Once the candidate identifies price reduction as a strategy by new entrants, he/she must examine the cost structure to understand the headroom available for price reduction.
Some probable answers could be:
- It is unlikely that a new entrant would be able to reduce the gas procurement costs. The incumbent has monopoly over the market, so it would be a fair assumption to make that they would have negotiated the lowest prices because of bulk buying.
- Given the infrastructure costs are fixed by the Government, it is unlikely that they would reduce and would be different for different players.
- A new entrant could potentially optimize operations and reduce the SG&A costs. They might also be willing to accept lower margins and hence that might also give them some room to reduce prices.
- A new entrant is also likely to spend a much higher amount on advertising as compared to Gasgen in order to lure customers away.
Ask the candidate to calculate the potential for price reduction in $, assuming that the average gas bill is 500 $. If the candidate asks for information on the savings on SG&A and margins - ask him/her to make their own reasonable assumptions and give a guesstimate of the potential savings. Ask them to ignore the increase in marketing spends for this calculation.
Using the average gas bill value at 500$, the following costs can be calculated:
Gas cost = 45% * 500 $ = 225 $
Infrastructure costs = 45% * 500 $ = 225 $
SG&A= 7% * 500 $ = 35 $
Margin = 3% * 500 $ = 15 $
The following calculations have been done assuming that the new entrant would be able to reduce 40% of SG&A costs and would be willing to accept 33% lower margins as compared to the incumbent.
Therefore:
Savings on SG&A= 40% * 35 $ = 14 $
Margin = 33% * 15 $ = 5 $
Total savings = 19$ or 3.8% of the total price
Key insight
The margins in the business are very low at 3%. A new entrant would not have much headroom for reduction in price. Even if the new entrant accepts a lower margin, the potential for price reduction is only ~4%.
Risks
Once the candidate has evaluated the cost structure, he/she must move on to the risks. If required, prompt him/ her in this direction. Ask the interviewee to lay out the potential risks in a market segment like this.
If enquired, share the below information:
- Climate variability is a significant business risk.
- In 'warm' winters, the gas consumption goes down by 10%. However, the cost structure is not fully variable, which affects the margins.
- The SG&A costs are completely fixed. The infrastructure costs are semi-variable - with a 80% fixed component and a 20% variable component. The gas procurement costs are fully variable.
The cost structure and the average bill, shared earlier was for a normal i.e 'cold' winter season. Houses with better insulation are a risk; however it is difficult to measure their impact and hence must be ignored.
The candidate must now calculate the impact of climate variability on the margins. If required, prompt him to do so.
Share Exhibit 3 with the interviewee and ask him to use it as a structure to estimate the impact.
Exhibit 3
For a 'warm' winter, the following costs can be calculated:
Sales = 500 $ * (1-10%)= 450 $
Gas cost = 225 $ * (1-10%) = 202.5 $
Infrastructure costs = (225 $ * 80%) + ((225 $ * 20%) * (1-10%)) = 220.5 $
SG&A= 35 $
Total Cost = 202.5 $ + 220.5 $ + 35$ = 458 $
Margin = 450 $ - 458 $ = -8 $
Share Exhibit 4 with the interviewee after he has completed his calculations.
Exhibit 4
Key insight
The business is susceptible to climate variability and hence risky. In 'warm' winters, the margins become negative. The margins in this segment are already very thin. That, coupled with the risk of negative margins during 'warm' winters would make the market unattractive for new entrants.
3. Competitor analysis
Although it has been established that the market is unattractive, ask the candidate to think of scenarios where some of the assumptions made in the case so far would not hold true? Prompt her to think of the kind of competitors who would still enter this market.
The case, so far, was built on the assumption that the entrant would be a new player in this segment. However, some of the assumptions made would not hold true if the entrant is an existing energy player ( electricity, oil, water etc). In such a case, the entrant would have several cost advantages.
- An existing energy player would have significant synergies with the business and would be able to reduce distribution and SG&A costs.
- Such a player would also be able to leverage its existing brand name in the energy space and therefore might be able to lure more customers with significantly lower marketing spends.
- Bundled offerings of gas with other energy options would definitely be a plus point in the corporate segment where customers are likely to have multiple structures with varied energy needs.
- Such a player might also be able to negotiate and reduce the gas procurement costs on account of a combined order book ( gas + other energy procurement).
4. Conclusion
The market is stagnant with zero to low growth prospects. The current cost structure of the industry offers very thin margins and has the risk of negative margins during 'warm' winters. This makes the segment unattractive for new entrants and therefore in the event of liberalization, the segment would not attract a lot of competitors.
However, there is the risk of an existing energy player entering the segment in the event of liberalization. Such a player would have significant synergies with its existing business and would therefore be able to mitigate some of the risks.