Connect with us

News

Four-day week: the wrong perk for Japan’s unshirking workers

Published

on

Four-day week: the wrong perk for Japan’s unshirking workers

Japan invented the time period karoshi — dying from overwork — 50 years in the past following a string of worker tragedies. Company Japan is now aiming to confound stereotypes with plans for four-day working weeks.

This must be good for overworked staff. However it could result in larger labour prices for corporations that may least afford it.

Hitachi is the most recent conglomerate to implement a system that permits staff a versatile work schedule of solely 4 days per week. Panasonic and NEC introduced comparable plans earlier this 12 months.

Corporations hope to disrupt conservative work cultures amid an ever-worsening employee scarcity and rising labour prices. They’re selling shorter working weeks as a perk that also needs to enhance productiveness. The federal government endorsed four-day weeks as an official coverage final 12 months.

The urgency is actual. Japan’s working-age inhabitants sank to simply over 75mn in 2020, down 14 per cent since 1995. Many corporations have eradicated retirement age limits of 65. Electronics retailer Nojima scrapped its retirement threshold of 80 final 12 months. Worker retention prices are rising. Japan’s labour price index hit a file excessive this 12 months.

Advertisement

Regardless of its gruelling working hours, Japan has persistently come final in labour productiveness amongst G7 nations for the previous 5 many years.

A shorter, extra centered, working week is just not a assured repair. One of many predominant points hurting company gross sales effectivity is an absence of clearly outlined obligations, McKinsey researchers have discovered. Concord inside organisations is prioritised over individualism.

For now, corporations are filling gaps within the ranks of their workforces with part-time staff. That has raised payroll prices. In Japan, as in the remainder of the world, native part-time wages have risen sharply just lately.

Versatile working is most problematic for small corporations, the place the absence of a single worker can halt manufacturing or injury service ranges.

However the larger downside could also be low ranges of adoption amongst historically minded Japanese staff whose work is central to their identities. Authorities campaigns supposed to inveigle the Japanese into taking extra day off have fallen flat prior to now.

Advertisement

Our in style e-newsletter for premium subscribers is printed twice weekly. On Wednesday we analyse a scorching subject from a world monetary centre. On Friday we dissect the week’s massive themes. Please enroll right here.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

‘Not for the faint of heart’: Private equity’s last retail barbarian

Published

on

‘Not for the faint of heart’: Private equity’s last retail barbarian

Ailing retailers like Walgreens Boots Alliance have scared off even the most daring Wall Street financiers. But that fear has repeatedly proven an opportunity for Sycamore Partners’ Stefan Kaluzny.

The intensely secretive co-founder of the private equity firm has been able to make big bets that Americans are not done with malls and in-person shopping, with few rivals daring to circle.

This week Sycamore, which has sucked up waning brands such as Staples, Talbots and Ann Taylor despite managing only about $10bn, announced its biggest deal yet: a $23.7bn transaction to take Walgreens private.

The buyout firm now has to revive a business ravaged by declining prescription drug reimbursements and ecommerce, with 12,500 outlets spanning the US, Europe and Latin America, under brands including Walgreens, Boots, Duane Reade and Benavides. Many peers see the stores as unsalvageable.

“It’s not for the faint of heart,” one lawyer who has worked with Sycamore said of leveraged buyouts in the retail sector. “Oftentimes these deals have less competition because [they’re] going where other people won’t touch with a 10-foot pole.”

Advertisement
Sycamore co-founder Stefan Kaluzny has refined his technique over 14 years of buyouts © Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images/AAFA American Image Awards

Kaluzny’s well-worn playbook starts with the intricate dossiers Sycamore maintains on hundreds of US retail chains, one Wall Street veteran recalled.

The next step is achieving a modest purchase price. Sycamore has developed a reputation for bargaining hard right up until signing. In some cases — the $6.9bn deal for office supplies chain Staples, for example — Sycamore has even pulled off price chips after reaching a handshake on the terms, according to securities filings and deal insiders.

After landing a deal, Sycamore makes aggressive plans to get its equity investment back quickly by breaking up a target or selling off real estate to generate immediate cash proceeds.

With Staples, Kaluzny rapidly separated the consumer chain that had been battered by Amazon from the business-to-business segment, and sold the company’s headquarters to itself so that it could then collect lease payments. The result: a $1bn dividend within a few years.

“Sycamore is willing . . . to get their hands dirty,” one person involved in the Walgreens buyout said.

Advertisement

The firm’s success had less to do with “brilliant operational moves” than the fact they were “not sentimental” and were willing to shut down or liquidate business lines quickly, the person said. “They’re willing to play hardball.”

Sycamore and Kaluzny declined to comment.

Such high-stakes gambits are typical of an investor seen by peers as a brutally tough negotiator with a stomach for some of the most complex turnarounds on Wall Street.

Kaluzny honed his craft at buyout group Golden Gate Capital, before setting up Sycamore in 2011. It was a rich time to buy brick-and-mortar retailers: shopping centres were still full of foot traffic and the 2008 financial crisis had knocked many of their businesses off track, creating cheap opportunities for pugnacious investors such as Apollo Global Management and KKR.

Yet since then, the approach has sometimes struggled.

Advertisement

Investing in retail companies with hulking real estate footprints and thousands of employees can be treacherous, and when retailers fail, they do not collapse quietly.

Previous Sycamore deals involved the owner of shoe Stuart Weitzman and Kurt Geiger © Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg
The buyout firm’s latest acquisition is for a different type of troubled retailer, Walgreens Boots Alliance © Bridget Bennett/Bloomberg

“Private equity firms have lost so much money in retail,” said one banker that has worked with Sycamore. “Retail and leverage don’t usually work well. If you get the timing wrong, if you get the fashion wrong, you get your head handed to you.”

One of Sycamore’s thornier situations was its 2014 investment in retail conglomerate Jones Group, where the buyout firm sold two of the company’s most valuable brands — Stuart Weitzman and Kurt Geiger — to another entity it controlled.

It renamed the rump of the business Nine West, which filed for bankruptcy in 2018, and sparked a legal brawl.

Creditors accused the private equity group of stripping Nine West of valuable assets, leaving it unable to pay off its debt and ultimately insolvent. Sycamore settled the dispute in court by paying junior bondholders; in exchange, the group received releases from future liabilities related to the buyout.

Three years after Nine West’s bankruptcy filing, another Sycamore portfolio company, private department store chain Belk, filed for bankruptcy under the weight of more than $1bn in debt after six years under the firm’s ownership. Sycamore ultimately ceded control of the company to lenders in a restructuring last year.

Advertisement

Sycamore’s first fund had returned 24 per cent as of the third quarter of last year, while its third fund from 2018 had brought in 18 per cent, according to a person familiar with the returns and public filings. However, its second one from 2014 has only returned 5 per cent.

The private equity group launched a fourth fundraise during the second half of last year which has yet to close, according to a person familiar with the matter.

While private equity titans like Blackstone and KKR have generally walked away from retail buyouts, Sycamore — and Kaluzny — has stuck around.

Kaluzny has run the firm on his own since 2022, when his co-founder Peter Morrow departed. “Stefan’s smart about it,” said the lawyer. “They really scrutinise the assets and figure out ways they can capture value, in a way other people couldn’t.”

With Walgreens Boots, the 90 per cent drop in the company’s market capitalisation in the past decade spells opportunity.

Advertisement

US pharmacy chains have suffered from a punishing combination of flagging sales and steeper costs, and Walgreens has been no exception.

The buyout group will attempt to turn the business around by using the same game plan it has applied to other targets in its 14 years of buying brands, according to people familiar with the group’s business strategy.

Sycamore ultimately plans to split the pharmacy chain into at least three businesses, the Financial Times previously reported. The company’s US pharmacy retailer Walgreens, its British retail arm Boots, and the speciality pharma unit Shields Health Solutions are among the units that could ultimately become independent companies.

Pulling that off means putting in place precise financing arrangements for the deal to reflect the differing prospects of the businesses, one of the reasons the buyout took months to negotiate.

Lenders to the US retail business, for example, required Sycamore to secure the debt with inventory, including prescription drugs, according to a person involved in the deal.

Advertisement

Such a structure gives lenders — which include private credit firm Ares — a claim on the assets if the unit defaults on its debt or ultimately files for bankruptcy.

Cleaving a company into parts can help buyout firms unlock conglomerate discounts and secure a higher overall payout, and Sycamore is well practised in the art. But there is still considerable work to be done whipping parts of Walgreens’ core business into shape for potential future buyers.

“Presumably Sycamore’s going to be focused on cost-cutting and cost-reduction to improve cash flow,” said James Goldstein, the head of US retail at CreditSights.

“I’m sure they’ll push hard, but do they have better ideas of how to fix the pharmacy business than the existing management team or anyone else? I don’t know.”

Additional reporting by Sujeet Indap, Antoine Gara and Eric Platt in New York

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees

Published

on

States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees

The Maryland State Capitol building is seen in Annapolis. Maryland is among the states suing the Trump administration for the mass firing of federal employees.

Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

The attorneys general of Washington D.C., Maryland, and 18 other states are suing the Trump administration over the mass firing of federal employees.

Their lawsuit joins several other legal challenges seeking relief for tens of thousands of fired workers.

The Democratic attorneys general argue that federal agencies falsely told probationary employees — those relatively new on the job — through termination letters that they were being fired because of their performance.

Advertisement

In fact, the states argue that more than 20 agencies, who are named as defendants in the lawsuit, were trying to shrink their headcount through a process called a reduction in force, but failed to follow proper procedures for doing so.

Federal law requires agencies to notify states generally 60 days in advance when laying off 50 or more people, so that states can jump into action.

“Economic dislocation of workers can easily create a cascade of instability throughout a regional economy,” the attorneys general wrote in their complaint.

Under federal law, they explain, states are required to have rapid response teams to provide workers with support, including job transition services. The goal of these teams is to reduce fired employees’ reliance on public assistance.

Advertisement

Advance notice of mass layoffs helps states quickly identify who will need help before they are fired, the complaint contends.

The attorneys general have asked a federal judge in Maryland for a temporary restraining order, halting the firings of probationary employees and reinstating those who have been terminated. A hearing is scheduled for March 12.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids

Published

on

Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids

President Trump signed an executive order instructing administration officials to alter a student loan forgiveness program for public servants to exclude nonprofit organizations that engage in activities that have what he called a “substantial illegal purpose.”

His order to restrict the program appears to target groups supporting undocumented immigrants, diversity initiatives or gender-affirming care for children, among others, as the Trump administration has sought to eliminate federal support for efforts that have drawn right-wing ire.

The order, made public on Friday, is the latest of many attempts to overhaul the loan forgiveness program, which has often whipsawed borrowers with rule changes and bureaucratic obstacles.

The program, known as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, was created by Congress in 2007 and cannot be eliminated without congressional action, but the Education Department has some leeway to determine how it operates. Mr. Trump’s executive order directed the secretaries of education and the Treasury to amend the program to exclude workers for organizations supporting illegal actions, listing several categories of examples, including “aiding or abetting” violations of federal immigration law.

The Trump administration has taken a broad view of what it considers to be support of illegal activities. The order cited as examples organizations that support “illegal discrimination,” which the administration has previously said includes diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Advertisement

The order appeared to target groups supporting gender-affirming care. It said it would exclude from the loan forgiveness program any organization supporting “child abuse, including the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children.”

Mr. Trump’s order also singles out organizations that engage in a “pattern” of breaking state laws against “trespassing, disorderly conduct, public nuisance, vandalism and obstruction of highways,” language that could be used against groups that have supported political protests. Another provision targets those supporting “terrorism,” a label that Trump officials have used to describe anti-Israel protests.

Such changes must typically go through a formal rule-making process, which often takes months or years to complete and includes a period for public comment. But the Trump administration has frequently acted in defiance of apparent legal limits — which is likely to set off waves of anxiety for those relying on the complex program.

President George W. Bush’s administration enacted the loan program, which aims to encourage people to work in government and at qualifying nonprofits by easing their college debt burden. After making 120 monthly loan payments — which requires at least 10 years of service in qualifying jobs — borrowers become eligible to have their remaining federal student loan debt wiped out.

The program became a notorious quagmire, with bureaucratic tripwires and loan-servicing issues leading to a rejection rate as high as 99 percent for those who sought forgiveness. President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration used waivers and exceptions to eliminate barriers, allowing more than one million people to use the program to eliminate debts totaling $79 billion.

Advertisement

An estimated two million people have made payments that count toward their obligation to be eligible for relief through the program. Those borrowers often anxiously count down the months until they reach the required 120 payments.

The program is open to borrowers who work in government jobs — at the federal, state or local level — and those who work at nonprofits that are tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Service’s 501(c)(3) statute. Some other nonprofits are also eligible, but many are exempt, including labor unions and partisan political organizations.

At various points in the history of the loan program, there has been confusion over what constituted “public service.” In 2019, three lawyers won favorable rulings after having been deemed ineligible.

Mr. Trump’s order seems to take aim at disfavored organizations in a way that echoes a bill passed last year in the House that would allow the government revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofit groups it accused of supporting terrorist entities. Democrats feared the bill could be exploited by Mr. Trump to target his political enemies. The bill stalled in the Senate.

Ron Lieber and Erica L. Green contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending