Events

Two wholesalers in bicycle price-fixing charges get R4m administrative fines each

By Press Office · 253 comments

Tuesday 31 May, the Tribunal has issued both its order and its reasons in the Omnico and Coolheat Cycle case. It has awarded an administrative penalty to Omnico of R4627412 and to Coolheat Cycles a penalty of R4250612. The Tribunal has already confirmed six consent orders by wholesalers and 11 retailers in the bicycle sector who were implicated in a price-fixing investigation by the Competition Commission.

The two wholesalers, Omnico and Coolheat, however, chose to oppose the charges and the matter was heard last year by the Tribunal.

The Commission relied for its case primarily on a meeting held on 10 September 2008 where about 200 bicycle wholesalers and retailers attended a meeting at Midrand Conference Centre in Gauteng to discuss increasing their markup on bicycles to 50% from 35%, and the markup on cycling accessories to 75% from 50%. The wholesalers would give the retailers a higher mark-up by increasing the Recommended Retail Price to consumers. Prices to consumers would be increased so that retailers could make higher margins. Prices were set to increase on 1 October 2008, as it was the beginning of the new cycling season and new bicycles and accessories were usually launched at this time and new price lists issued. Details of these discussions had been posted on an online discussion forum called The Hub and was brought to the attention of the Commission.

Evidence presented at the hearing revealed that both Omnico and Coolheat had attended the September meeting that there was agreement among wholesalers to increase the mark-up on wholesale prices for bicycles and cycling accessories in co-ordination.

In determining the penalties the Tribunal took into account some mitigating factors for Omnico. However, it found no such mitigating factors for Coolheat, who had elected not to give evidence at the Tribunal and to explain its subsequent price increases.

The other 17 companies who settled early with the Commission were not fined for the offence as they had admitted they had contravened section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The Commission had withdrawn its case against one of the companies, Fritz Pienaar Cycles, because the business was liquidated.

Issued by:
Chantelle Benjamin
Communications: Competition Tribunal

Omnico’s official statement on this matter – 1 June 2016

“Four years ago the Competition Commission commenced legal proceedings against a number of wholesalers and retailers contending that they were guilty of price fixing. 17 consent orders were obtained by the Commission ( ie these parties agreed to admitting guilt) and no fine was imposed on them. Omnico and another party denied any contravention as alleged by the Commission and as such refused to consent to an order as required by the Commission. Had Omnico simply consented, that effectively would have been the end of the matter and no fine would have been imposed on them by the Commission.

The matter proceeded and the Competition Tribunal, after a lengthy and expensive legal process has ordered that Omnico contravened the Competition Act and imposed a fine.

Omnico is disappointed at the Tribunal’s decision and maintains that it was not party to any anti-competitive agreement as alleged.

In the circumstances Omnico has instructed its legal advisors to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.”

Related posts

Comments

V12man

Jun 1, 2016, 9:23 AM

Correct but the only way to bounce back from a R4 mil fine is to increase your profit 

This issue is so old they have been providing for it for years....

 

doesn't stop them from upping the increased RRP though - and hasn't for years...

Tromp

Jun 1, 2016, 9:24 AM

I am a serious doubter when it comes to the dealings of the competition commission. I take what they do and say with a very big pinch of salt!

When 11 people sits around the table to discuss the way forward , it is said that they are conniving . If the regime does the same , it is called government.
BDF

Jun 1, 2016, 9:28 AM

Would you say you had ? If you went along with the recommended pricing structure as highlighted is that not wrong ? So all 17 gave confessions under duress ?

Cant speak for the others, I only spoke with Kim Johnson.

 

Duress in a legal sense of duress from a financial perspective?

 

No to Duress in a legal perspective,

Yes to duress from a financial perspective.

 

There comes a point where standing your ground from a legal perspective costs more money than you have. At that point, from a financial survival point of view one needs to make some decisions. He chose not to bankrupt himself.

Chro Mo

Jun 1, 2016, 9:34 AM

I think you need to look at the verdict in context of the practice pre 2008,then it makes more sense.

It was actually some retailers who wanted price control and got support from distributors . One retailer famously posted the minutes and the other I believe was a large nation wide franchise.

 

I think the verdict is pretty fair based on behavior at the time of the complaint

I remember the then owner of said nationwide franchise chatting about this meeting on a certain cycling-related programme, saying it was just a discussion etc.

I remember being somewhat discomfited at the time,

Joe Low

Jun 1, 2016, 9:50 AM

Another thought on this.

 

When I worked running a steel merchant's in Malawi, all the Asian retailers got together one time to set a minimum price for roof-sheets - a FMCG up there.

 

I asked a couple of them what they thought of the meeting and agreement and they said:

 

"it's great, we all find out what the agreed price is, then we all go back and undercut each other".

 

The market is the market and water follows the path of least resistance.

 

I doubt the cycle retailers would stick together which may be one reason that 20+ of them disowned the thing pretty rapidly.

Mongoose!

Jun 1, 2016, 9:51 AM

 

I remember the then owner of said nationwide franchise chatting about this meeting on a certain cycling-related programme, saying it was just a discussion etc.
I remember being somewhat discomfited at the time,


also remembered it - the conclusion was that this actions were done to regulate the cycling industry and all parties involved in cycling would benefit from it at the end.

Bspoke

Jun 1, 2016, 10:06 AM

NICE ONE!!!

Unfortunately we will all pay the price eventually ,as they will just

adjust prices UPWARDS.

With the currency adjusted to junk status for import purposes new bikes

are going to cost car prices .

It's happening already ;200k for Cannondale,rather buy a 2nd hand Ducati 999.and have something of value between your legs!

If you shop around its still not worth importing from Chain Reaction most of the time.

Maverick rider

Jun 1, 2016, 10:11 AM

Cant speak for the others, I only spoke with Kim Johnson.

 

Duress in a legal sense of duress from a financial perspective?

 

No to Duress in a legal perspective,

Yes to duress from a financial perspective.

 

There comes a point where standing your ground from a legal perspective costs more money than you have. At that point, from a financial survival point of view one needs to make some decisions. He chose not to bankrupt himself.

Maverick rider

Jun 1, 2016, 10:13 AM

Not so sure 4 1 (b) which is what the 17 admitted to says you agreed to raise prices with others why would somebody agree to that ? Quite easy to disprove given that the agreement is for a certain percentage.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 10:28 AM

Fair point - the market was way more closed back then...

 

Nowadays the likes of CRC and CWC with their gray products keep the official distributors honest.

 

It is a bit rough to use the terms arrogant and call for the removal of distribution rights when the market is pretty clean and honest now though....

 

 

I think arrogant is appropriate for the time. today they are probably sitting there thinking "What If I approached this differently?"

 

I recallmany cycle shops were moaning back then that they needed to protect their business from CRC and other online stores that were gaining traction locally. Also parallel importers were taking distributors market share so all parties felt they needed to collude to arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome....

 

 

and therein lies the rub.

 

raising prices is not illegal, agreeing with your "competitors" to do the same is outright illegal and unfair on the consumer.

 

May have changed their ways in the interim but they have the opportunity to change their minds and plead guilty, learned our lesson, saw the error of ways etc etc etc.

 

But where does all this leave us cyclists? We still going to buy product and 95% of people will still buy in the same way from the same people because likely the market is more fair today anyway.

 

Personally I think the timing of the fine and verdict is likely more hurtful than the verdict itself. I say this because in todays economy, a cash outflow of R4.6million and R4.2million (assuming fine is 10% of turnover) means more than a months operating capital.

that's a lot of profit to set aside / provision for

BDF

Jun 1, 2016, 10:28 AM

Not so sure 4 1 (b) which is what the 17 admitted to says you agreed to raise prices with others why would somebody agree to that ? Quite easy to disprove given that the agreement is for a certain percentage.

It seems easy until you have to do it.

It's easy to have an over-simplified opinion sitting on the other side of a keyboard. The real cost is in proving the matter to them and constantly needing to defend your position given the very obtuse angles they come at it from.

 

Have you ever had to defend something with the Competition Commission? I have been involved in a couple of merger submissions to the CC and believe me, it's not just a matter of sending an email or making an affidavit. Much more is involved. Including certificated from Auditors and representation by attorneys.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 10:32 AM

Not so sure 4 1 (b) which is what the 17 admitted to says you agreed to raise prices with others why would somebody agree to that ? Quite easy to disprove given that the agreement is for a certain percentage.

 

 

an agreement to raise prices is only an outcome which would be an additional charge. the fact they all met to discuss pricing is in itself an illegal act of cartel behavior.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 10:34 AM

NICE ONE!!!

Unfortunately we will all pay the price eventually ,as they will just

adjust prices UPWARDS.

With the currency adjusted to junk status for import purposes new bikes

are going to cost car prices .

It's happening already ;200k for Cannondale,rather buy a 2nd hand Ducati 999.and have something of value between your legs!

If you shop around its still not worth importing from Chain Reaction most of the time.

 

 

Ratings agency decision is only due Friday. Inidcations are that we will not be reduced to junk.

one indicator is the ZAR strengthened

Mongoose!

Jun 1, 2016, 10:41 AM

Ratings agency decision is only due Friday. Inidcations are that we will not be reduced to junk.

one indicator is the ZAR strengthened

 

really hope you are right :wacko:

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 10:46 AM

Ratings agency decision is only due Friday. Inidcations are that we will not be reduced to junk.

one indicator is the ZAR strengthened

 

Although the agencies did give the ANC a finger-wagging:

 

http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2016/06/01/ratings-agencies-warn-the-anc

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 10:58 AM

Yes which is why i see movement on some key national projects suddenly

Wez-O

Jun 1, 2016, 11:02 AM

Two wholesalers in bicycle price-fixing charges get R4m administrative fines each - 31 March 2016

 

I'm having a good laugh now as I remember some users recently slating me and throwing insults my way when I mentioned that wherever possible I bypass the ripoff South African distributors. Ja nee  :whistling:

rock

Jun 1, 2016, 11:07 AM

hold on, if the meeting was to increase the retailer's margins why do the distributors get nailed?

 

what am I missing here?

Gerhardc

Jun 1, 2016, 11:07 AM

GREAT NEWS!!!  :clap:  :clap:  :thumbup:

Wez-O

Jun 1, 2016, 11:13 AM

Here's an example of how distributors are ripping of South African consumers...

 

CW Cycles (who presumably use grey market stuff) sometimes sell products (such as Continental tyres) at half the retail price. Not only this, but I've heard from bike shops that many of their specials are infact lower than the cost price bike shops are paying for them. Go figure.

Krypt0n1te

Jun 1, 2016, 11:33 AM

Looking at Specialized, the difference between Dealer Cost and MSRP is a whopping 54% on their bikes.

Not picking on Spez here, I ride one myself, pretty sure it is the same with the other big brands.

 

But what to do? You want the bike you pay the price!

 

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Halfdoesyn

Jun 1, 2016, 11:37 AM

So fine money flows:

 

Consumer -> Bike shops -> Bad Evil Distributors -> even Badder Eviller Gav'ment

 

Mmmmm... Looks like we get shafted regardless.

NotShatterProof

Jun 1, 2016, 11:50 AM

Here's an example: I recently bought a 36T for the SS, paid R1100 for it. When I got home I looked at the old 33T and changed my mind. Sent the wife back to exchange it for a 34T. She phones me in a flat panic from the shop telling me that she has to pay in R500 because the new stock has come in. That's a rather large exchange rate movement. Fixing, exchange rate, call it what you want, it seems excessive. Just as a matter of interest the same 36T is about R600 on CRC.

 

Now I ride a 36T to work.

Mongoose!

Jun 1, 2016, 12:17 PM

Here's an example: I recently bought a 36T for the SS, paid R1100 for it. When I got home I looked at the old 33T and changed my mind. Sent the wife back to exchange it for a 34T. She phones me in a flat panic from the shop telling me that she has to pay in R500 because the new stock has come in. That's a rather large exchange rate movement. Fixing, exchange rate, call it what you want, it seems excessive. Just as a matter of interest the same 36T is about R600 on CRC.

 

Now I ride a 36T to work.

 

You are a lucky man. My wife will never go to a bike shop on my behalf to exchange parts

Morwa

Jun 1, 2016, 12:19 PM

Here's an example of how distributors are ripping of South African consumers...

 

CW Cycles (who presumably use grey market stuff) sometimes sell products (such as Continental tyres) at half the retail price. Not only this, but I've heard from bike shops that many of their specials are infact lower than the cost price bike shops are paying for them. Go figure.

 

 

That's exactly why I will keep on supporting CWC!   Go Chris Go!  I don't care about grey/gray......but I do care about the cash in the pocket.

 

It's time we list these shops.....like CWC.  Let's support them.

Add a comment

You must log in to comment