Should the ACCC have approved the $8.8 billion reverse takeover of Sigma pharmaceuticals by Chemist Warehouse?
Chemist Warehouse is by far the largest competitor in the $17 Billion retail pharmacy market. Sigma pharmaceuticals is a wholesaler serving all pharmacies, and holding a major share. On the surface the reworked Chemist Warehouse/Sigma pharmaceuticals company could exert undue competitive pressure on retail pharmacy competitors. They would be in a position to dictate price and terms by virtue of their scale. Surely not a good outcome for retail prices.
On that basis when recently asked my view I asserted that the ACCC had made a mistake in allowing this transaction. It seemed on the surface that the power of the combined group would logically result in higher barriers to entry, less innovation, the lessening of competition logically leading to higher prices.
However, on the flip side, is it the role of anti-competitive legislation to protect competitive enterprises in a vertical?
Retail pharmacies make anywhere between 25% and 65% of their revenue from non-prescription sales. The latter number being Chemist Warehouse share, the former being the bottom end of all other retail pharmacies. In effect, pharmacies operate as competitors to Woolworths and Coles for a big chunk of their revenue.
We have a paradox here reflected elsewhere in the economy, most particularly in the retailing of food and groceries. Should regulatory authorities be required to interrogate just the horizontal market for competitive pressure, or should they also reflect on the verticals in operation that serve as the supply chains?
Coles and Woolworths over the last 40 years have effectively created what was 20 years ago an oligopoly. They had swallowed up in one way or another almost all of the competitive retail chains, and the power of the wholesaler serving independent retailers was significantly diminished. To facilitate their own supply chains, they built and continue to innovate through the supply and logistics chain to squeeze costs out, in any way they can, while maintaining a good return to shareholders.
Aldi launched into the Australian market in the mid 90’s. They deployed a different business model offering a limited range of house branded products at discount prices in low rent locations. As the number of ALDI stores increased driving market share, so did their competitive impact on the market increase. Currently it would be wrong to consider Coles and Woolworths an oligopoly, as Aldi is a growing, and apparently financially viable competitor.
After consideration, I concluded that the ACCC had in fact made the right choice in allowing the Chemist Warehouse Sigma pharmaceuticals reverse takeover.
At the other end of the scale, we have the privatisation of natural monopolies where competition is next to impossible. The obvious example is Sydney airport, a privatised public monopoly that has conducted innovative programmes to gouge the travelling public. Such a natural monopoly should never be privatised.
It is stupid and naive in the extreme to think that a private corporation would not leverage their pricing power to the benefit of their shareholders when customers had no option, and no alternative was likely to emerge. Promises of regulatory profit limitation have proven to be a politically useful mirage, its true nature only apparent just after the ink has dried.
