🛒 Kroger-Albertsons Merger: National Impact

[storewanderer]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Zero chance that Kroger would divest Fred Meyer or Smiths... or Frys/King Soopers. They won't let go of even one store from any of those divisions.

QFC/Ralphs/F4L... appear to be up for negotiation.

[ClownLoach]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue. It should not be, but apparently that is the plan as these emails are revealing in the court cases. The best competition for Kroger at this point is Albertsons, as any other company would be smaller and less capable of pushing them to compete.
There is no other viable competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

[storewanderer]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue.
There is no competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

Loblaw possibly *could* operate Fred Meyer by patterning it after Real Canadian Superstore, but it would be a real stretch. Other remote possibility is Meijer but I really am not sure they are the right fit.

It is tough to know exactly how C&S will handle things but they have said some things that obviously were not the "right things to say." We also do not know what warehouses or manufacturing facilities they will be assuming. Originally with Fleming they did not plan to keep the CA Fleming operations, then changed their mind and kept them... It may have had something to do with Best Yet which they also decided to keep, as a significant amount of the support/buying for that brand was being handled by Fleming's CA team.

[ClownLoach]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue.
There is no competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

Loblaw possibly *could* operate Fred Meyer by patterning it after Real Canadian Superstore, but it would be a real stretch. Other remote possibility is Meijer but I really am not sure they are the right fit.

It is tough to know exactly how C&S will handle things but they have said some things that obviously were not the "right things to say." We also do not know what warehouses or manufacturing facilities they will be assuming. Originally with Fleming they did not plan to keep the CA Fleming operations, then changed their mind and kept them... It may have had something to do with Best Yet which they also decided to keep, as a significant amount of the support/buying for that brand was being handled by Fleming's CA team.

Loblaw couldn't due to the current currency imbalance. They would have to immediately raise prices by a third just to resolve that issue, which would put the stores out of business. No Canadian buyer is going to come over until their dollar strengthens.

[pseudo3d]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue. It should not be, but apparently that is the plan as these emails are revealing in the court cases. The best competition for Kroger at this point is Albertsons, as any other company would be smaller and less capable of pushing them to compete.
There is no other viable competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

Fred Meyer would be its own company. Under one scenario, divest Fred Meyer, throw in Ralphs, Fry's, Smith's (except for Utah, those get converted to Safeway or Albertsons), King Soopers, Randalls, Tom Thumb, and Mariano's. Some of those stores could be traded around, but it creates a complete, viable company. I don't think Kroger would go for that, of course...

The better solution is to divest Albertsons, as described previously.

[ClownLoach]

More evidence in Oregon was "fierce competition" between Fred Meyer and Safeway.

FTC needs to come down with the hammer on divestments, lose Fred Meyer and the other Fred Meyer banners or lose Albertsons (and give them stores in WA/OR).

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue. It should not be, but apparently that is the plan as these emails are revealing in the court cases. The best competition for Kroger at this point is Albertsons, as any other company would be smaller and less capable of pushing them to compete.
There is no other viable competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

Fred Meyer would be its own company. Under one scenario, divest Fred Meyer, throw in Ralphs, Fry's, Smith's (except for Utah, those get converted to Safeway or Albertsons), King Soopers, Randalls, Tom Thumb, and Mariano's. Some of those stores could be traded around, but it creates a complete, viable company. I don't think Kroger would go for that, of course...

The better solution is to divest Albertsons, as described previously.

So let's get this straight. Spend $25B to double the size of the company by buying Albertsons. Divest Albertsons. Profit?

[pseudo3d]

Who in the heck do you think would be able to operate Fred Meyer?

Divestment = Store Closure

That is the crux of the issue. It should not be, but apparently that is the plan as these emails are revealing in the court cases. The best competition for Kroger at this point is Albertsons, as any other company would be smaller and less capable of pushing them to compete.
There is no other viable competitor in the PNW who can take over these stores if divested.
Thus a buyer like C&S who has proven they can't be trusted to keep the stores open is a problem.

Assume that every single store divested at this point is going to close within one year maximum as long as C&S is the buyer.

Assume C&S is only going to sell to mom and pop operators because the price they would charge real competitors, like Stater in SoCal, would be too high based on the price they're paying per store.

C&S is buying to sell. Whatever they buy they will either have a independent, inept and unlikely to succeed operator lined up to acquire at their cost plus a contract to use C&S as their supplier. Anything they don't have a buyer lined up for is going to be liquidated immediately at a profit based on the inventory and purchase price. C&S does not deny that they don't intend to keep the stores open, despite the PR lies from Kroger and Albertsons that C&S is going to create a robust, agile new competitor so the customer has the same choices they have now. Come on, why spend $25 billion dollars to maintain the status quo when you can spend nothing and have the same. Of course it's all a lie, and C&S is their store closure/liquidator partner not a divestiture partner.

Therefore if you think more divestitures are needed then you are advocating for even less competition, even higher prices, and even fewer choices as every damn store divested will close.

There is no remedy for this merger that can be achieved through divestiture except some parts of SoCal, and that's only if C&S is not the buyer.

Fred Meyer would be its own company. Under one scenario, divest Fred Meyer, throw in Ralphs, Fry's, Smith's (except for Utah, those get converted to Safeway or Albertsons), King Soopers, Randalls, Tom Thumb, and Mariano's. Some of those stores could be traded around, but it creates a complete, viable company. I don't think Kroger would go for that, of course...

The better solution is to divest Albertsons, as described previously.

So let's get this straight. Spend $25B to double the size of the company by buying Albertsons. Divest Albertsons. Profit?

Remember, with the exception of Northern California, there's barely any new territory that Kroger will gain with Albertsons anyway. (You're kidding yourself if you think they want Austin or Baton Rouge).

[storewanderer]

Fred Meyer would be its own company. Under one scenario, divest Fred Meyer, throw in Ralphs, Fry's, Smith's (except for Utah, those get converted to Safeway or Albertsons), King Soopers, Randalls, Tom Thumb, and Mariano's. Some of those stores could be traded around, but it creates a complete, viable company. I don't think Kroger would go for that, of course...

The better solution is to divest Albertsons, as described previously.

So let's get this straight. Spend $25B to double the size of the company by buying Albertsons. Divest Albertsons. Profit?

Remember, with the exception of Northern California, there's barely any new territory that Kroger will gain with Albertsons anyway. (You're kidding yourself if you think they want Austin or Baton Rouge).

The entire PA/Northeast is gained territory. I don't know why Kroger wants it... they're taking over lousy assets and I don't think their operating style will work in the Northeast especially with the assets they are purchasing which contain far too many undersized poor stores...

Ahold (minus Food Lion) would have been a way better play for Kroger (yes even Stop N Shop, which I think Kroger could have fixed).

[pseudo3d]

So let's get this straight. Spend $25B to double the size of the company by buying Albertsons. Divest Albertsons. Profit?

Remember, with the exception of Northern California, there's barely any new territory that Kroger will gain with Albertsons anyway. (You're kidding yourself if you think they want Austin or Baton Rouge).

The entire PA/Northeast is gained territory. I don't know why Kroger wants it... they're taking over lousy assets and I don't think their operating style will work in the Northeast especially with the assets they are purchasing which contain far too many undersized poor stores...

Ahold (minus Food Lion) would have been a way better play for Kroger (yes even Stop N Shop, which I think Kroger could have fixed).

Right! I always forget about it...probably because it's never talked about. But if Kroger really wanted ACME, Shaw's/Star Market, etc. that would go over very easily and ACME would be Fresher Than Fresh(TM) right now.

[wnetmacman]

Remember, with the exception of Northern California, there's barely any new territory that Kroger will gain with Albertsons anyway. (You're kidding yourself if you think they want Austin or Baton Rouge).

Austin and Baton Rouge are Randalls in all but name. They are both former Kroger territories. I don't know the circumstances of their Austin departure, but I do know they left Baton Rouge simply over a labor dispute. I'm pretty sure they want back in, if nothing else to compete with Walmart, Rouses, and the host of independents there.