Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

How Wal-Mart Overtook Kmart: Local Economies of Scale

Aug 14, 2010 | About:
I recently reviewed Bruce Greenwald’s book Competition Demystified in this article. In the article I purposely omitted the best chapter of the book as I wanted to write a separate summary of the chapter. Chapter number five is titled Big Where It Counts: Local Economies of Scale.

The first part of the chapter starts with a small retailer in Arkansas that started in 1945. The company went public in 1970 with thirty stores located in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. In 1985 the company had 859 stores in 22 states. By 2010 the company had over $400 billion in revenue, operated over 3,000 stores in every state, and employed 2.1 million people. This is the story of Wal-Mart.

So how did Wal-Mart grow from a single branch in Arkansas to the largest retailer in the world? Wal-Mart is one of the most unbelievable growth stories ever. Yet, it accomplished this feat in the most competitive market with no patents, government licenses, or massive amounts of R&D.

There are many myths about how Wal-Mart achieved its growth. Some of these myths include; putting pressure on vendors, having a monopoly in small towns, better management, and that products are cheaper in the south. Instead of focusing on the myths which Greenwald does a reasonable job of disproving, I want to focus on the facts of how Wal-Mart truly achieved its dominance.

The best time period to evaluate is the mid 1980s. This is when Wal-Mart was at its peak, and Kmart was declining. In 1985, Wal-Mart had far higher operating margins, and returns on capital than Kmart. So what made Wal-Mart excel, while Kmart falter? The answer lies in the powerful moat called economies of scale.

In 1985 despite operating nearly 1,000 stores, 80% of Wal-Mart’s stores were located in Arkansas, and adjacent states. By contrast Kmart was much more spread out, despite having its own area of concentration in the Midwest. This helped Wal-Mart spend less money on bringing goods to its warehouses, and distributing the goods to distribution centers. Wal-Mart used its own trucks to transport merchandise, and since the distance between the distribution centers were close, Wal-Mart’s costs were lower.

Wal-Mart used the local economies of scale to get more bang for its buck. As Greenwald states, “a thirty-second spot in Nashville charges the same whether there are three Wal-Mart stores in the area or thirty”. This would apply whether the ad was on TV, in the newspaper, or in a circular. When Wal-Mart advertised it was able to reach a larger number of potential customers, despite paying the same price as competitors would.

The final advantage Wal-Mart had was due to the structure of its management. Executives, and store Managers would pay close attention to the local branches under their supervision. Since the stores were close traveling time was decreased, and managers could spend more time effectively managing their stores. This territorial advantage allowed Wal-Mart to hire fewer managers. To supervise the same number of stores, a Kmart executive would have to cover territory four times as large. Greenwald estimates this expense may have cost Kmart 2% in additional expenses. This extra 2% is a massive difference when operating margins only hovered around 6%.

All the advantages Wal-Mart enjoyed were due to local economies of scale. Even though Kmart’s revenues were three times the size of Wal-Mart’s revenues in 1985, Wal-Mart was able to operate much more efficiently.

After 1985, Wal-Mart’s operating margins, and return on capital started to decline. This is not surprising as Wal-Mart had nowhere else locally to expand. Wal-Mart started to open chains in California where it competed with Target. Wal-Mart also expanded to the Midwest facing competition from Kmart, and Northeast where it faced Caldor. Wal-Mart no longer had a monopoly as it did in the areas surrounding Arkansas.

What does the future hold for Wal-Mart? It does not look promising. Wal-Mart no longer has the advantages of local economies of scale. Furthermore, Wal-Mart is trying to expand overseas where it definitely does not have this advantage. Wal-Mart’s expansion into places like Germany has been largely unsuccessful. If one takes Greenwald’s view, the best option for the company would be expansion into Canada, and Mexico however Wal-Mart will likely never have the returns that it used to have.

Disclosure: none

About the author:


I am VP of Business Development for Sum Zero (http://sumzero.com), the largest community of buy-side analysts; consisting of over 5,900 hf and mf analysts, and over 3,600 extensive investment write-ups. I have prior experience in a value based pe firm focused on PIPE transactions in micro-caps, and at a value based research firm, which focused on smid caps. In my personal portfolio I have outperformed the market by a cumulative ~48% since 3/2008 (inception date). I can be contacted at jacob(at)sumzero.com for sumzero related inquires. My website is http://www.valuewalk.com/ Visit Jacob Wolinsky's Website

Tickers in the article:

Track Gurus’ Stock Purchases Daily – Real Time Guru Picks

GuruFocus "Real Time Picks" reports the stock purchases and sales that Gurus have made within the prior 2 weeks. The report time lag can be as short as 3 days after the date of the transaction. This is just one of the features provided with GuruFocus Premium Membership.

Click Here to Try It Free!


Rate this article:

Rating: 4.1/5 (11 votes)

Comments

softdude2000
Softdude2000 - Aug 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM
I liked the reasoning that Walmart wont have same local economies of scale as it did before. May be it now have different moat like people believing walmart has cheapest prices. May be it has the advantage of economies of scale instead of local economies of scale. I dont know. Why else would WEB buying more even in the recent crisis.
davidhud
Davidhud - Aug 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM


Putting pressure on vendors wasn't the key to Wal-Mart's growth, but it DID help them keep costs down. I have seen others questions whether they beat up on vendors. The answer is YES. I know this from reliable sources who do business with them and it is just smart business. I have been told that their contracts include a clsuse that a vendor won't sell to anyone else at a lower price. Again, that is smart. I think a big reason Wal-Mart beat KMart was the corruption at KMart and the way Wal-Mart has been diligent to prevent corruption. I understand that it reached the point where a vendor had to pay kickbacks to do business with KMart but that Wal-Mart never allowed that. I understand that even today the size limit for a gift is $5.
yswolinsky
Yswolinsky - Aug 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM
Interesting David to hear some scuttlebutt. If Wal-Mart indeed use these tactics why were their GP margins lower than Kmart (COGS were higher as a percentage of revenues for Wal-Mart). Also, Kmart was much bigger and would have more clout, why did Kmart not use the same tactics as Wal-Mart? Curious to hear your thoughts.

http://www.valuewalk.com/
davidhud
Davidhud - Aug 15, 2010 at 3:20 PM
I don't know when Wal-mart started doing that. The fact their their COGS were higher would have been based on timing... I'm not sure when Wal-Mart got large enough to demand the lowest price... it sould have had to ahve been after they became larger than KMart. So in the early days their growth was due to something else.I think the reason Kmart didn't use the same tactics is that their management wasn't as good. I know about the kickbacks from the late 1980's. Once decisions start being based on kickbacks, then employees care about themselves, not the company, and lowest price isn't the important thing - kickbacks are.
yswolinsky
Yswolinsky - Aug 15, 2010 at 4:40 PM
All the data I am using is from 1985, it could be by the late 80s they already surpassed Kmart, I am not sure I do not know have the data in front of me. Even if that is the case, 1985 was their peak so it was likely that Walmart's spectacular growth was due to economies of scale. I will try to look up more data, and post if I get a chance.

http://www.valuewalk.com/
IgnoreTheMarket
IgnoreTheMarket - Aug 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM
About comparing COGS... I don't have the time or inclination to do this level of digging, but be sure to compare apples to apples on COGS. Some companies place certain warehouse and distribution costs in with COGS and others as corporate expenses. Also, some companies finance the purchase of land, buildings and equipment with corporate debt, while others use operating leases. Operating leases are often included with in COGS, while interest on debt is a general corporate expense.

As a side note, I do believe Walmart's competitive advantage has shifted to buying power. They account for very large percentages of sales of leading global consumer brands and are probably the only retailer that has material negotiating power with vendors of leading products. Walmart's size shifts the power from the consumer brands ("You have to carry our products or consumers won't shop here") to Walmart ("We now account for 20% of your total global sales and consumers will buy from your competitor rather than shop somewhere else because you only account for 2% of their total spending").

This is an interesting case study, so I thought I might try to contribute in some way.

Please leave your comment:



More Gurufocus Links

GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $104 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial