🛒 Kroger-Albertsons Merger: National Impact

[J-Man]

Kroger said in a news release that it has “reduced prices every year since 2003.”

How can anyone say this with a straight face?

[retailfanmitchell019]

As expected, the FTC has thrown its full weight against the merger - I think this is the coup de grâce...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/ftc-sue ... erger.html

It was filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon which that article doesn't mention. Very smart.

Crazy Rodney will definitely throw a hissy fit over this news…
Not surprised it was filed in Oregon, a significant battleground for the merger.
If it’s a bipartisan group of AGs opposed, yeah I’d say it’s game over.

[ClownLoach]

As expected, the FTC has thrown its full weight against the merger - I think this is the coup de grâce...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/ftc-sue ... erger.html

It was filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon which that article doesn't mention. Very smart.

Crazy Rodney will definitely throw a hissy fit over this news…
Not surprised it was filed in Oregon, a significant battleground for the merger.
If it’s a bipartisan group of AGs opposed, yeah I’d say it’s game over.

The CNBC article says 9 states (if you count DC as one) signed on and the group is indeed bipartisan. And that doesn't include Washington who has their own case.

I don't see Kroger prevailing here. They will argue with logic that could probably convince all of us here that their deal is the right way to go. They will be happy to sign "blood oath" promises not to close any stores or lay off workers at store or warehouse level, and explain why they can be believed (because they're paying way too much per store and worker, which actually does tip the scales towards keeping sites open). They will argue their real competitors are now Walmart, Amazon, Costco and others which may or may not be true.

But there are ultimately two issues that bury the merger. First, there are too many markets like Washington state where there is no path forward to restore competition through any sort of divestiture scheme, coupled with the fact that the C&S deal is not likely to result in the long term survival of any divested units. They needed to come up with a different divestiture scheme that sold smaller groups of stores to productive competitors (like Stater Bros in SoCal, Raley's, etc.), but they knew that such a strategy would likely cost them market share especially in poorly operated units like Ralphs. If they had any brains at all, they would immediately shelve the entire C&S deal and open up for business with all these regional and local operators in a more transparent manner. If they don't immediately course correct and make a new proposed divest plan with a proper list of stores or even whole banners to be sold then I think their case is DOA in the courts.

Second, there are too many controversial comments surfacing in emails and other internal documents that portray the company in a very negative light. The C&S quote asking if they actually have to keep the stores open. The weird negotiations between unions. The alleged emails between execs that say that "of course prices will go up" - can't remember where I read that one but I suspect it isn't getting a lot of play because news organizations are afraid of losing Kroger and Albertsons advertising even though the newsroom isn't supposed to be swayed by ad sales. Their actions appear to be sleazy and anticompetitive, and thus discredit their "promises" of price cuts/no closures/etc.

No easy way to correct for monopolies. No credibility due to the many statements that will be spun to portray "the real Kroger" as a bloodthirsty money machine that is here to close stores, lay off workers, and Jack prices to the moon. I think it's been fun discussing this for a long time, but it is what it is - a dead merger deal.

[arizonaguy]

As expected, the FTC has thrown its full weight against the merger - I think this is the coup de grâce...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/ftc-sue ... erger.html

Per the article the following state AGs joined the FTC in the court complaint:

Arizona, California, Washington D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming.

This is in addition to the lawsuits filed by Colorado and Washington.

Apparently the FTC was afraid of another Haggen fiasco:

"In an effort to overcome antitrust concerns, Kroger announced last year that it planned to sell more than 400 stores to Piggly Wiggly owner C&S Wholesale Grocers, along with other assets like distribution centers and some private brands.

But the FTC complaint said the proposed divestiture isn’t enough. It would create “a hodgepodge of unconnected stores, banners, brands and other assets” that wouldn’t be a true rival to the combined Kroger and Albertsons, the federal agency said in a release Monday."

[ClownLoach]

As expected, the FTC has thrown its full weight against the merger - I think this is the coup de grâce...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/ftc-sue ... erger.html

Per the article the following state AGs joined the FTC in the court complaint:

Arizona, California, Washington D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming.

This is in addition to the lawsuits filed by Colorado and Washington.

Apparently the FTC was afraid of another Haggen fiasco:

"In an effort to overcome antitrust concerns, Kroger announced last year that it planned to sell more than 400 stores to Piggly Wiggly owner C&S Wholesale Grocers, along with other assets like distribution centers and some private brands.

But the FTC complaint said the proposed divestiture isn’t enough. It would create “a hodgepodge of unconnected stores, banners, brands and other assets” that wouldn’t be a true rival to the combined Kroger and Albertsons, the federal agency said in a release Monday."

And they're 100% right about that disconnected hodgepodge.

If they want any chance of getting this merger done then they need to immediately fix the plan.

It might mean very drastic steps, but for the right reason. Maybe something wild and unimaginable before, like selling the entire Kroger CA-OR-WA operation in its entirety "as is, banners included" to someone like Save Mart or Raley's or even Ahold and effectively creating a Fred Meyer Co "2.0" as they just keep the larger Albertsons fleet in the market. That is the only way I can see this working.

[pseudo3d]

As expected, the FTC has thrown its full weight against the merger - I think this is the coup de grâce...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/ftc-sue ... erger.html

Per the article the following state AGs joined the FTC in the court complaint:

Arizona, California, Washington D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming.

This is in addition to the lawsuits filed by Colorado and Washington.

Apparently the FTC was afraid of another Haggen fiasco:

"In an effort to overcome antitrust concerns, Kroger announced last year that it planned to sell more than 400 stores to Piggly Wiggly owner C&S Wholesale Grocers, along with other assets like distribution centers and some private brands.

But the FTC complaint said the proposed divestiture isn’t enough. It would create “a hodgepodge of unconnected stores, banners, brands and other assets” that wouldn’t be a true rival to the combined Kroger and Albertsons, the federal agency said in a release Monday."

And they're 100% right about that disconnected hodgepodge.

If they want any chance of getting this merger done then they need to immediately fix the plan.

It might mean very drastic steps, but for the right reason. Maybe something wild and unimaginable before, like selling the entire Kroger CA-OR-WA operation in its entirety "as is, banners included" to someone like Save Mart or Raley's or even Ahold and effectively creating a Fred Meyer Co "2.0" as they just keep the larger Albertsons fleet in the market. That is the only way I can see this working.

Ralphs/Fred Meyer/QFC could probably stand on its own two feet. That would functionally return it to pre-1999 Fred Meyer especially if you threw in Albertsons-AZ as stated and that would solve most of the western issues. Texas and Illinois, probably not.

But now, Kroger has lost more than its gained, because unlike Safeway, there's not much to be gained for Kroger. Now, if the situation was reversed...Albertsons buying Kroger, that would be reason to dump some West Coast assets as there's so much gain...but that's not the case here.

[arizonaguy]

Per the article the following state AGs joined the FTC in the court complaint:

Arizona, California, Washington D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Wyoming.

This is in addition to the lawsuits filed by Colorado and Washington.

Apparently the FTC was afraid of another Haggen fiasco:

"In an effort to overcome antitrust concerns, Kroger announced last year that it planned to sell more than 400 stores to Piggly Wiggly owner C&S Wholesale Grocers, along with other assets like distribution centers and some private brands.

But the FTC complaint said the proposed divestiture isn’t enough. It would create “a hodgepodge of unconnected stores, banners, brands and other assets” that wouldn’t be a true rival to the combined Kroger and Albertsons, the federal agency said in a release Monday."

And they're 100% right about that disconnected hodgepodge.

If they want any chance of getting this merger done then they need to immediately fix the plan.

It might mean very drastic steps, but for the right reason. Maybe something wild and unimaginable before, like selling the entire Kroger CA-OR-WA operation in its entirety "as is, banners included" to someone like Save Mart or Raley's or even Ahold and effectively creating a Fred Meyer Co "2.0" as they just keep the larger Albertsons fleet in the market. That is the only way I can see this working.

Ralphs/Fred Meyer/QFC could probably stand on its own two feet. That would functionally return it to pre-1999 Fred Meyer especially if you threw in Albertsons-AZ as stated and that would solve most of the western issues. Texas and Illinois, probably not.

But now, Kroger has lost more than its gained, because unlike Safeway, there's not much to be gained for Kroger. Now, if the situation was reversed...Albertsons buying Kroger, that would be reason to dump some West Coast assets as there's so much gain...but that's not the case here.

I'm not sure.

Kroger has stripped a lot from Ralphs / Fred Meyer / QFC (in terms of store closures) and hasn't grown it much (if at all) since the merger.

I think the object of this merger was for Kroger to gain the #1 position in 2 markets: Chicago and Northern California and solidify (or gain) the #1 position in the PNW and Southern California.

Kroger has serious work to do in the PNW and Southern California or a decision to make as to whether or not it wants to continue operating in those areas.

[kr.abs.swy]

"Kroger has a decision to make as to whether or not it wants to continue operating in (the PNW)." -- You are dramatically overstating what has happened to Kroger in the PNW. Whether the last few years have been a bit rough or not, there is still a Fred Meyer in virtually every town of any size in Oregon (you have to get down to towns the size of Baker City or LaGrande to find towns with out a Fred Meyer), virtually every region of Portland, and much of Washington, and there are still QFCs all over Seattle. Kroger is absolutely still at critical mass in the PNW.

And they're 100% right about that disconnected hodgepodge.

If they want any chance of getting this merger done then they need to immediately fix the plan.

It might mean very drastic steps, but for the right reason. Maybe something wild and unimaginable before, like selling the entire Kroger CA-OR-WA operation in its entirety "as is, banners included" to someone like Save Mart or Raley's or even Ahold and effectively creating a Fred Meyer Co "2.0" as they just keep the larger Albertsons fleet in the market. That is the only way I can see this working.

Ralphs/Fred Meyer/QFC could probably stand on its own two feet. That would functionally return it to pre-1999 Fred Meyer especially if you threw in Albertsons-AZ as stated and that would solve most of the western issues. Texas and Illinois, probably not.

But now, Kroger has lost more than its gained, because unlike Safeway, there's not much to be gained for Kroger. Now, if the situation was reversed...Albertsons buying Kroger, that would be reason to dump some West Coast assets as there's so much gain...but that's not the case here.

I'm not sure.

Kroger has stripped a lot from Ralphs / Fred Meyer / QFC (in terms of store closures) and hasn't grown it much (if at all) since the merger.

I think the object of this merger was for Kroger to gain the #1 position in 2 markets: Chicago and Northern California and solidify (or gain) the #1 position in the PNW and Southern California.

Kroger has serious work to do in the PNW and Southern California or a decision to make as to whether or not it wants to continue operating in those areas.

[pseudo3d]

And they're 100% right about that disconnected hodgepodge.

If they want any chance of getting this merger done then they need to immediately fix the plan.

It might mean very drastic steps, but for the right reason. Maybe something wild and unimaginable before, like selling the entire Kroger CA-OR-WA operation in its entirety "as is, banners included" to someone like Save Mart or Raley's or even Ahold and effectively creating a Fred Meyer Co "2.0" as they just keep the larger Albertsons fleet in the market. That is the only way I can see this working.

Ralphs/Fred Meyer/QFC could probably stand on its own two feet. That would functionally return it to pre-1999 Fred Meyer especially if you threw in Albertsons-AZ as stated and that would solve most of the western issues. Texas and Illinois, probably not.

But now, Kroger has lost more than its gained, because unlike Safeway, there's not much to be gained for Kroger. Now, if the situation was reversed...Albertsons buying Kroger, that would be reason to dump some West Coast assets as there's so much gain...but that's not the case here.

I'm not sure.

Kroger has stripped a lot from Ralphs / Fred Meyer / QFC (in terms of store closures) and hasn't grown it much (if at all) since the merger.

I think the object of this merger was for Kroger to gain the #1 position in 2 markets: Chicago and Northern California and solidify (or gain) the #1 position in the PNW and Southern California.

Kroger has serious work to do in the PNW and Southern California or a decision to make as to whether or not it wants to continue operating in those areas.

See, that's the thing. If they want to just have a good profitable division without forcing to show growth, Ralphs is it. If they want #1 or a close #2 in their markets, maybe Ralphs isn't the place they should focus on. If they want to just show growth, they can do so organically, you know, actually building stores.

[HCal]

See, that's the thing. If they want to just have a good profitable division without forcing to show growth, Ralphs is it. If they want #1 or a close #2 in their markets, maybe Ralphs isn't the place they should focus on. If they want to just show growth, they can do so organically, you know, actually building stores.

If they want to grow in California, I would recommend FoodsCo. It is a great concept that has a lot of potential for expansion, and stores seem to be well-received by the communities. Their market share is very low and they could easily draw customers away from Safeway, Save Mart, and other overpriced stores.

But back on topic, I don't think being #1 or 2 matters, and SoCal isn't really an issue with this merger. Kroger just wanted to get into the NorCal market and this was one way to do it.