sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Forsyth Barr analysts think Fonterra's consumer business might fetch about $3 billion with the potential for 'material capital returns' to shareholders

Rural News / news
Forsyth Barr analysts think Fonterra's consumer business might fetch about $3 billion with the potential for 'material capital returns' to shareholders
20th May 24, 11:34am by David Hargreaves
milk-splashrf4.jpg
Source: 123rf.com

Fonterra's plan to sell its consumer and associated businesses including brands such as Anchor and Mainland is a "sensible decision", with the assets perhaps fetching $3 billion and scope for "material capital returns" to farmer shareholders, analysts with investment services firm Forsyth Barr say.

Senior analyst Matt Montgomerie and associate analyst Benjamin Crozier say they are supportive of the proposed "significant divestment".

"The Consumer business has been a problem child," they say.

"A number of the brands (particularly in Asia) have been victims to numerous impairments, Australia performance has been mixed at best, and earnings/returns have been volatile (and lacklustre).

"Focussing on the core business, where it has delivered more success (particularly China Foodservice), is the right strategy."

The analysts say Fonterra's core strength is processing milk.

"Selling branded consumer products is not a core strength, as evidenced by its poor performance over a prolonged period. Ownership is best suited to experienced brand owners; we are glad [Fonterra] has now recognised this."

They say there is a "wide range of potential outcomes" from the sale.

"While earnings have been volatile historically, we suspect there could be meaningful cost synergies (particularly on sales and distribution) for a prospective buyer.

"We also think it is feasible that the businesses could be sold in multiple transactions to a range of buyers. All together, we foresee an aggregate sale price range of NZ$2.5 billion to NZ$3.5billion."

While the analysts don't forecast, as such, exactly how much Fonterra might return to shareholders from the sale, included in their examples of future earnings ratios is an example of a $2 a share return.

This is the dairy industry payout history.

Dairy prices

Select chart tabs

Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

15 Comments

by  Flying high  |  20th May 24, 2:37pm 1716172668

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/how-much-did-groceries-cost-in-199…

Milk and cheese up 50 percent over 30 years. Many other products rose 200 percent from 1994 to 2024.

Efficient farmers getting less for their milk

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 2:53pm 1716173628

That's largely because many of Fonterra's 'products' become ingredients in the brands that are selling the final products to the consumers.

Think products like 'milk power' that go into 'Up and Go" and hundreds of products like it. The milk power can come from anywhere ... but the 'brand' producing the final product that the consumer is buying still makes a healthy profit irrespective of where the milk power comes from. See the risk?

Up
1
by  J.C.  |  20th May 24, 3:06pm 1716174386

but the 'brand' producing the final product that the consumer is buying still makes a healthy profit irrespective of where the milk power comes from.

Not necessarily. Dairy shelf prices do not behave like commodity prices adjusting on a daily basis. And even if they did, that does not guarantee consistent profits and / or margins.  

Up
0
by  makechange  |  20th May 24, 2:36pm 1716172582

Is this just about branding or also about value adding manufacturing capability combined with marketing packages to sell it at a premium price?

In a world where energy is becoming more expensive, why wouldn't Fonterra aim for maximum value per kg exported?

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 2:46pm 1716173183

"Selling branded consumer products is not a core strength ..."

Then they should develop another 'core strength' and reap the rewards. This isn't that hard. It starts with getting the right people and then doing something NZ businesses aren't that good at: making a realistic plan and seeing it through. If they do this for one "branded consumer products" business, they can take that model, fine tune it, and roll it out to other units. Too much like hard work?

The other thing about a "branded consumer products" business is that they don't just sell a single supplier's products. The consumers know the all important "brand" and they usually don't care so much where the products originate. Thus these "branded consumer products" businesses have the ability to grow substantially bigger than the original supplier from which they came.

Up
0
by  J.C.  |  20th May 24, 3:08pm 1716174531

Then they should develop another 'core strength' and reap the rewards. This isn't that hard.

1 litre of VinaMilk sits on the shelf at NZD2 and the Anchor product sits at $3.

Which one do you think a representative Vietnamese shopper will buy?

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 3:13pm 1716174811

Why do people - even in Vietnam - still buy Rolls-Royces and Bentleys?

Up
0
by  J.C.  |  20th May 24, 3:18pm 1716175081

Do you think Anchor has a higher market and value share than VinaMilk? 

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 3:33pm 1716175986

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_dairy_companies

My point is that when you have a core strength, you build on it and grow it. Retreating is for 'also rans'.

Up
0
by  makechange  |  20th May 24, 3:18pm 1716175099

Status signalling with dairy products though? Can't say I've seen that much

Requires massive differentiation, positioning and potentially education campaigns, competing for eyeballs 24/7

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 3:23pm 1716175391

You mean hard work? (lol)

Keeping the brands and repatriating even a small amount of the profits will help NZ Inc's balance of payments.

Up
0
by  ChrisOfNoFame  |  20th May 24, 3:29pm 1716175771

Nestlé is the biggest 'dairy company' in the world. They hail from Switzerland.

(Jeff Bezos figured out quite quickly that selling books wasn't where the money was but supply chain management from all suppliers direct to the consumer was.)

Up
2
by  mfd  |  20th May 24, 4:09pm 1716178145

ATM have that, imagine if Fonterra had properly joined them in marketing NZ A2 milk to the world. 

Up
0
by  Wilco  |  20th May 24, 5:40pm 1716183652

What a surprise.

Investment bankers, who stand to gain millions if not tens of millions in fees from any sort of sale being supportive of Fonterra divesting its brands. 

And yippy - Nestle is likely to be one of the winners.

The big get bigger and the rest (Fonterra) fade away in irrelevance. 

To suggest Fonterra's milk processing is it's strength is laughable.

To further suggest, as this article does, that pursuing even more business in China could be good idea when our payout is already heavily affected by our over exposure to China's lack luster economic state is (lost for words)

I have experience in business to business models. There is only one winner. The one with the most power. 

 

Up
2
by  Grattaway  |  20th May 24, 8:28pm 1716193713

I agree - Fonterra have a business worth $2-3 billion give or take - it could be worth more (should be already) if they hired the smarts and built it but no lets take the money and run.

I also think that where they are proposing to retreat to is the very area of operation that is exposed to alternative proteins -so in future the marketers making consumer products will not need Fonterra

Up
0