Why Is Inflation So Sticky? It Could Be Corporate Profits
Some companies might have been raising prices faster than their costs have increased
4 min
Inflation has proved more stubborn than central banks bargained for when prices started surging two years ago. Now some economists think they know why: Businesses are using a rare opportunity to boost their profit margins.
Figures released Tuesday by the European Union’s statistics agency showed consumer prices in the eurozone were 7.0% higher than a year earlier in April, a pickup from March and more than three times the European Central Bank’s target. However, the core rate of inflation—which excludes food and energy prices—edged down to 5.6% in April from a record high of 5.7% in March.
Inflation rates also remain uncomfortably high in the U.S. and many other parts of the world despite interest-rate rises that have gone further and been delivered more quickly than at any time since the 1980s.
There have been good reasons for businesses to raise their prices in recent months. The supply-chain disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the energy, food and raw-material bottlenecks that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have pushed costs higher.
But there are signs that companies are doing more than covering their costs.
According to economists at the ECB, businesses have been padding their profits. That, they said, was a bigger factor in fuelling inflation during the second half of last year than rising wages were.
Jan Philipp Jenisch, chief executive of construction-materials maker Holcim, said on a recent earnings call: “We are in that inflationary environment already for almost two years now…We have done the pricing in a very proactive way, so that our results aren’t suffering. On the contrary, they are improving the margins.”
One puzzle is why consumers have played ball. Usually, economists would expect any business that raised its prices to lose customers to competitors that don’t, or not by as much.
But these aren’t normal times. In rare situations—such as an economy’s reopening after a pandemic—widespread knowledge that costs are rising allows businesses to raise their prices knowing that their competitors will act in the same way, according to a paper by Isabella Weber, assistant professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and her colleague, Evan Wasner.
That is a pattern the two economists said has played out in an analysis of recent earning calls in which executives at U.S. businesses present their financial results to analysts.
“We do have to think about pricing differently,” said Ms. Weber. “A cost shock, or bottlenecks can create an implicit agreement among firms that raise their prices, so they can expect others to act likewise.”
Consumers have also been unusually willing to accept higher prices lately. Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, said businesses are betting that consumers will go along because they know about supply bottlenecks and higher energy prices.
“They are confident that they can convince consumers that it isn’t their fault, and it won’t damage their brand,” Mr. Donovan said.
The latest round of earning calls by large consumer-facing companies underlined that. Food and health company Nestlé last week said it had boosted sales by 5.6% in the first three months of the year despite raising its prices by 9.8%—its CEO said the company was simply matching cost increases over the previous two years.
“We’re still in the process of catching up with some of the hits we’ve taken,” said Mark Schneider in a call with analysts.
Elsewhere, the desire to boost margins, rather than just cover increased costs, appears to be one reason why food prices have continued to rise rapidly in Europe.
Much of the surge in food prices since the middle of last year stems from higher costs, particularly for energy, since most food production is quite energy-intensive. But economists at insurance company Allianz have calculated that about 10% of the rise reflects the search for higher profits. They suggest that is possible because key parts of the food-supply chain are dominated by a small number of firms.
“There is not enough competition in the food sector, especially in distribution,” said Ludovic Subran, chief economist at Allianz.
Not all businesses are opportunistically boosting their margins and Ms. Weber said that when some do, it can cause problems for others that are closer to the final consumer and are at greatest risk of facing a backlash.
Over recent months, Germany’s largest retailer, Edeka, has complained about the pricing behaviour of its suppliers of branded goods and has stopped stocking some of their products.
“We call on the branded-products industry to live up to its responsibility and stop artificially driving up inflation,” said Edeka’s CEO Markus Mosa.
There are some signs that food-price inflation is starting to slow. In France, food prices were 14.9% higher in April than a year earlier, a slowdown from 15.9% in March. In Germany, food inflation slowed to 17.2% from 22.3%. But the British Retail Consortium, a group that represents U.K. stores, said food inflation accelerated in April to hit a record high.
In recent earnings calls, some executives said consumers were becoming more resistant to price rises.
“We will probably see pricing moving down,” said Francois-Xavier Roger, Nestlé’s chief financial officer.
Last month, Procter & Gamble said it had boosted its profit margins in the first three months of the year, thanks in large part to higher prices. It warned that there were limits to how far it could push that tactic before consumers switched to cheaper alternatives.
“We’ve made several adjustments to price gaps, not just versus private label, but versus branded competition as we’ve gone through this period of pricing, and we need to continue to be sensitive to that,” said Jon Moeller, the company’s CEO.
For Mr. Donovan at UBS, the period of profit-driven inflation might be coming to an end, in part because of rising public scrutiny.
“We are probably at a point where companies may be reassessing whether to push this,” he said. “A reputation for being poor value for money stays for a long time.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
From tax residency and superannuation to offshore investments and property, the financial implications of coming home can be more complex than leaving.
3 min
Every year, thousands of Australians make the decision to pack up life overseas and come home.
After years, sometimes decades, building careers, accumulating assets, and growing families in places like Dubai, London, Singapore, or Hong Kong, the pull back is understandable.
What most don’t appreciate until it’s too late is that the return journey is often far more financially complex than the departure.
Leaving Australia is, financially speaking, a relatively clean event.
You depart, you potentially become a non-resident for tax purposes, and a new set of rules applies.
Coming back, however, means reconciling everything you’ve accumulated offshore with an Australian tax system that hasn’t been standing still waiting for you.
The Tax Residency Trap
The first and most costly mistake is misunderstanding when Australian tax residency resumes.
Many returning expats assume residency only kicks in once they’ve formally re-established themselves, signed a lease, updated their address, started a job. The ATO doesn’t see it that way.
Under Australian tax law, residency can recommence the moment you land with the intention of remaining. That means any taxable events, investment income, asset disposals, foreign account distributions that occur after that point are potentially assessable in Australia, even if they’re sitting in offshore accounts you haven’t touched.
Superannuation: The Clock Doesn’t Stop
One of the most underappreciated issues for returning expats is what’s been happening inside their superannuation fund while they’ve been away.
Contributions may have paused, but fees, insurance premiums, and investment volatility haven’t. Some returning clients are genuinely shocked by how much ground their super has lost to fees during periods of lower balances or inappropriate investment settings.
The more strategic issue is what to do on the way back. If you hold foreign pension arrangements, a UK SIPP or QROPS, a 401(k), and international savings schemes, the question of whether and how to repatriate those funds requires careful planning before you return.
Once you’re a tax resident again, distributions from certain foreign structures can be assessable as ordinary income, and the window to manage that exposure closes.
Offshore Investments Don’t Disappear
Returning to Australia doesn’t sever your obligations in the countries where you’ve been living.
Foreign-held shares, managed funds, or investment accounts will be picked up by Australian tax reporting requirements from the moment residency resumes.
The Foreign Investment Fund rules, transferor trust provisions, and the reporting obligations under Australia’s tax information exchange agreements mean these holdings need to be declared and, in some cases, restructured.
Leaving investments sitting offshore in structures that made sense as a non-resident but create compliance headaches as a resident is one of the most common and expensive mistakes we see.
The restructuring cost, if it’s even possible post-return, typically dwarfs what it would have cost to plan properly in advance.
Property: Both Sides of the Balance Sheet
There are two distinct property problems for returning expats.
The first is what they’ve held while away, an Australian property rented out during the absence.
Depending on how long the property was the main residence and how it was treated during the rental period, the CGT calculation on eventual sale can be complex.
The six-year absence rule provides some relief, but it’s not automatic and has conditions that are frequently misunderstood.
The second is re-entry into the Australian property market.
After years of asset accumulation offshore, many returnees assume they’re well-positioned to buy.
The challenge is that their financial picture, including foreign income history, offshore assets and currency, doesn’t translate neatly into Australian mortgage serviceability.
Lenders read foreign income conservatively, and what looks like a strong balance sheet can create unexpected borrowing capacity issues.
The Fix: Plan Before You Land
The single most effective thing an expat can do is start planning the return 12 to 18 months before departure.
That timeline allows for managed asset disposals under non-resident rules where advantageous, superannuation catch-up strategies, foreign structure rationalisation, and property decisions that aren’t being made under time pressure.
The irony is that most Australians sought financial advice before they left on how to exit cleanly.
Far fewer seek the same rigour on the way back in. Given the complexity involved, that’s an expensive oversight.
Coming home should be a financial clean slate. With the right planning, it can be. Without it, you’ll spend the first few years back unwinding decisions that didn’t have to be problems at all.
Brett Evans is the founder of Atlas Wealth and the author of The Expat’s Handbook.
Formula 1 may be the world’s most glamorous sport, but for Oscar Piastri, it’s also one of the most lucrative. At just 24, Australia’s highest-paid athlete is earning more than US$40 million a year.
ABC Bullion has launched a pioneering investment product that allows Australians to draw regular cashflow from their precious metal holdings.
