Beer market of Kazakhstan acquired both traits of East European countries and South Eastern Asia taking a transitional position between them by many criteria and consumption style. Yet there is a positive trend in beer production which differs Kazakhstan from most of the neighboring countries. The market has remained consolidated in the hands of two international players because of its small size. However, it faces dynamic processes such as fast growth of draft beer sales, up and downs of regional companies and Carlsberg Group’s ultimate expansion. Excessive mainstream segment has declined over the recent years, yet, Zhigulevskoe and national brands with regional links have yielded their positions to a range of new products. In our review special attention was paid to regional analysis of the markets. In 14 regions of Kazakhstan we compared the companies’ positions, the market price segmentation and DIOT channel development. Besides we have compared the beer market of Kazakhstan to neighboring countries. ...
Beer market of Russia 2018
- General market picture
- Foreign trade setting records
- Demography as challenge to branding
- Aged consumer
- Declining of youth brands
- Nostalgia on trend
- DIOT feels at home
- 5.0 Original is the new face of import
- Positions of Market Leaders
- Carlsberg Group
- AB InBev Efes
- AB InBev
Ukrainian beer market 2018
- Better than yesterday
- Performance by value
- Positions of Ukrainian brewers
The beer market dynamics in Russia is approaching zero, yet major brewers are divided into those who developed considerably in 2017 and those who considerably reduced their volumes. For instance, company Efes has managed to substantially extend their sales due to restrained pricing policy and activity in the modern trade. Heineken has also demonstrated an excellent performance promoted by significant increase of advertisement budgets launching a non-alcohol sort of the title brand and unusual activity in the economy market segment. Carlsberg and AB InBev have been focusing on margins and lost a market share of their inexpensive brands. Serious dependence on PET package and mass enthusiasm about Zhigulevskoe have negatively impacted the most of big regional brewers, that have been for the first time pressed by the leaders in the key sales channels, especially in Volga and Central regions. In the small business there has been a noticeable slowdown in appearing of new restaurant breweries, yet the number of craft breweries has been growing rapidly. In 2018, the beer market is likely to grow a little, while the share of AB InBev Efes may decrease due to the integration. ...
Ambev vs. Anheuser-Busch: A Primer on Retained Earnings
If I make a dollar on every widget I sell, ideally I take that dollar and reinvest it in new capacity, enter new markets or stoke demand for my products in existing markets. What I don’t want is to spend that dollar on replacing plants and equipment, paying off piles of debt or defending myself against lawsuits because my widget causes measles. There’s a case often made that debt repayment can drive profitability when your cost of capital is greater than your return on equity, but this isn’t the kind of dynamic I’m interested in as a long-term investor in a business. It’s instructive here to crunch some numbers to determine which of our companies is the better capital allocator.
Between 2002 and 2010, Ambev earned a grand total of 9.96 Brazilian Reals per share (approx. $6.40USD at current rates). During that same time the company paid out 7.10 Reals ($4.56USD) in dividends. This leaves 2.86 in retained earnings, which were plowed back into the business. Earnings per share were .66 in 2002 and 2.44 in 2010 with the incremental profit equaling 1.78 (2.44 - .66). Utilizing only 2.86 in retained earnings, the company realized a 62% return (1.78 / 2.86). This is a company firing on all cylinders and driving shareholder value at every turn. Now for Papa BUD.
Over the same period, Anheuser-Busch InBev earned $21.99 per share. The company paid out one .39 dividend in 2010 leaving 21.60 in cumulative retained earnings to reinvest. Earnings per share were $1.12 in 2002 and $2.50 in 2010 with the incremental profit equaling 1.38 (2.50 – 1.12). Utilizing 21.60 in retained earnings, the company was only able to realize a 6.4% return (1.38 / 21.60).
Whatever the company is doing with its earnings (a discussion for another time), they are not delivering the incremental profit and this is what the smart investor demands.
28 Июл. 2011