Trading Down: It's Cool to Be Frugal
It's hip to be cheap! I know, I have a vice-like grip on the obvious. But the trading down trend that is being reported in the media may be more than just a knee-jerk reaction to the economic slowdown. This time "cheap chic" may not be fad but a long-term shift in attitude. So let's explore the "new frugality" and its implications for the economy, markets and even New York's Real Estate market.
In case any of our readers recently woke up from a coma, let's review some recent news from the world over. First and foremost, according to CNN, the Federal Reserve's flow of funds report released today showed consumer debt fell at an annualized $30 billion rate in the third quarter. This is the first time this data series has shown a decline since data started being reported in 1952. The CNN article notes that according to the report, U.S. households have lost $2.8 trillion in wealth during the quarter, an 18% rate of decline, which has only been eclipsed once in the past 56 years. So how's that for a cold shower? It's no surprise people snapped their pocketbooks shut. The question is: Does the trading down behavior we are seeing along with the spending pullback just represent a reaction to the market crash or a long-term change in behavior? Let's check out how people have reacted globally.
According to CBS Marketwatch, David Dillon, CEO of the U.S. grocery store chain Kroger, told investors "We're seeing particularly strong growth in our private selections and value tiers" on their recent conference call. Apparently they are doing brisk sales in BEER and other items they sell under private label brands. In fact, the firm found that 14% of its customers traded down to its corporate brand items for the quarter ended Nov 8, according to data collected from its shopper cards. The grocery is also targeting restaurant sales by enticing consumers with more ready-to-eat meals. In addition, they are using their private label brands like a cudgel to beat down prices proposed by their branded product suppliers. This is not solely a U.S. phenomenon, as reported by Talking Retail a UK-based grocery industry report, which has recently had articles on Tesco's new Discounter Range of products and the fall-off in holiday food spending plans. Of course, if solid food is too expensive there is always soup, sales of which are apparently benefiting from the belt-tightening trend.
With sales of even necessities being crimped and showing consumers trading down, it should not be surprising that non-durable goods purchases would likewise be impacted. In Australia "Trading down on handbags" was discussed by high-end retailer Oroton, with regard to their recent results.
Is it surprising to anyone, then, that of the Dow 30 stocks only Wal-Mart and McDonalds are up year-to-year? These purveyors of life's necessities in cheap bulk form are flourishing as consumers cut back. But is this just a diet fad the consumer is on, or does the trend have legs?
My personal feeling is that a lot of the froth in consumption over the last few years was driven by newly rich folks overseas, financial intermediaries/traders/bankers/brokers whose businesses boomed with globalization and the commodity boom and perhaps, most importantly in the U.S., aspirational consumers. The intercontinental super consumers were generally from resource-rich countries like Russia, Brazil, and the Mid-East, or low cost labor rich countries like China. Another source of added consumption in the U.S. was definitely from the aspirational consumer. Many in the U.S. were not really wealthy, but tried to live like they were or thought they were going to be rich from their real estate investments. The other big contingent of aspirational consumers were the newly upper-middle-class folks in emerging countries who for the first time in history actually had a wide variety of internationally made branded/luxury goods available to them - and lots of savings to spend on them.
A recent Investor's Business Daily (IBD) article entitled After Buying Like Truly Wealthy, Aspirational Rich Curb Spending. In the article Howard Davidowitz, chairman of an eponymous retail consulting firm, says "A lot of it relates to a depression in financial services. Additionally, that aspirational customer who shops at Coach (COH), making $100,000, who wants to live like he makes half a million, is completely underwater because of debts."
Interestingly, the aspirational consumer appears to be getting hit hardest. Maritz Research did a recent poll which showed that those in the $75,000 to $100,000 a year income brackets planned to spend 41% less this holiday season than last. In contrast, last year they had planned to spend more on average than those with household incomes of $100,000 or more. The over $100,000 annual income set plan to cut back by only 26%, while the less-than- $75,000 crowd planned to trim just 14%.
According to Hana Ben-Shabat a retail analyst with A.T. Kearney, who was quoted in the IBD article, "Over the last decade global sales among luxury-goods retailers have grown more than 10% a year, vs. 2% for chains generally. Much of this growth came from middle market consumers trading up to luxury."
Now if, as I suspect, the aspirational consumer doesn't just have to cut back this Christmas, but has to semi permanently downshift his/her aspirations to adjust to an economy that just isn't going to offer the same upward mobility for several years, it could have a significant lasting impact.
According to the US Census, the cohort of those earning $75,000 to $99,999 constitutes an estimated 12.1% of the population. The next higher bracket of those earning $100,000 to $149,000 constitutes another 11.4% of the population, for a total of 23.5% of all households captured in these two groups. My guess is that a lot of the aspirational consumers, investors, and real estate owners are ensconced in these two groups. That's a substantial part of the population that has been hit by imploding markets and collapsing availability of debt.
The chart to the left, from Business Week, just confirms what many of us have suspected for a while. Now completely tapped out the American consumer has had to start saving. My bet is that the latest uptick is the start of a new uptrend that will continue for quite a while. Why? there's no one left to float our current bills and future obligations any longer.
I know this is a lot of speculation on my part, but "cheap chic" may be here to stay for a while. In the future I'll be reporting once in a while about how durable the trading down, de-leveraging and otherwise lowering of expectations trends appear to be.
Now I would aver that to be in New York City, you might make $200,000 per year and still be an aspirational consumer, if you live in a free market apartment or are/plan to be a real estate owner. Couple that with the decimation on Wall Street and we could be looking at a serious reduction in buyers for "luxury" apartments. Those multi-media rooms, health spas and private roof decks may seem a whole lot less necessary in the current environment.
From the Blogosphere:
Wal-Mart's Scott Says Shoppers Changing Behavior on Job Worries
Shopper are Returning To Frugal Times in Wake of Financial Crisis



Comments (11)
Jeff,
I think you're right, but I think it will be fueled further by cutbacks in new product development. Last year there were any number of holiday gift electronics items that could not be found easily if at all (how many kids received an empty dvd holder that said "your WII is on the way?") This year almost nothing of the sort.
This retrenchment of which you write will lead manufacturers to be very hesitant to spend the money to develop new products/upgrades, at least in the near term. Americans, for the most part, have their flat-screen tvs, i-pods, computers, and cars that are only a couple of years old. Replacing/upgrading them is going to seem foolish, as long as they still work.
Posted by brenda | December 15, 2008 11:37 AM
Sam, my sales person at the Tom Ford store on Madison Ave recently told me that even affluent Americans are now balking at buying $6,000 loafers ... It's depressing to hear that, really.
Posted by chris | December 15, 2008 11:50 AM
"First and foremost, according to CNN, the Federal Reserve's flow of funds report released today showed consumer debt fell at an annualized $30 billion rate in the third quarter. This is the first time this data series has shown a decline since data started being reported in 1952. "
Noah,
This is true, however, I think you will find that the main reason for the drop in debt was due to decreases in mortgage debt, which... wait for it... was because of increased foreclosures.
More a form a forced frugality I am afraid. IMHO, one of the major challenges facing the US is truly increasing the savings rate. Unless and until as nation we do this, the financial situation of the US will only get closer and closer to one day falling off the cliff we keep approaching at breakneck speed.
Posted by lars | December 15, 2008 11:53 AM
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that during the first week of December, according to MasterCard, sales of luxury goods were down over 34% yoy. That's a steep decline.
Posted by brenda | December 15, 2008 12:15 PM
People are still spending money on food. McDonald's same-store sales are up over 7%.
Posted by Donald | December 15, 2008 2:16 PM
Lars,
Your point is well taken. Deleveraging will be of both the voluntary and involuntary kinds. Also one mans insolvency is another's increase in bad debt....which is still debt and needs to come out of someone's equity. At the very least, this de-levering trend will last until all the over-levered assets are delevered and the populace builds some rainy day reserves. At worst we could be creating a generation of risk averse consumers and extreme savers, which would essentially bake the downturn into future economic performance....yikes. While it's only realistic to assume many will shift there habits more than they have to, let's hope not everyone shifts their business to McDonalds permanently, or by the time the crisis is over there will be nowhere left to buy a steak.
Posted by jeff | December 15, 2008 2:46 PM
Lars,
Your point is well taken. Deleveraging will be of both the voluntary and involuntary kinds. Also one mans insolvency is another's increase in bad debt....which is still debt and needs to come out of someone's equity. At the very least, this de-levering trend will last until all the over-levered assets are delevered and the populace builds some rainy day reserves. At worst we could be creating a generation of risk averse consumers and extreme savers, which would essentially bake the downturn into future economic performance....yikes. While it's only realistic to assume many will shift there habits more than they have to, let's hope not everyone shifts their business to McDonalds permanently, or by the time the crisis is over there will be nowhere left to buy a steak.
Posted by jeff | December 15, 2008 2:46 PM
I'm sure some consumers have pulled back on spending because the zeitgeist is to reduce consumption in the face of the hard times that so many people are facing. However, I think the real reason debt outstanding is declining is because lenders are severly limiting the amount of credit they will extend to consumers. Consumption for the last few years was fuelled by debt. In the early years, people withdrew the build-up in value in their homes. Beginning in late 2007, even when it was clear that home prices were declining, consumers assumed that the slowdown was likely temporary and shallow, and started drawing on their credit cards to sustain their lifestyles (which for most people exceeded their incomes). Now, with the easy credit shut off, of course debt will decline. And don't expect consumption to come roaring back any time soon, consumer credit isn't easing and incomes are not rising.
Posted by SRealist | December 15, 2008 2:54 PM
Sorry I should have written Jeff!
No question as you point out, Jeff, one man's decrease in debt due to foreclosures is some bank's increase.
One of the reasons the banks are hoarding capital.
It will be interesting to watch if there is a permanent shift in the US consumer's spending/saving habits. Somehow I doubt it will be anything other than by force, but time will tell.
The other risk I am worried about is the loss of faith in the US financial markets. Will we see a whole generation of "investors" be become non-investors as they shy away from the markets due to lack of trust. Call it the Madoff factor...
Posted by lars | December 15, 2008 5:12 PM
Lars,
I agree that most investors are going to feel like stocks in particular and investing overall are a losing game. In time, this may actually usher in a new golden age of investing for those who choose to remain in the markets. Likewise I believe that the wisdom that real estate investment is the path to wealth, will also be thrown out the window....just in time for some compelling values in real estate to re-emerge. But the gains will be slow in coming and require a long-term commitment...neither of which has been evident in the markets in many years.
Posted by jeff | December 16, 2008 9:24 AM
Jeff, if you do a simple analysis of NY residential real estate valuations during the last 100 years, it's clear that those show continous boom to bust cycles. Thinking of real estate as a long term 'investment' is ludicrous. At best, it's a short term speculation but not more than that. It's never a vehicle to build long term wealth.
Posted by chris | December 16, 2008 10:09 AM