A shopping trolley encased in an ice block
Image: Toby Morris

MoneyMay 10, 2022

A deep dive into the Countdown price freeze

A shopping trolley encased in an ice block
Image: Toby Morris

It scored them plenty of media coverage, but did Countdown’s ‘winter price freeze’ live up to the hype? Former Countdown retail worker Jacob Flanagan runs the numbers.

When Countdown supermarkets announced last week that they were temporarily freezing the price of hundreds of goods to help counter the rising cost of living, it raised a few eyebrows.

At first glance it’s a sensible and compassionate move – having a selection of essentials locked at the same price all winter could help people plan their budgets in a time of high inflation, and food prices are usually slightly higher in June, July and August.

“We want to help Kiwis’ money go further despite the pressures everyone is facing with increasing costs, and that’s why we’ve pledged that the price of these 500-plus essentials won’t change,” said Spencer Sonn, managing director of Woolworths New Zealand, which owns Countdown supermarkets, when the freeze was announced.

Stats NZ estimates the cost of living was 6.9% higher in March this year than in 2021, the largest annual jump since 1990, and it will likely hurt low-income households the most. One area where New Zealanders are particularly feeling the pinch is in supermarkets – food prices have risen a whopping 7.6% since last March.

Combine this with high petrol prices causing high transport costs for supermarkets, and recent increases in the minimum wage that many Countdown staff are paid close to, and it may seem Woolworths is making a real sacrifice by freezing prices.

However, a closer look at the Great Winter Price Freeze reveals some odd inclusions. As other media have pointed out, fresh fruit doesn’t appear on the list of essentials at all, while bacon and smoked salmon are the only meats. One “essential” pack of salmon is price-frozen at $90 per kilogram, making it one of the chain’s most expensive items by weight.

Almost a fifth of the items are herbs and spices, and while they may be a common purchase, New Zealanders struggling with inflation are hardly able to use paprika or nutmeg as the essential ingredient in dinner.

Pasta, cooking oil and toilet paper are all things you might include on a list of essentials, yet Countdown hasn’t. They have found room, however, for a total of 37 dessert items, as well as 29 different snacks and lollies. If you’re thirsty, you can quench your thirst with one of the 19 “essential” wines that have been price frozen.

Health-conscious readers may notice one other glaring omission so far: vegetables. While there’s no fresh fruit whatsoever on the list, there are also just three varieties of veges – pumpkins, onions and carrots. These may be winter staples, but there’s only so much pumpkin soup you can feed your kids. Countdown has included carrots and onions only from their “Odd Bunch” initiative, what they call “ugly” produce, sold in 1.5kg plastic bags at a small discount. Based on this author’s experience working in Countdown’s produce department, there are often fewer of these Odd Bunch bags in stock, so they sell out first, leaving just the more expensive options – which Countdown can raise the price of as they wish.

A deeper investigation into the price of those three veges – which will likely be among the most bought of the price-frozen items – is revealing. It’s important to note here that Countdown has frozen selected prices, rather than simply promising not to increase them; they won’t go up or down in price.

Stats NZ data shows carrots, onions, and pumpkins usually go down in price in winter, before rising again in summer.

This data is what we’d expect for vegetables that grow better in the colder months: higher supply leads to lower prices. The timing of the freeze means these vegetables have been frozen at the higher May price, and so they won’t decrease like they usually do*. Countdown’s freeze might therefore keep prices of carrots, onions, and pumpkins artificially high – meaning that from June to August, consumers could possibly be worse off when buying these veges at Countdown than they would be without the freeze.

Countdown will then be removing the freeze at the end of winter – just as the three vegetables go up in price again nationwide, including at Countdown stores.

Meanwhile, many of the other goods have recently become more expensive shortly before being price frozen. Woolworths announced on Tuesday to shareholders that the cost of their groceries had gone up by 3.6% since the start of the quarter. While Sonn has previously pleaded to not blame supermarkets for this increase, pointing instead to inflation, Stats NZ measured inflation for the same quarter as only 1.8%. This suggests Countdown’s prices have risen roughly twice as fast as average prices since the start of the year. Although the prices of some goods have gone up by more than 1.8%, Countdown raising their prices by roughly double the national average shortly before freezing them is certainly bold.

While Countdown claims they’ve been forced to raise prices in the face of almost a thousand requests to do so from suppliers in the past 10 months, suppliers have long said that supermarkets have all the power in the relationship. This means that Countdown can and often does just refuse supplier’s price-increase requests, knowing that there are very few competitors in the grocery market.

In fact, it seems competition is at the heart of the problem. In November 2020, the government asked the Commerce Commission to investigate how competitive the $22 billion-per-year industry is.

Its report, published in March, found that the grocery sector wasn’t nearly as competitive as it could be, with the two main retailers, Woolworths and Foodstuffs, taking about 90% of the market share. The commission also measured the profits of the two retailers and found that they were more than twice as profitable as expected, with the industry making approximately a million dollars a day above the expected return on investment. Despite this, the government has been reluctant to do anything yet to increase competition, such as breaking up the two grocery chains to force more competition and lower prices.

Commerce minister David Clark was optimistic when he suggested in April that supermarkets might voluntarily lower prices. “[Supermarkets] are making profits in excess of what is reasonable,” he told media. “They can move to rectify that today, if they choose, that’s up to the supermarkets.

“We know that inflation globally is an issue, but on top of that we’re seeing increases in food that could be controlled if supermarkets were not taking the level of profit that they’re taking,” Clark argued.

Whether supermarkets choose to take lower profits, or, more likely, the government chooses to take action, remains to be seen. In the meantime, Countdown’s Great Winter Price Freeze will seemingly do little to help struggling households afford nutritious food – and customers should keep a keen eye out for sharp price increases come September.

*After this post was published, Countdown contacted us to say: “If over winter, we do receive a lower price from our growers on any of the veges that are currently on the Winter Freeze, we’ll pass those savings on to our customers.”

Keep going!
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

OPINIONPoliticsMay 4, 2022

The young need an even higher debt ceiling

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

In the hope that governments can catch up in the long term, the finance minister has finally lifted the debt limit that strangled investment for 30 years and squeezed infrastructure spending down into a $104bn deficit. But is it enough?

This is an edited version of a post first published on Bernard Hickey’s newsletter The Kākā.

The big question following finance and infrastructure minister Grant Robertson’s announcement yesterday of a new net public debt ceiling of 30% of GDP, which is effectively 30 percentage points higher than that restrictive older one, is whether it’s enough to both fill the deficit and deal with another 30 years of population growth in a way that improves housing affordability and reduces climate emissions.

My view is the 30% of GDP limit is not nearly high enough to achieve what’s needed and there are no good reasons why it couldn’t be lifted. There’s also the problem of whether politicians would choose to use it if they had it. Robertson is choosing in budget 2022 not to use any more of that headroom for investment because he is worried about adding fuel to the inflation fire, as are more than a few voters, opposition MPs and Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr. The opposition have yet to agree to the new limit, but are making as many noises as they can about not wanting to use that fiscal headroom.

Grant Robertson (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

In short, a higher public debt ceiling allows today’s politicians to use the government’s balance sheet to pay for expensive infrastructure up front and then smear it out over decades so the many generations that use it pay for it over those decades. The trouble is there are often short-run costs that today’s voters and asset owners don’t want to pay today, and those who would benefit in the long run either don’t vote today or haven’t even been conceived yet. And zygotes don’t get to vote either.

So how did we get here, and what might happen next?

It’s all about choices, balances and timeframes

Politicians running governments have to make choices every day that they hope will make most voters better off in the short and long runs, and will get them re-elected in the short run at least. The aim is to balance the winners off against the losers in ways that make re-election more likely. The holy grail is to make choices that create two sets of winners in both the short run and long run.

Sadly, the winners and losers in the short run can flip to being losers and winners in the long run respectively, but it is the collective pain and joy of the winners and losers in the short term that usually decides who are the political winners and losers for all time. Perverse incentives and results abound from these political choices and the timeframes over which the winning and losing plays out. A decision that imposes pain on one group of voters in the short run may actually be better for them and everyone else in the long run. Or vice versa. Often, there is a balance to be struck.

This framing of every political decision around “striking a balance” is a clever way to shut down the complaints of the losers, and to give the impression of neutrality divorced from the score-settling and vested interests of party politics.

It is a favourite tactic of Robertson, who is deputy prime minister as well as running the budget and setting the direction for infrastructure spending. In his speech yesterday, the word “balance” came up four times in his arguments for the higher debt ceiling and why he didn’t want to use it yet.

There are plenty of balances to be struck in creating and then working within this framework of a debt ceiling and a budget surplus rule, including:

  • firstly, the risk that overspending by the government in too short a time might overstimulate inflation and therefore boost interest rates higher than they otherwise would be;
  • secondly, there’s a risk that underinvesting in the short run creates costs and liabilities in the longer run, such as decisions not to invest in more infrastructure for housing now creates higher housing, transport, health, education, justice and carbon costs in the long run;
  • thirdly, the risk that choosing to invest in public assets that create services for all over the long run comes at the expense of lower taxes in the short run that help some more than others; and,
  • fourthly, there’s the risk that setting a debt ceiling too high might force up interest rates so high that they squeeze the life out of the rest of the economy and force the debt over a tipping point that means the servicing costs spiral ever higher.

The real question to answer therefore is: what is the right balance to strike with this new debt ceiling rule? It has to be low enough to avoid an interest rates spiral. It has to be high enough to allow investment in infrastructure that creates a positive spiral of rising productivity, real wages, taxes and ultimately, wellbeing.

Treasury recommended a ceiling of net Crown debt of 30% of GDP under a measure that is more widely comparable with other countries. As of the latest forecasts from the IMF (and not far off those from Treasury in the May 19 budget), New Zealand’s net debt is due to peak at 21.3% of GDP next year, and then fall back to 16.4% in 2027.

New Zealand’s peak will be half that of Australia’s, a third of Britain’s peak and a fifth of America’s peak. We share the same AAA credit rating of these borrowers, but they are bigger and therefore can “get away” with higher debt before it becomes a problem. But are we that much smaller, weaker and more vulnerable that we need an extra “buffer” of 30-40% of GDP?

Image: Getty Images

Judgment calls about balances

Ultimately, it is a judgment call about bond market sentiment, the political will of any government to cut spending or increase taxes to get back to surplus and reduce debt, and how fast our economy might grow.

Treasury recommended Aotearoa could handle 90%, but it would be prudent to have a 40% buffer back down to 50% (which is the same as 30% with the new definition).

Wrapped up in that judgment or assessment of the right “balance” is one unknowable but very real risk: sacrificing the wellbeing of future generations by not investing enough. Even Treasury acknowledges that risk in its advice to Robertson:

“There are other costs of constraining spending, such as the lost opportunity to increase an economy’s productive capacity or improve living standards,” Treasury wrote.

The problem is those unknowable future generations don’t have any ability to influence the balances struck by politicians. Instead, they have to hope the politicians have the imagination and enough of a “pay it forward” approach to overcome the short-run demands of getting elected.

New Zealand made the wrong call for a generation by being too restrictive with its debt limit. It risks doing the same again, given the Infrastructure Commission’s advice that the existing deficit and the future needs for infrastructure would require over $200bn of investment over the next 30 years, which is closer to 60% of GDP than 30%.

Yet again, the non-voting young and the yet-to-be-born are getting the short straw in all these political decisions about “striking balances” to get re-elected.

Bernard Hickey’s writing here is supported by thousands of individual subscribers to The Kākā, his subscription email newsletter and podcast. Here’s a special offer to readers of The Spinoff of 50% off for the first year. The Kākā also has a special “$30 for under 30s” offer for all those aged under 30.