Market Basket is a privately held New England discount grocery chain controlled by two third-generation branches of the founding family. One branch, owning 50.5% of MB, is led by Arthur S. and has no role–other than being on the board of directors–in the day-to-day running of the firm. The other is led by the largest single shareholder, Arthur T.
MB recently deposed Arthur T. as CEO and replaced him with two non-family members. Warehouse and delivery workers struck when they heard the news (with the encouragement of Arthur T., some have suggested), preventing the 71 stores from restocking and effectively hamstringing the firm. Recently, the Arthur S. branch has agreed to sell its shares of MB to Arthur T. for $1.5 billion.
Throughout this highly public dispute, Arthur T. has been portrayed as a benevolent retail genius, creating an immensely successful business with fanatically devoted employees and extremely loyal customers. Arthur S., on the other hand, has been seen as a money-grubbing child of privilege who wants to fund his yacht and string of polo ponies by pillaging the workers’ retirement plans.
A lot of this may be true, for all I know. And the issues rocking MB are all pretty routine third-generation family owned company stuff (see my earlier post on MB). But in the feel-good story line being taken by the media, one fact is being overlooked. From what little has been in the press about MB’s profits, it doesn’t appear to be a particularly well-run company. Arthur S. is probably right that Arthur T. isn’t a good manager.
the case for Arthur S.
Let’s say I’m a member of the Arthur S family and I hold 5% of MB’s outstanding stock. I receive a yearly dividend of $5 million. My genetic good fortune is significantly better even than winning the Megamillions jackpot. So in one sense I should have no complaints.
On the other hand, my share of the assets of MB is worth about $175 million. Therefore, my annual return on that asset value is 2.9%. That’s about half the return on assets that Kroger achieves. It’s also just over a third of what Wal-Mart generates, but I’m confident MB doesn’t aspire to be WMT.
I presumably also know that good supermarket locations are extremely hard to find in New England and that those MB has established over prior generations are immensely valuable. It’s conceivable that if MB were to conceptually divide itself into two parts, a property owning one and a supermarket operating one, and have the property arm charge market rents to the stores, MB would see that the supermarket operations lose money and are only kept afloat by subsidies from the property arm. (This situation is more common than you’d think. It was, for example, the rationale behind the hedge fund attack on J C Penney. That fact that inept activists botched the retail turnaround doesn’t mean the underlying strategy was incorrect.)
Even back-of-the-envelope numbers suggest something is very wrong with the way MB is being run. Personally, my guess is that the inefficiency has little to do with employee compensation or with merchandise pricing, although the former has apparently been the focus of the AS’s discontent. I’d bet it’s in sourcing and in how shelf space is allocated.
At the same time, Arthur T is presumably blocking my every attempt at finding stuff out and is rebuffing board suggestions that he bring in help to analyze why his returns are so low. If MB were a publicly traded company, I could sell my shares and reinvest in a higher-return business. I’m probably not able to do this with MB. Even if I were, the public intra-family feuding would suggest the stock wouldn’t fetch a high price.
I have two choices, then. I can accept the status quo, or I can try to create a consensus for the family to sell the firm. That latter is what Arthur S. chose to do.