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 The Commission had withdrawn its case against one of the companies, Fritz Pienaar Cycles, because the business was liquidated.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

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 12:22 PM

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

 

 

that's why retailers feel miffed when not considered by Specialised  to be a dealer because that's a significantly higher mark up on the products than other brands offer. And they can't be discounted due to contractual obligations.

andydude

Jun 1, 2016, 12:35 PM

It's interesting everyone slating the distributors, rightly so, but our beloved Shimano is not an angel either.

 

Interesting read, even though it's from 2001. A Stick In The Spokes http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0305/148.html

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 12:50 PM

Think this will end up at the Competition Appeal Court? I get that the administrative penalty thing is supposed to act as a deterrent, but it's really a fine for annoying the state if you think about it. No one wins except the Comp Comm/Trib...which needs to pay a silk or two after the bread cartel challenges.

 

R4-bar apiece sounds an awful lot if all that really happened was one meeting, having just read again how the fines are calculated.

 

And what of the much-whispered-about Cape Town meeting...? 

 

On a tangent: think anyone who attended that Gauteng meeting applied for leniency from the Comp Comm? :whistling:

 

Another tangent: I remember there was a hubber who said he'd made two appearances at the Comp Comm at around that time - one to do with this issue and the other to answer a complaint laid by another hubber on a different issue (although I believe the complainant in both issues was actually the same hubber...) That seemed to involve a dealer allegedly telling a wholesaler not to do business with another person in the industry. Odd case. Don't think it was ever pronounced on. Neither said anything, and neither of them post here anymore. Funny old industry...

Sidmouth

Jun 1, 2016, 12:58 PM

I think the LBS is the biggest victim of this, them have no choice, as consumers we come in a close second, but at least we have CWC and CRC,  

 

I am a big fan of these two online stores, The service and delivery from CRC is at another level, for anyone hesitant to use CRC, give it a go you will be pleasantly surprised, and when it comes to a warranty issue, just email them a description of the problem and a photo and they refund your bank account, truly amazing.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 1:15 PM

Think this will end up at the Competition Appeal Court? I get that the administrative penalty thing is supposed to act as a deterrent, but it's really a fine for annoying the state if you think about it. No one wins except the Comp Comm/Trib...which needs to pay a silk or two after the bread cartel challenges.

 

R4-bar apiece sounds an awful lot if all that really happened was one meeting, having just read again how the fines are calculated.

 

And what of the much-whispered-about Cape Town meeting...? 

 

On a tangent: think anyone who attended that Gauteng meeting applied for leniency from the Comp Comm? :whistling:

 

Another tangent: I remember there was a hubber who said he'd made two appearances at the Comp Comm at around that time - one to do with this issue and the other to answer a complaint laid by another hubber on a different issue (although I believe the complainant in both issues was actually the same hubber...) That seemed to involve a dealer allegedly telling a wholesaler not to do business with another person in the industry. Odd case. Don't think it was ever pronounced on. Neither said anything, and neither of them post here anymore. Funny old industry...

 

 

A fine for annoying the state? Isnt that what any punishment is dished out by a court?

Yes its a deterent that would not be needed if fair business practice was followed

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 1:22 PM

A fine for annoying the state? Isnt that what any punishment is dished out by a court?

Yes its a deterent that would not be needed if fair business practice was followed

 

I guess you're right.

 

But then you could argue that this lot got a fine for sitting around and saying they will run a red robot rather than actually running it.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 1:26 PM

Well they also planned to prevent other people using the intersection and mugging anyone using it for the first time. If you still ok with that then I guess you don't have a problem with crime in South Africa

Matt

Jun 1, 2016, 1:32 PM

The quote below is an official statement we have received from Omnico regarding this matter.

 

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

 

“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.”

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 1:33 PM

Well they also planned to prevent other people using the intersection and mugging anyone using it for the first time. If you still ok with that then I guess you don't have a problem with crime in South Africa

 

Haha! Good analogy.

 

What I can't get my head around is how they came to the amount. If the duration of the collusion is one of the determining factors used in the calculation of a penalty, the amount does seem on the high side.

raptor-22

Jun 1, 2016, 1:35 PM

its typically 10% of turnover. 

 

that's a massive cash outflow that's not going to salaries or stock.

 

I can see why they want to appeal but they are also only digging a bigger hole.

 

With so many parties having admitted guilt there is no way out of this rabbit hole except through redemption via 4milion hail Mary's and a sprinkling of Wholey Water

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 1:38 PM

its typically 10% of turnover. 

 

Ja, I have seen that percentage spoken of, but there are other factors to be weighed up too. 

Eldron

Jun 1, 2016, 1:42 PM

I guess your reaction will be formed by your current view on LBS, gray imports, distributors etc.

 

As far as I am aware Fritz Pienaar had just gone belly up and the rest of the shops were a little nervous so shops and distributors got together to "ensure sustainability". Of course one man's sustainability is another man's "screwing the consumer"....

 

Plans were made but never came to fruition - I don't think the plans ever could work. Trying to control pricing across hundreds of stores in impossible when you don't know how much the end user is paying...

 

Ultimately none of this really matters because the situation resolved itself.

 

The fines are way too late and ridiculously skewed. What exactly did the squealers confess to? Meeting? Those that chose to defend did nothing different to those that didn't defend. No actual crime was commited here. Defending was always a risk anyway - you're in for a good R500,000 to defend yourself - do you pay the R500,000 now or risk losing more later. It's a financial gamble gamble not a indication of guilt.

 

One could argue that the "bust" forced the industry to stay honest but I think ye olde free market principle sorted everything out - when the local pricing of any article gets too high alternatives like CWC and CRC prosper.

Paul Ruinaard

Jun 1, 2016, 1:50 PM

I guess your reaction will be formed by your current view on LBS, gray imports, distributors etc.

 

As far as I am aware Fritz Pienaar had just gone belly up and the rest of the shops were a little nervous so shops and distributors got together to "ensure sustainability". Of course one man's sustainability is another man's "screwing the consumer"....

 

Plans were made but never came to fruition - I don't think the plans ever could work. Trying to control pricing across hundreds of stores in impossible when you don't know how much the end user is paying...

 

Ultimately none of this really matters because the situation resolved itself.

 

The fines are way too late and ridiculously skewed. What exactly did the squealers confess to? Meeting? Those that chose to defend did nothing different to those that didn't defend. No actual crime was commited here. Defending was always a risk anyway - you're in for a good R500,000 to defend yourself - do you pay the R500,000 now or risk losing more later. It's a financial gamble gamble not a indication of guilt.

 

One could argue that the "bust" forced the industry to stay honest but I think ye olde free market principle sorted everything out - when the local pricing of any article gets too high alternatives like CWC and CRC prosper.

Umm,

 

Not really - I remember clearly that things like Stan's kits almost doubled in price in Cyclelab and Fritz and the other store escapes me now. No reason - exchange rates etc were stable. I am not sure if it was noted on here but on other older MTB forums there was definitely an outcry.

 

So not only did they collude but they coordinated their plans and implemented them. That is pretty much fact.

 

So its great to see that actually something was done. The wheels grind slowly in the justice department but this time they got it right.

Eldron

Jun 1, 2016, 1:56 PM

Umm,

 

Not really - I remember clearly that things like Stan's kits almost doubled in price in Cyclelab and Fritz and the other store escapes me now. No reason - exchange rates etc were stable. I am not sure if it was noted on here but on other older MTB forums there was definitely an outcry.

 

So not only did they collude but they coordinated their plans and implemented them. That is pretty much fact.

 

So its great to see that actually something was done. The wheels grind slowly in the justice department but this time they got it right.

 

So one item doubling in price and some random internet chatter turns it into fact?

 

How exactly does a distributor force an lbs to fix prices? Do they send hundreds of staff members to stores to check till slips?

 

Each to their own I guess - if that is your opinion that is your opinion. My dealings with local distributors has been very different.

Paul Ruinaard

Jun 1, 2016, 2:04 PM

So one item doubling in price and some random internet chatter turns it into fact?

 

How exactly does a distributor force an lbs to fix prices? Do they send hundreds of staff members to stores to check till slips?

 

Each to their own I guess - if that is your opinion that is your opinion. My dealings with local distributors has been very different.

I think you need to read the history of the case and you may find that the details are in there. This was posted on many forums including the minutes of the discussion on here when they met. That alone is a crime i.e. meeting and discussing collusion and price fixing..

So they meet and prices randomly go up overnight, which is noticed and commented upon.

 

Later docs emerge minuting the meeting and the timing is the same.

 

And that is random chatter ? Sorry how do you reach that conclusion. thta chatter here on the hub is cited in the ruling.

 

People aren't as stupid as you think. They notice. Like i did.

 

Also they are later prosecuted by the competition commission.

 

But according to you this is all random chatter.

 

I don't think the competition commission takes hearsay and random chatter in to account when dishing out R 4m fines...

MTBeer

Jun 1, 2016, 2:10 PM

What's the story with Spaz Concept stores? I phoned 3 different stores for a price on Ground Control tyres and all 3 were exactly the same price - to the nearest cent. Is that not price fixing or what am I missing?

Mongoose!

Jun 1, 2016, 2:12 PM

is it Friday already ? :w00t:

FCH

Jun 1, 2016, 2:16 PM

I believe being a specialized concept store you are not dealing with an completely independent retailer anymore; like buying a car; Toyota everywhere will ask the same price for a Hilux (a dealer can throw you a bone here or there) but the listed price is set. 

 

What's the story with Spaz Concept stores? I phoned 3 different stores for a price on Ground Control tyres and all 3 were exactly the same price - to the nearest cent. Is that not price fixing or what am I missing?

GLuvsMtb

Jun 1, 2016, 2:22 PM

What's the story with Spaz Concept stores? I phoned 3 different stores for a price on Ground Control tyres and all 3 were exactly the same price - to the nearest cent. Is that not price fixing or what am I missing?

Pretty much the same as Pick n Pay all over the country charging the same for their no-name baked beans...
Eldron

Jun 1, 2016, 2:26 PM

I think you need to read the history of the case and you may find that the details are in there. This was posted on many forums including the minutes of the discussion on here when they met. That alone is a crime i.e. meeting and discussing collusion and price fixing..

So they meet and prices randomly go up overnight, which is noticed and commented upon.

 

Later docs emerge minuting the meeting and the timing is the same.

 

And that is random chatter ? Sorry how do you reach that conclusion. thta chatter here on the hub is cited in the ruling.

 

People aren't as stupid as you think. They notice. Like i did.

 

Also they are later prosecuted by the competition commission.

 

But according to you this is all random chatter.

 

I don't think the competition commission takes hearsay and random chatter in to account when dishing out R 4m fines...

 

There is tons of info available on what the plans were but no facts on actual price increases.

 

In terms of accessories the collusion plan was this:

 

In a meeting, the companies had all agreed to increase their markup on bicycles to 50% from 35% and the markup on cycling accessories to 75% from 50%. Prices had been set to increase on October 1 2008.

 

So your Stans doubling "facts" are completely wrong. If the collusion has occurred your Stans would have only gone up by 16.67%.

Escapee..

Jun 1, 2016, 2:29 PM

I believe being a specialized concept store you are not dealing with an completely independent retailer anymore; like buying a car; Toyota everywhere will ask the same price for a Hilux (a dealer can throw you a bone here or there) but the listed price is set. 

 

The retail price is set by the OEM but the dealer can still decide at what price they are going to sell it.

Tumbleweed

Jun 1, 2016, 2:29 PM

I think you need to read the history of the case and you may find that the details are in there. This was posted on many forums including the minutes of the discussion on here when they met. That alone is a crime i.e. meeting and discussing collusion and price fixing..

So they meet and prices randomly go up overnight, which is noticed and commented upon.

 

Later docs emerge minuting the meeting and the timing is the same.

 

And that is random chatter ? Sorry how do you reach that conclusion. thta chatter here on the hub is cited in the ruling.

 

People aren't as stupid as you think. They notice. Like i did.

 

Also they are later prosecuted by the competition commission.

 

But according to you this is all random chatter.

 

I don't think the competition commission takes hearsay and random chatter in to account when dishing out R 4m fines...

If you know that history of the case, you will no doubt be aware of the costly start, then abrupt halt to it years ago. It was not a strong case, and I very much doubt the commission or tribunal paid any attention to what was said on the hub, and merely used the minutes posted as a start point. Hub discussions wouldn't make for credible evidence
FCH

Jun 1, 2016, 2:34 PM

" a dealer can throw you bone here or there" 

The retail price is set by the OEM but the dealer can still decide at what price they are going to sell it.

cdevil

Jun 1, 2016, 2:50 PM

cerseis-walk-of-shame.jpg

BigDL

Jun 1, 2016, 3:17 PM

The retail price is set by the OEM but the dealer can still decide at what price they are going to sell it.

Interesting. I was involved with a very very well known brand of outdoor products for a while and, if anybody discounted the RRP, they would find that every time they ordered going forward, their items were out of stock. This was done to protect the small dealers from the huge dealers. I must stress that this was not my end of the business. There are many ways to control price.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Add a comment

You must log in to comment