Why Costco is so loved

Keeping customers, employees and investors happy is no mean feat writes The Economist

image: getty images

Feb 15th 2024 

In the nearly 40 years that The Economist has served up its Big Mac index, the price of the McDonald’s burger in America has more than tripled. In that same period the cost of another meaty treat—a hot-dog-and-drink combo at Costco—has remained steady at $1.50. Last year customers of the American big-box retailer devoured 200m of them. Richard Galanti, Costco’s longtime finance boss, once promised to keep the price frozen “for ever”.

Customers are not the only fans of Costco, as the outpouring of affection from Wall Street analysts after Mr Galanti announced his retirement on February 6th made clear. The firm’s share price is 430 times what it was when he took the job nearly four decades ago, compared with 25 times for the s&p 500 index of large companies. It has continued to outperform the market in recent years. What lies behind its enduring success?

Costco is the world’s third-biggest retailer, behind Walmart and Amazon. Though its sales are less than half of Walmart’s, its return on capital, at nearly 20%, is more than twice as high. Charlie Munger, a famed investor who served on Costco’s board from 1997 until his death last year, called it a “perfect damn company”. Mr Galanti, who describes Costco’s business model as “arrogantly simple”, says the company is guided by a simple idea—hook shoppers by offering high-quality products at the lowest prices. It does this by keeping markups low while charging a fixed membership fee and stocking fewer distinct products, all while treating its employees generously.

Start with margins. Most retailers boost profits by marking up prices. Not Costco. Its gross margins hover around 12%, compared with Walmart’s 24%. The company makes up the shortfall through its membership fees: customers pay $60 or more a year to shop at its stores. In 2023 fees from its 129m members netted $4.6bn, more than half of Costco’s operating profits.

Joe Feldman, an analyst at Telsey Advisory Group, a research firm, argues that the membership model creates a virtuous circle. The more members the company has, the greater its buying power, leading to better deals with suppliers, most of which are then passed on to its members. The fee also encourages customers to focus their spending at Costco, rather than shopping around. That seems to work; membership-renewal rates are upwards of 90%.

Next, consider the way the company manages its product lineup. Costco stores stock a limited selection of about 3,800 distinct items. Sam’s Club, Walmart’s Costco-like competitor, carries about 7,000. A Walmart superstore has around 120,000. Buying more from fewer suppliers gives the company even greater bargaining heft, lowering prices further. By limiting its range, Costco can better focus on maintaining quality. Less variety in stores helps it use space more efficiently: its sales per square foot are three times that of Walmart. And with fewer products, Costco turns over its wares almost twice as fast as usual for retailers, meaning less capital gets tied up in inventory. It has also expanded its own brand, Kirkland Signature, which now accounts for over a quarter of its sales, well above average for a retailer. Its margins on its own-brand products are about six percentage points higher than for brands such as Hershey or Kellogg’s.

Last, Costco stands out among retailers for how it treats its employees. Some 60% of retail employees leave their jobs each year. Staff turnover at Costco is just 8%; over a third of workers have been there for more than ten years. One reason for low attrition is pay. Its wages are higher than the industry average and it offers generous medical and retirement benefits. Another is career prospects. The company prefers to promote leaders from within. Although Mr Galanti’s successor has come from outside, the rest of Costco’s executive team has been with the company for more than 20 years. The late Mr Munger was confident that Costco had “a marvellous future”. Its customers could be enjoying $1.50 hot dogs for many years to come. 

Economics Explained: Budget Deficits, Internal and External Debt

 Budget deficits, internal debt, and external debt are interconnected concepts that reflect the financial situation of a country. Here's an explanation of their links:

1. Budget Deficits: A budget deficit occurs when a government's spending exceeds its revenue in a given period, typically a fiscal year. The deficit represents the amount of money the government needs to borrow to cover its expenses. It can arise due to various factors such as increased government spending, decreased tax revenue, or economic downturns.

2. Internal Debt: Internal debt refers to the government's debt owed to its own citizens, institutions, and organisations within the country. It is also known as domestic debt. Governments issue bonds, treasury bills, and other securities to borrow money from domestic sources, including individuals, banks, pension funds, and other financial institutions. The funds borrowed through internal debt are used to finance budget deficits or other government expenditures.

The link between budget deficits and internal debt is that when a government runs a budget deficit, it needs to borrow money to cover the shortfall. This borrowing can be from domestic sources through the issuance of government securities, thus increasing the internal debt.

3. External Debt: External debt, also known as foreign debt, is the debt owed by a country to foreign creditors or entities outside its borders. It arises when a government borrows funds from foreign governments, international organisations, banks, or private investors. External debt can be in the form of loans, bonds, or other financial instruments denominated in foreign currencies.

The link between budget deficits and external debt is that if a government cannot cover its budget deficit with domestic borrowing alone, it may resort to borrowing from external sources to finance the shortfall. This can lead to an increase in the country's external debt.

Furthermore, budget deficits can impact both internal and external debt in the following ways:

a) Increased Borrowing: A persistent budget deficit requires the government to borrow continuously to cover its expenses. This leads to an accumulation of both internal and external debt over time.

b) Debt Servicing: As the government incurs more debt, it must allocate a portion of its future budget to service the interest payments and principal repayments on that debt. This diverts funds away from other important expenditures, such as public services or infrastructure development.

c) Investor Confidence: Large budget deficits and growing debt levels can raise concerns among investors, both domestic and foreign. If investors become worried about a government's ability to repay its debts, they may demand higher interest rates on loans or refuse to lend altogether. This can further exacerbate the debt burden and strain the country's finances.

In summary, budget deficits contribute to the accumulation of both internal and external debt as governments borrow to cover their spending gaps. Managing these debts is crucial to maintain fiscal stability, as excessive debt levels can lead to financial challenges and affect a country's economic prospects.

---

Large budget deficits refer to substantial gaps between a government's expenditures and its revenue. It implies that the government is spending significantly more than it is earning. The magnitude of a budget deficit is typically measured as a percentage of a country's gross domestic product (GDP). For example, if a government's expenditures exceed its revenue by 5% of GDP, it would be considered a large budget deficit.

Growing debt levels, in this context, refer to the increase in the total amount of debt owed by a government over time. It indicates that the government's borrowing is outpacing its ability to repay or manage its existing debt obligations. The growth of debt can be measured in absolute terms, such as the total debt amount, or as a percentage of GDP, known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The determination of budget deficits and debt levels is typically done by the respective country's government and its fiscal authorities. Governments formulate budgets that outline their planned expenditures and revenue sources for a given period, usually a fiscal year. Actual deficits arise when the realised expenditures exceed the realised revenue.

Governments often publish fiscal reports and financial statements that provide information on their budget deficits and debt levels. These reports are prepared by national statistical agencies, finance ministries, central banks, or other relevant institutions. International organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and rating agencies also assess and monitor the fiscal situations of countries.

It's important to note that the implications of budget deficits and debt levels can vary across countries. Different countries have varying economic conditions, fiscal policies, and borrowing capacities, which influence their ability to manage deficits and debts. Countries with strong economies, diversified revenue sources, and well-managed fiscal policies may be able to sustain larger deficits and higher debt levels without significant negative consequences. However, for countries with weaker economic fundamentals or structural imbalances, large deficits and growing debt levels can pose significant challenges and risks to their financial stability, economic growth, and investor confidence.

---

Let's define and explain the terms "strong economies," "diversified revenue sources," "well-managed fiscal policies," and how they relate to sustaining larger deficits and high debt:

1. Strong economies: A strong economy generally refers to a country's ability to generate sustained and robust economic growth. Indicators of a strong economy include factors like high GDP growth rates, low unemployment rates, stable inflation, productive industries, and a well-functioning financial system. A strong economy implies that the country has the capacity to generate sufficient income and resources to support its spending commitments, including the servicing of its debt.

2. Diversified revenue sources: Diversified revenue sources mean that a country's income streams come from a wide range of sectors and activities, reducing reliance on a single source. A diversified revenue base makes a country less vulnerable to economic shocks or fluctuations in specific industries. It can include various sources such as taxes (e.g., income tax, corporate tax), tariffs, natural resource revenues, fees, and other forms of income generation. A diverse revenue base enhances a government's ability to generate revenue even during challenging economic conditions.

3. Well-managed fiscal policies: Well-managed fiscal policies refer to prudent and effective management of a country's public finances. It involves adopting appropriate strategies for revenue collection, expenditure allocation, and debt management. Key elements of well-managed fiscal policies include:

   a) Revenue management: Implementing efficient and fair tax systems, minimising tax evasion, broadening the tax base, and optimising revenue collection.

   b) Expenditure management: Prioritising spending on essential public services, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social welfare, while ensuring efficiency, transparency, and accountability in expenditure allocation.

   c) Debt management: Developing and implementing a sound debt management strategy, including assessing borrowing needs, monitoring debt levels, managing interest rate risks, diversifying sources of borrowing, and ensuring timely debt repayments.

Sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is possible in certain situations. When countries with strong economies and diversified revenue sources implement effective fiscal policies, they can create a favourable environment to manage higher levels of debt. Here's how it can work:

a) Economic Growth and Debt Sustainability: Strong economies often have higher growth rates, which can generate increased tax revenues and expand the overall revenue base. This revenue growth, coupled with effective fiscal management, can help countries sustain larger deficits and manage higher debt levels without jeopardising debt sustainability.

b) Investor Confidence: Well-managed fiscal policies enhance investor confidence by demonstrating a government's commitment to responsible financial management. This confidence can result in lower borrowing costs, as investors perceive the country as less risky. Lower borrowing costs can offset the impact of higher debt levels and make it more manageable for countries to service their debts.

c) Structural Factors: Some countries, especially those with structural trade imbalances or external surpluses, may have the capacity to accumulate higher levels of external debt without facing immediate financial strains. These countries can utilise their external surpluses or trade positions to finance deficits and service debt obligations.

It's important to note that sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels requires a delicate balance. Even for countries with strong economies and well-managed fiscal policies, there are limits to debt sustainability. Oversized deficits and rapidly increasing debt levels can undermine economic stability, increase borrowing costs, and limit the government's ability to respond to future challenges. Prudent fiscal management involves striking a balance between necessary borrowing to support economic growth and avoiding excessive debt burdens that can pose long-term risks.

---

Quantifying the explanation of sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is complex and can vary based on country-specific factors. However, I can provide some general principles and benchmarks:

1. Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The debt-to-GDP ratio is a commonly used indicator to assess a country's debt sustainability. It measures the total debt (both internal and external) as a percentage of the country's GDP. While there is no universally agreed-upon threshold, many economists suggest that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 60-80% can raise concerns about long-term sustainability. However, countries with strong economies and sound fiscal policies may be able to sustain higher debt-to-GDP ratios without significant negative consequences. For example, Japan and some European countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios well above 100% for an extended period.

2. Primary Surplus/Deficit: Another aspect to consider is the primary surplus or deficit, which reflects the government's budget balance excluding interest payments on debt. Sustaining high debt levels generally requires maintaining a primary surplus (revenue exceeds non-interest expenditure) or a small primary deficit. This ensures that the government is generating enough revenue to cover its non-interest expenses and reduces reliance on additional borrowing to service existing debt.

3. Debt Service Costs: The affordability of debt service costs is crucial in assessing sustainability. It involves evaluating the percentage of government revenue allocated to servicing interest payments on the debt. Sustainable debt levels should allow governments to manage debt service costs without significantly compromising other essential expenditures. Generally, a threshold of around 15-20% of government revenue allocated to debt service is considered manageable, but this can vary depending on the country's circumstances.

4. Market Perception and Investor Confidence: The perception of investors and the market plays a vital role in sustaining high debt levels. If a country with well-managed fiscal policies maintains a favourable credit rating and enjoys market confidence, it can continue borrowing at relatively low interest rates. Lower borrowing costs mitigate the burden of servicing higher debt levels and provide some leeway for sustaining larger deficits.

It's important to note that these benchmarks are not fixed rules, and each country's situation is unique. Debt sustainability depends on a variety of factors, including economic growth prospects, fiscal discipline, demographic trends, external shocks, and market conditions. Therefore, it is crucial for governments to continually assess and adapt their fiscal policies to maintain a balance between debt sustainability and economic stability.

---

Governments across the political spectrum, whether conservative or progressive, may resort to borrowing to manage budget deficits. The approach to borrowing may vary based on the ideology and economic policies of a government, but the need to bridge the deficit remains a practical necessity.

While borrowing is a common avenue, governments have a few other options to finance their deficits:

1. Taxation: Governments can increase tax rates or broaden the tax base to generate additional revenue. However, significantly raising taxes can have economic implications and may not be politically feasible in certain situations.

2. Asset Sales: Governments can sell state-owned assets or enterprises to generate revenue. However, this option may have long-term implications and requires careful evaluation of the asset's value and potential impact on the economy.

3. Reserves and Surpluses: Governments can utilise accumulated reserves or budget surpluses from previous years to cover deficits. However, these reserves may be limited or earmarked for specific purposes, and relying solely on them may not be sustainable in the long run.

4. Money Creation: In certain cases, governments may resort to monetary measures, such as the central bank creating new money or conducting quantitative easing. However, these actions can have inflationary consequences and should be used judiciously.

It's important to strike a balance between borrowing and other avenues to ensure fiscal sustainability, economic stability, and prudent debt management. The choice of financing options depends on various factors, including economic conditions, policy priorities, and the government's capacity to repay debt in the future.

---

Money creation, also known as monetary financing or direct monetization of deficits, is a practice where a government or central bank creates new money to directly finance government spending or cover budget deficits. While it may appear as an attractive option for addressing budget deficits without relying on borrowing, there are several reasons why governments do not use it frequently or as a primary tool:

1. Inflationary Pressures: The primary concern with excessive money creation is its potential to lead to inflation. When the money supply increases rapidly without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services, it can result in too much money chasing too few goods, driving up prices. Governments need to balance their spending with the productive capacity of the economy to avoid destabilizing inflationary pressures.

2. Loss of Central Bank Independence: Direct monetization blurs the lines between fiscal and monetary policy, potentially compromising the independence of the central bank. Central banks are typically tasked with maintaining price stability and pursuing monetary policy objectives, such as controlling inflation. Engaging in direct money creation can undermine their ability to fulfill these objectives and may erode market confidence in the central bank's credibility.

3. Market Confidence and Investor Perception: Reliance on money creation to finance deficits can raise concerns among investors and market participants about a government's commitment to fiscal discipline and its ability to manage inflationary risks. This can lead to higher borrowing costs, capital flight, currency depreciation, and diminished investor confidence, which can further exacerbate fiscal challenges.

4. Long-term Sustainability: While money creation can provide short-term relief, it does not address the underlying structural issues causing budget deficits. It can create a cycle of dependence on money creation to finance deficits, which can lead to a deteriorating fiscal situation and potential long-term economic instability.

5. Distortion of Resource Allocation: Money creation to finance deficits can lead to misallocation of resources. The injection of newly created money into the economy can distort price signals and incentivize unproductive investments or speculative activities, potentially hindering sustainable economic growth.

6. International Factors: The use of direct monetization can have implications for a country's international standing. Excessive money creation can erode the value of the currency, leading to exchange rate volatility and reduced credibility in global financial markets.

While money creation can be a tool in exceptional circumstances, such as in response to crises or during wartime, its regular use as a primary means of financing deficits is generally not considered prudent. Governments often rely on a combination of borrowing, taxation, and expenditure management to address budget deficits while maintaining fiscal discipline and long-term sustainability.

General Electric’s accounting tactics bared in SEC settlement

 Industrial powerhouse underlines risk of short-term, market-orientated approach to management writes Sujeet Indap in The FT 

In 2015, Larry Fink, the BlackRock founder and chief executive, released a public letter pressing fellow CEOs to eschew making business decisions based on short-term considerations. 

“It is critical, however, to understand that corporate leaders’ duty of care and loyalty is not to every investor or trader who owns their company’s shares at any moment in time but to the company and its long-term owners,” he wrote. 

One company that BlackRock was a major shareholder at the time was General Electric with a stake of nearly 6 per cent. Around then, Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of GE, appears to have been overseeing just the kind of instant market gratification management effort that Mr Fink was condemning. 

The industrial group “misled investors” and “violated antifraud, reporting [and] disclosure controls”, according to a recent US Securities and Exchange Commission order. In early December, GE agreed with the regulator to pay $200m to settle charges that it had misled investors about its financial condition in between 2015 and 2017.  

In statement, the company noted that no financial statements required correction and that it had neither admitted nor denied guilt as a part of the SEC settlement. 

Five years after Mr Fink’s letter, there has been a continued rise in “stakeholder capitalism” and investing for better environmental, social and corporate governance standards. But this coda to the GE saga of the 2010s is an ugly reminder of the world these new principles are attempting to replace. 

The SEC’s order alleged GE pulled forward future profits and cash flow and, separately, delayed reporting big losses in order to boost immediate results. Damningly, the SEC described how Wall Street pressure and undue attention to the company’s stock price appeared to drive the company’s actions. 

In 2015, GE announced that its once high-flying but controversial GE Capital unit would shrink by $200bn worth of assets. While highly profitable at times, the banklike entity was volatile and its heavy losses during the 2008 financial crisis had nearly sunk the entire company.  

Mr Immelt wanted to reposition GE as an industrial powerhouse with aviation, healthcare, energy and oil and gas units that were supposed to help the developing world become urbanised. In late 2015, the group would close its $15bn acquisition of France’s Alstom to boost its power plant business. 

The power division, according to the SEC, would become the home of accounting mischief. Maintenance contracts with customers that ran several years required estimates of costs and the reduction of such inputs allowed GE to boost its book profits. Separate alleged manoeuvres included selling receivables to GE Capital, allowing for commensurate gains in cash flow. 

The company had announced in 2015 that it would seek to hit $2 per share of earnings in 2018. It appears that precise and ambitious figure effectively became the central organising principle of the company. 

“GE was aware of investor and analyst concerns that its cash collections were not keeping pace with revenue and that its unbilled revenue was growing in its industrial business,” wrote the SEC. 

It said executives at GE Power and GE Power Services cited analyst reports when they discussed internally the need to show improved cash performance. In one 2016 presentation to GE senior management, the SEC said, one executive posited that GE’s stock price could reach $40 if operating cash flow performance improved. It averaged about $30 during that year.

At the same time, the pieces of GE Capital the parent company had retained would prove to be another time bomb. GE kept an interest in long-term healthcare insurance policies that had been sold decades earlier. Those policies proved to be more expensive than had been anticipated, a reality that became clear in 2015. 

In 2016, as it became evident that higher losses were going to need to be realised, one executive called the situation in the insurance business a “train wreck”. 

It seems GE only came clean with investors about its accounting practices in the power division in 2017 while also eventually taking a $22bn impairment to goodwill related to the Alstom buyout. 

And it finally took a $9.5bn charge related to insurance liabilities in 2018 and committed to plug another $15bn of capital into shoring up the GE financial services unit. 

A spokesperson for Mr Immelt said GE sought to comply with all standards for financial accounting. “To achieve this goal, it put in place strong processes with multiple checks and balances,” the spokesperson added. 

BlackRock continues to hold a stake of about 6 per cent in GE shares, which currently hover around $10. A recovery to the peak of nearly $33 seen in 2016 will undoubtedly require a very long-term orientation.