.75

–cotton cloth           $4.75

–labels, other          $1.00

manufacturing     $.875

–wages          $.38

–finishing          $.15

–utilities, factory rent          $.11

–overhead          $.11

–debt service (for manufacturing equipment)          $.125

= $6.625

The selling price at the factory door is $6.75.  Therefore, the per garment profit is $.125.  The total order earns the manufacturer, before paying himself (or, in this case, herself), $50,000.  In the example Ms. Huq gives in her op ed column, this order represents about five months business for the factory.

what I find interesting

Although the KP MacLane polo and the fast fashion t-shirt sell for wildly different prices at retail, the material costs aren’t that different.

The markup over production cost is 718% for KPM, 140% for the tee.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, a Hermès polo sells for $455, or about 2.6x the price of the KPM one.  Hermès’ production costs are probably lower than KPM’s, so the markup is likely higher than 1800%.   In both cases the buyer is clearly paying primarily for the branding, not the garment.

The operating model for classic luxury goods is far different from that of fast fashion.  The former sells far fewer items-most of which have very long shelf lives–at huge markups.  The latter sells huge numbers of items with short shelf lives at low markups.

The two styles demand different skills.  Fast fashion, in particular, has little room for error in design or sourcing/pricing from manufacturers.

the Bangladesh situation

First of all, we have to remember that the data Ms. Huq present come from a manufacturer in Bangladesh, hardly a disinterested party.  Certainly she will want to put her best foot forward.  Still, I’ve found the situation she describes to be typical of the garment industry over the decades, whether located in New York City, Japan, Thailand, China or Bangladesh.

Bangladesh employs 4 million garment workers, the vast majority of them women, who are the chief breadwinners in households totaling 20 million.  They earn US$70 – $80 a month, which is far more than an unskilled laborer could expect in any alternative employment in Bangladesh.  Although their families are barely surviving, the greatest fear of these workers is doubtless that the garment industry will shift away from Bangladesh to other low labor-cost countries, like Vietnam, leaving them unemployed.

The garment manufacturer in Bangladesh may make $100,000 a year if everything runs smoothly.  But that could be considerably less if he’s inefficient or if he encounters production delays that, say, require him to pay for shipment by air.  So one can certainly understand–not condone, just understandthe temptation an unscrupulous owner may feel to lower rent by turning a blind eye to safety violations.   It’s not clear how much leeway fast fashion has to alter its operating model by raising prices, either (look what happened to JCP).

In theory at least,  consumer pressure on international retailers for a keener eye to worker safety when sourcing garments may solve that issue–although the same problems seem to recur decade after decade and in country after country.

The more difficult issue to reconcile are the ideas that income of $70 a month is a good situation to be in, which in Bangladesh it is, and that well-intentioned efforts to improve it may make the workers’ lot considerably worse.

I’ve been VERY wrong about the Japanese stock market

The Liberal Democratic Party retook control of the national government in Japan late last year on a platform of massive monetary stimulation aimed at shocking the economy out of its quarter-century of torpor.

Most economic effects have been as expected.  The ¥ has lost about a quarter of its value.  This has given export-oriented industries a big boost.  The price of imports has risen by enough, however, that the overall effect of devaluation on Japan has been slightly negative so far.  The trade balance will doubtless improve as Japanese citizens adjust to the tremendous drop in their standard of living that the devaluation has brought about.

Where I’ve been wrong has been in handicapping the behavior of the Japanese stock market.  In the only other recent episode of a big fall in the ¥, the Topix index (Tokyo large caps, the index professional investors use) rose as the currency declined, but only by enough to keep a dollar-oriented investor from losing money.  Yes, export-oriented stocks did better than Topix, but the overall index was unchanged in dollar terms.  I thought something similar would happen again.

Not this time, though.

Since the Abe administration took office and made it clear it would carry out its campaign promise, the Topix is up by 66% in local currency terms, meaning a dollar-oriented investor in the index has made a 25% gain.  Buyers of down-and-out consumer electronics firms like Sony have made twice that.  The long-Topix, short-¥ trade has made a killing.

As I see it, the rise in the Topix has been driven by foreigners.  Locals–never, in my experience, the canniest of investors–have  been mostly using the opportunity offered by devaluation to declare victory in their foreign investing forays and are bringing money home to put into things like real estate.

Press reports indicate new investors in Japanese stocks, including high-profile Western hedge funds, believe very strongly that the change in money policy also heralds a new era of openness to structural economic reform by Tokyo, and that foreigners will be allowed to play a significant role in the latter process.

My view, based on almost 30 years of watching Japan, is that Tokyo insiders regard devaluation as a substitute for reform, not a precursor.  I’d point to the experience of former Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, who was given an overwhelming electoral mandate for reform but who resigned as PM after five mostly fruitless years (2001-2006) of trying to effect change.  As soon as he left, the Diet immediately began to reverse the progress he was able to make.

For Japan’s sake, I hope I’m wrong again.  But I’m not willing to bet on the possibility.  As for the new wave of foreigners, I find it hard to figure whether they have a much more sophisticated read on the political process in Tokyo than I do or whether they’re completely clueless.  Given that reversal of the deep social/political aversion to disruptive change should make me wildly bullish about Japan, in some sense I must think the latter is more probable.  My official position, though, is that I don’t choose to bet.

 

 

parity party on the calendar–the yen and the penny?

parity–almost

Two days ago the Japanese yen reached a low where US$1 could buy ¥99 in the foreign exchange markets.  That’s extremely close to parity between the US penny and the yen.

What makes this level shocking is that last September, one greenback would only get you ¥77.  So the exchange value of the yen has dropped against the US$ by 22%+ in a little over half a year.  Stuff like this doesn’t usually happen with the national currencies of large developed world economies.

On the other hand, there aren’t normal times in the Land of Wa.

Japan’s problem

Japan has been struggling economically for almost a quarter century, plagued by a toxic combination of next to zero real economic growth + Deflation.  A falling price level means takes more of your income to repay debt, so no one borrows.  Things will always be cheaper tomorrow, so everyone postpones spending.

This stagnation is not an accidental occurrence, as I see it.  It’s the result of deliberate policy decisions by Tokyo aimed at preserving the social and cultural milieu of the 1970s-1980s–as well as the power of the aging and hidebound executives/bureaucrats/ politicians who came to power in that era.

How so?      The Japanese workforce is shrinking as the population ages, but immigration to replace those workers is not allowed.  Moribund companies are not permitted to die.  Instead, they’re kept alive by financial infusions from suppliers, customers and local financial institutions.  Nor are such firms encouraged to streamline or refocus so they can make money again.  Quite the opposite.  The government even protects inept or indifferent managements from any shareholder attempts to compel them to do so.  In many cases–the auto companies are one shining exception–zombie-like firms destroy the profitability of entire industries.

the inflation “solution”

Faced with severe voter discontent, the recently-elected new government has decided to “cure” the economic malaise by increasing the money supply until doing so creates inflation.  That’s the main economic plank the Liberal Democratic Party ran on, so arguably the ballot box shows the measure has popular approval.  Unfortunately for Japanese citizens, however,…

…there’s little reason to think that this will do lasting good

Textbook theory says an acceleration in money growth will lower interest rates and weaken the currency.  That gives the economy a temporary boost, which will gradually subside–leaving the country with the same real growth rate as before but with higher inflation.

A whiff of inflation is nothing too horrible in Japan’s case, since the country is suffering the ills of deflation–except for the risk that domestic interest rates will rise.  That could make it far more difficult for the government to finance the country’s huge debt burden.

In some ways, we’re in uncharted waters here, however.  Textbook theory is formulated from general economic principles buttressed by observations from practical experience.  Most of that experience comes either from small economies or from a much simpler pre-globalization (no BRICs) world, however.

So far, the announcement of Tokyo’s intention to create inflation has weakened the yen by a (to me) startling 22.5%.  That represents an extraordinary loss in national wealth.  It also means that dollar-denominated items–like food, clothing, fuel–that Japanese consumers buy on a regular basis now cost almost 30% more in yen than they did six months ago.  Yes, this is inflation, but not the healthy kind–wage increases driven by rising industrial productivity;  rather, this is a substantial fall in the Japanese standard of living.

Will the loosening of money policy lead to improvement in profits for Japanese industry?  In the case of commodity-like machinery output, the short-term answer is “Yes.”  Both the EU and the US have recently expressed strong concern that Japan is attempting to export its industrial woes through hostile currency devaluation.  This means that basic industry in both areas is already being hurt by Japan’s move.

On the other hand, will you now pick a Sharp TV over a Samsung, or a Sony smartphone over an iPhone/Galaxy S4 just because the price of the former has gone down a bit?  How many more boomboxes or Walkmen will you buy?

Perhaps most distressingly, for much of Japanese industry a lower currency will only make it easier to ignore their lack of innovation and their weak general management for a while longer.

The damage done to Japanese consumers is real and it’s today.  An industrial renaissance due to looser money is unlikely, in my view, while the government defends the status quo.  As the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass said, it’s “jam tomorrow.”

Macau gambling and the Chinese economy

March 2013 Macau gaming results

The Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau has just released its report on the gambling take of casinos in the SAR during March 2013.  The figure is eye-popping.  Last month gamblers exited Macau;s gambling palaces with their wallets lighter by 31.3 billion patacas (US$3.9 billion).

how good is that?

–P31.3 billion is an all-time monthly record for casino win in Macau.

–It represents a 25.4% improvement over the comparable period of 2012.

–The year-on-year gain is the highest for the SAR since January 2012, after which the Chinese economy–and the Macau casinos–began to falter.

–March is also up 15%+ vs. February, which runs contrary to Macau’s (admittedly short) pattern of flattish month-on-month comparisons in the first quarter.

winners?

This is great for the Macau casino industry, and especially for the firms that have recently added capacity, mostly in Cotai, to accommodate extra gamblers.

At the same time, the Macau gambling results give us a good idea about how well-to-do Chinese citizens feel about their economy, their personal earning prospects and their degree of comfort with the newly-installed government.  It’s a solid thumbs-up on all counts.

The figures also suggest that in its newly-launched anti-corruption, anti-ostentation campaign, Beijing is aiming at much bigger fish than high-roller casino patrons.

noodle making returning to UK from China–what this means

noodles to Leeds

British Food company Symington’s, the inventor of pea flour and maker of Golden Wonder’s pot noodles, is returning its noodle manufacturing operations from Guangzhou to Leeds, according to the Financial Times.  The FT says the company cites equivalent/lower labor costs in the UK and better response times to customers’ requests as the main reasons.  (I’ve looked in vain on the Symington’s website for a press release.)

This says something about China.  

But it’s not new news.  Alerted by Hong Kong-based distributor Li and Fung and by David Pilling of the FT, I wrote  in late 2010 about the shift of labor-intensive manufacturing, like t-shirt making, away from China to places like Bangladesh and Vietnam.  As I commented back then, this wasn’t particularly new news in 2010, either.

China has run out of cheap labor on its eastern seaboard, a signal that at least this region of the country has to shift to higher value-added manufacturing.  The textbook solution for a nation facing this issue is to allow its exchange rate to rise, while holding local currency wages steady.  China, however, hasn’t followed the schoolbooks.  It has kept its exchange rate relatively stable, while aggressively encouraging local currency wages to rise.  Although this also gets the job done of forcing the most labor-intensive and low value-added businesses to go elsewhere, it runs the risk of creating a lot of inflation.  We’ll see how things turn out.  But, personally, I’m not betting against Beijing on this one.

What’s more interesting, to my mind, is what this says about the UK

Yes, the home country has won back the noodle makers.

There certainly are transportation time and cost savings.

Symington’s will doubtless use “Made in the UK” to its marketing advantage.  And there are probably political points being scored as well.

Nevertheless, this isn’t wresting high-tech business from Google, or Samsung or Amazon.  It isn’t bio-tech.  It isn’t competition for LVMH.  It’s labor-intensive work that would otherwise have ended up in a developing country further down the food chain than China.

“Reshoring” of this type is a two-edged sword.  On the one hand, it’s an illusion-shattering phenomenon for dreamers who recall the days when Britain held a privileged place as the manufacturing hub for a far-flung colonial empire–including Bangladesh.  On the other hand, it’s a place to start.  And with sterling gradually depreciating, UK labor will be in increasing demand.

as an investor…

…this may not be great news for UK manufacturing.  Nor is it a reason to be interested in this sector, because profits are likely to be slim.  But even a low-end manufacturing revival means more jobs.  That suggests that mid- to low-end entries in consumer-oriented areas like lodging, specialty retail and supermarkets may have better prospects than is currently factored into their share prices.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 195 other followers