Few people have £18bn worth of funds to spend. But someone that does is Warren Buffett and a Brazilian firm, who look set to purchase Heinz for this sum. Heinz, known for things like baked beans and ketchup already has an exceptionally strong brand and is cash rich – these are two ingredients which Warren Buffett likes and have undoubtedly played their part in securing what looks to be a tasty deal.
The company’s Board has already approved the deal, but shareholders still need to have their say and have been offered $72.50 per share. 650 million bottles of Heinz ketchup are sold every year and its baked beans, at the least in the UK, are second to none. Products like this have given Heinz its global brand name and have provided the opportunity to shareholders to make significant gains. Its Chairman said:
The Heinz brand is one of the most respected brands in the global food industry and this historic transaction provides tremendous value to Heinz shareolders.
This statement was certainly reciprocated by Warren Buffett when he spoke to CNBC, saying:
It is our kind of company … I’ve sampled it many times … Anytime we see a deal is attractive and it’s our kind of business and we’ve got the money, I’m ready to do.
The deal therefore looks to be profitable to both sides, but is there more to it? An investigation has already been launched by the Securities and Exchange Commission as to whether information about this purchase was leaked early and was used to make money. Insider trading occurs when someone is given information early about a merger such as the one described above. They then use this information, before it is made public, to buy up a company’s stock. It is incredibly difficult to prosecute and huge amounts of money can be made by hedge funds, amongst others. This is certainly one aspect of the deal to keep your eye on.
So, what does the future hold for Warren Buffett and Heinz? Buffett likes to extract extra value from companies he purchases and has in the past split up his businesses to create separate trading companies. However, given his taste for ketchup and his appreciation for strong global brands, it’s unlikely that we’ll see a change to the recipe of any of the well-known products. The following articles consider the takeover and the case of insider trading.
Will Buffet ‘squeeze value’ from Heinz BBC News (15/2/13)
Heinz-Buffett deal: will anyone spill the beans on insider trading? The Guardian, Heidi Moore (15/2/13)
Heinz bought by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway for $28bn BBC News (14/2/13)
Traders sued over Heinz share bets Independent, Nikhil Kumar (16/2/13)
Heinz deal brings it back to its roots Financial Times, Alan Rappeport, Dan McCrum and Anoushka Sakoui (14/2/13)
Beanz means Buffet: Heinz purchased in $28bn takeover The Guardian, Dominic Rush (14/2/13)
US SEC sues over Heinz option trading before buyout Reuters (15/2/13)
Warren Buffet and Brazil’s ‘Sage’ Jorge Leman strike £18bn Heinz deal The Telegraph, Richard Blackden (15/2/13)
Questions
- What type of take-over would you class this as?
- Consider the Boston matrix – in which category would you place Heinz when you think about its market share and market growth?
- Why is a company that has a global brand and that is cash rich so tempting?
- Given your answer to question 3, why have other investors not taken an interest in purchasing Heinz?
- If you were a shareholder in Heinz, what factors would you consider when deciding whether or not to vote for the takeover?
- What growth strategy has Heinz used to establish its current position in the global market place?
- What is insider trading? Explain how early information can be used to make money in the case of Heinz.
- Explain how the share price of $72.50 is set. How does the market have a role?
When you look at the linked articles below, I’m sure many of you will be thinking that this is an odd choice for an economics blog! However, part of the economic relevance of ‘cyber-crime fighters’ relates to the relative skills of workers and the gap that exists between the most and least skilled workers in the UK.
Crime has always existed, but as technology has developed the types of crime committed have grown along with the complexity of them. For certain crimes, a very skilled individual is needed. With this emergence of technologically advanced crimes, those fighting crimes have also had to improve their skills and techniques. Thus crime-fighters have become more technologically advanced as well.
The problem is that the number of skilled workers able to deal with things like cyber crime has not kept pace with the demand for them and thus we have a skills gap. Usage of the Internet has continued to grow, creating more and more opportunities for cyber crime. However, the UK supply of IT and cyber-security professionals has not been able to keep pace. Therefore, we have a shortage of skilled labour in this area.
More investment into research and education is occurring, with the aim of addressing this shortage, but it is expected to take many years before supply catches up to demand. In particular, more investment is needed in the sciences and technology subjects at school to create the supply at university level. The NAO said that:
‘The current pipeline of graduates and practitioners are unable to meet demand.’
A second area of relevance to economics is the cost of cyber crime. The NAO estimated that the cost is somewhere between £18bn and £27bn per annum. However, on the other side, is there a case that crime actually benefits the macroeconomy by requiring government investment. As cyber crime has grown, so has the demand for cyber-crime fighters and this has created more jobs. With more jobs comes increased spending and the benefits of the multiplier. The following articles consider cyber crime and the impact it is having.
National Audit Office warns UK needs more skilled cyber crime fighters BBC News (12/2/13)
IT staff shortages raise cyber crime risk Sky News (12/2/13)
UK planning ‘Cyber Reserve’ defence force BBC News (3/12/12)
Britain vulnerable from cyber attacks for at least 20 years The Telegraph, Tom Whitehead (12/2/13)
Britain targeted by 120,000 every DAY with cost to country thought to total £27billion Mail Online, Jack Doyle (12/2/13)
Questions
- Illustrate the demand for and supply of labour curves in the market for cyber crime fighters. How is the equilibrium wage determined?
- If there is increased investment in education, how would this affect the shape and position of the MRP curve and what impact would this have on your diagram?
- If there is a shortage of cyber crime fighters, what does that suggest about the position of the two curves? Illustrate this situation and explain why it is a problem.
- Which factors would be considered by NAO in estimating the costs of cyber crime?
- Explain why crime can pay.
- How does the macroeconomy benefit from increased crime? Illustrate this on a diagram.
- Does your answer to question 5 above suggest anything about the effectiveness of using GDP as a measure of welfare?
- How is the multiplier effect relevant?
Pressure has been growing in the UK for people to be paid no less than a living wage. The Living Wage Foundation claims that this should be £8.55 per hour in London and £7.45 in the rest of the UK. The current minimum wage is £6.19.
There has been considerable support for a living wage across the political spectrum. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has stated that a Labour government would ensure that government employees were paid at least the living wage and that government contracts would go only to firms paying living wages. Other firms that paid less could be ‘named and shamed’. The living wage has also been supported by Boris Johnson, Conservative Mayor of London. The Prime Minister said that a living wage is ‘an idea whose time has come’, although many Conservatives oppose the idea.
The hourly living wage rate is calculated annually by the Centre for Research in Social Policy and is based on the basic cost of living. The London rate is calculated by the Greater London Authority.
Advocates of people being paid at least the living wage argue that not only would this help to reduce poverty, it would also help to reduce absenteeism and increase productivity by improving motivation and the quality of people’s work.
It would also bring in additional revenue to the government. According to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation, if everyone were paid at least a living wage, this would increase the earnings of the low paid by some £6.5bn per year. Of this, some £3.6bn would go to the government in the form of higher income tax and national insurance payments and reduced spending on benefits and tax credits. Of this £6.5bn, an extra £1.3 billion would be paid to public-sector workers, leaving the Treasury with a net gain of £2.3bn.
But what would be the effect on employment? Would some firms be forced to reduce their workforce and by how much? Or would the boost to aggregate demand from extra consumer spending more than offset this and lead to a rise in employment?. The following articles look at the possible effects.
Articles
Living wage for all workers would boost taxes and GDP Independent, Nigel Morris (28/12/12)
Living wage could save £2bn – think tank research BBC News (28/12/12)
‘Living wage’ would save money, says study Financial Times, Helen Warrell (28/12/12)
Why the Resolution Foundation and IPPR can go boil their heads Adam Smith Institute, Tim Worstall (30/12/12)
Living wage for public servants moves a step closer The Observer,
Yvonne Roberts and Toby Helm (15/12/12/)
Living wage: Ed Miliband pledge over government contracts BBC News (5/11/12)
‘London Living Wage’ increased to £8.55 by mayor BBC News (5/11/12)
Q&A: The living wage BBC News (5/11/12)
Scrooges in UK firms must pay a Living Wage This is Money, John Sentamu (23/12/12)
Report
What price a living wage? IPPR and The Resolution Foundation, Matthew Pennycook (May 2012)
Questions
- How would you set about determining what the living wage rate should be?
- Distinguish between absolute and relative poverty. Would people being paid below a living wage be best described as absolute or relative poverty (or both or neither)?
- What do you understand by the term ‘efficiency wage’? How is this concept relevant to the debate about the effects of firms paying a living wage?
- Under what circumstances would raising the statutory minimum wage rate to the living wage rate result in increased unemployment? How is the wage elasticity of demand for labour relevant to your answer and how would this elasticity be affected by all firms having to pay at least the living wage rate?
- What would be the macroeconomic effects of all workers being paid at least the living wage rate? What would determine the magnitude of these effects?
Unemployment is a term that economists and non-economists are familiar with, even if the non-economists perhaps have a less stringent definition of what we term unemployment. Typically, we say you are unemployed if you are of working age and available for work at the current wage rate, but are not in work. Another important and related concept is that of underemployment, which according to the ONS, is a growing problem in the economy.
Latest figures released by the ONS show that just over 10% of all workers in the UK would like to work more hours each week. This is essentially what underemployment is and it typically affects part-time workers who want to move closer to a full-time job, but are unable to find the necessary hours from their employer. As the economic situation in the UK worsened after the financial crisis, unemployment increased rapidly. Some people went from working full-time to part-time and others simply lost their job. As the economy started to stabilize, people began returning to work, but many found that part-time employment was the only option, despite wanting to work many more hours at the going wage rate. As the ONS said:
During this period [the economic downturn] many workers moved from full-time to part-time roles and many of those returning to work after a period of unemployment could only find part-time jobs … Of the extra one million underemployed workers in 2012 compared with 2008, three-quarters were in part-time posts.
The increase in underemployment has levelled off and though the recession has been a key contributing factor to the higher levels of underemployment, it’s important to note that it can be caused by a few things, as outlined by the ONS.
• employers only being able to offer a few hours of work each week
• workers, such as bar staff, being in jobs where they are only required for a few hours a day
• personal circumstances changing so that someone now wants to work more hours than before
• people settling for a part-time job as second-best when they would much rather have a full-time one
Although many people are happy with their part-time jobs and hence would not see themselves as underemployed, for those who are underemployed, the fact that they cannot find sufficient hours seems to indicate an inefficiency within the economy, especially if long-term unemployment or underemployment emerges. This problem is particularly relevant amongst the young and those in low-skilled jobs. However, it is also an increasing problem amongst the self-employed.
The implications of underemployment are far-reaching. Naturally it adversely affects an individual’s financial situation, which at the current time with rising household bills can have devastating consequences. There are also wider effects such as the economic implications in terms of economic growth and inefficiency, as well as a potential increased strain on the tax and benefits system. Given these far-reaching consequences, it is an issue that everyone should be concerned about. The following articles consider the growth of underemployment in the UK economy.
Underemployed workers jump by 1m since financial crisis Telegraph, Rebecca Clancy (28/11/12)
Underemployment affects 10.5% of UK workforce (including video) BBC News (28/11/12)
Economic crash leaves an extra 1million workers under-employed and wanting more hours Mail Online (28/11/12)
UK is underemployed: should we be surprised? BBC News, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (28/11/12)
Unemployment affects 1 in 10 workers, ONS says Guardian, Mark King (28/11/12)
One in 10 workers no underemployed Financial Times, Brian Groom (28/11/12)
Underemployment rises to affect one in ten workers Channel 4 News (28/11/12)
Questions
- What is the difference between unemployment and underemployment? Is one worse than the other?
- Why did underemployment initially begin to rise after the financial crisis and what factors helped to slow the increase?
- How can underemployment be measured? Is it likely to be accurate?
- Part-time work has risen in recent decades, as part of a more flexible labour market. Do you think this is a good thing or does it add to the problem of underemployment?
- What are the economic implications of underemployment? You should think about the effects on an individual, their family, society and the wider economy.
- How can someone who is self-employed be classed as underemployed?
- What action, if any, can be taken by the government to tackle the rising problem of underemployment?
The environment has been a growing part of government policy for many years. With the Kyoto Protocol and Europe’s carbon trading system, effort has been made to reduce carbon emissions. Part of UK policy to meet its emission’s target requires substantial investment in infrastructure to provide efficient energy.
Details of the government’s Energy Bill sets out plans that will potentially increase average household energy bills by about £100 per annum, although estimates of this vary from about £90 to £170. This money will be used to finance much needed investment in infrastructure that will allow the UK to meet its carbon emissions target. With this extra cost on bills, energy companies will increase bring in something like £7.6bn. The benefit of this higher cost is that investment today will lead to lower energy bills tomorrow. Essentially, we’re looking at a short-term cost for a long-term gain.
The Energy Bill also delayed setting a carbon emission target until 2016. Crucially, this will come after the next election. Environmentalists have naturally criticised this omission. John Sauven of Greenpeace said:
’By failing to agree to any carbon target for the power sector until after the next election, David Cameron has allowed a militant tendency within his own ranks to derail the Energy Bill … It’s a blatant assault on the greening of the UK economy that leaves consumers vulnerable to rising gas prices, and sends billions of pounds of clean-tech investment to our economic rivals.’
One further problem that this lack of a target creates is uncertainty. The energy sector requires significant investment and in order to be encouraged to invest, firms need assurances. Without knowing the target and hence facing a degree of uncertainty, firms may be less likely to invest in building new power plants. And this investment is crucial. The Government has committed to replacing most coal-fired power stations across Britain with low carbon technology at a cost of hundreds of billions of pounds. However, the Chancellor has said “he would not allow saving the planet to come at the cost of ‘putting our country out of business.’”
When this Energy Bill is published, it is claimed that £110bn of spending on different aspects of the National Grid will occur. The suggestion is that this will generate a further 250,000 jobs by 2030 and will be a big step in the right direction towards creating an economy that is more reliant on clean energy.
The following articles consider the wide range of issues surrounding the Energy Bill.
’It’s reasonable to hike energy bills to build wind farms’ says Tim Yeo The Telegraph, Rowena Mason (23/11/12)
Energy Bill to increase prices to fund cleaner fuel BBC News (23/11/12)
Energy deal means bills will rise to pay for green power The Guardian, Juliette Jowit and Fiona Harvey (23/11/12)
Energy Bill Q&A BBC News (23/11/12)
Energy bills to rise by £170 a year to fund wind farms Independent, Andrew Woodcock and Emily Beament (23/11/12)
Energy deal – but no target to cut Britain’s carbon emissions Independent, Nigel Morris (22/11/12)
Davey defends contentious energy agreement Financial Times, Jim Pickard, Pilita Clark and Hannah Kuchler (23/11/12)
Energy bill lacks emissions target Channel 4 News (23/11/12)
Questions
- Why does the environment require so much government intervention? Think about the different ways in which the environment as a market fails.
- If household bills rise, is there likely to be an income and substitution effect between consumption of ‘energy’ and other goods? Which direction will each effect move in and which do you think would be the largest?
- Why is uncertainty such a deterrent for investment? Why does a lack of a carbon emissions target represent uncertainty?
- The higher cost of bills today may enable future bills to fall. Why is this? For a household, explain why discount factors could be important here.
- Why do some argue that the extra cost to households set out by the government are likely to under-estimate the actual increase households will face?
- Is the Chancellor right to say that he will not put our country out of business to save the planet?
