Rolex Buys Rolex Watches To Prevent Price Drops

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by Bebot

Sounds good to me. This mean my Rollies are going to hold their values.

So long as the prices are artificially propped up

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by Bebot

Sounds good to me. This mean my Rollies are going to hold their values.

I would prefer they do it by limiting production versus buying back what they make.

[Bebot]

Originally Posted by diablojota

I would prefer they do it by limiting production versus buying back what they make.

That would also make sense, but you can't have a limited production for most or all models.

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by Flaxmoore

By holding their values, I presume you mean to append "at the expense of potential owners"? I can't figure out how this could be a sustainable model.

I've thought about this for a while, and I can't see how it would be sustainable. Now it would make sense that they push these back into the market place at a later date. For example, my AD tends to get M-series watches shipped to them when they need to add to their inventory. So this may be the result of Rolex releasing their old stock back out, or repurchased stock. This method does not make sense in the long run if they continue to make watches at the rate that they do.

Originally Posted by Bebot

That would also make sense, but you can't have a limited production for most or all models.

Actually, considering the prices that they have started charging and the fact that their watches don't change all that frequently (noting the exceptions of the new big cased watches), the only things that Rolex tends to change are dial options on DJs and the like, they could decrease their output. They would have to probably lay off some workers, but ultimately this may be better than than their current strategy. The sub has been the same for the most part for many years. If the want to charge the prices that they do, then they need to be more exclusive. The sheer volume they produce alone diminishes the air of exclusivity. Don't get me wrong, I like it that they can keep the secondary market prices higher, but that doesn't really affect me as I'm not looking to sell.

[pdmlynek]

Originally Posted by diablojota

I would prefer they do it by limiting production versus buying back what they make.

Aside from the transaction costs, from our view as customers isn't this effectively the same thing?

From the company's perspective, limiting production in bad times and increasing production in good times is extremely expensive proposition: they'd need to hire people, train them, lay them off, build new production lines, shut them down, etc. Especially in labor intensive, expensive labor, market. If they have the capital to carry the produced unshipped goods, it might be better to have a steady stream of units being produced, and warehousing them.

But I must assume that Rolex knows very well what they are doing.

[cmr]

i would assume rolex knows they have a huge mess on their hands. nobody is going to pay retail for a product they know was selling so badly it had to be bought back by the factory, sorry but people aren't that stupid. that would be like expecting auto buyers to pay retail for a new car now, it's not going to happen.

[Flaxmoore]

Originally Posted by Bebot

Sounds good to me. This mean my Rollies are going to hold their values.

By holding their values, I presume you mean to append "at the expense of potential owners"? I can't figure out how this could be a sustainable model.

[Bebot]

Originally Posted by Flaxmoore

By holding their values, I presume you mean to append "at the expense of potential owners"? I can't figure out how this could be a sustainable model.

Well, imagine AD's start discounting all models, I mean really dropped prices down to get rid of them. As an AD, you just can't have hundred thousand of dollars sitting inside the display case. Or for some AD's this are costing them money because not all them can pay cash for their inventory so they do this on a loan interest basis.

This means that if any reasons that you need to sell your Rolex, it will have almost no resale value whatsoever.

[B. Doggy]

PP is also known for doing this via auctions, etc....which raises eyebrows for some.

[Art 1]

It's all very interesting, Rolex will probably be forced to reduce production. I was with Jess yesterday and he got a very good discount on a very popular model. Discount a typically very hard to obtain in Orlando and I have seen tire kickers laughed at and even asked to leave the store for asking for discount, that was in the past. You could tell the AD really did not want to give the discount and it took awhile to get, but they need to move watches and caved in.

[DARK_KNIGHT]

I can't see why ROLEX will be forced to do anything. The ones forced to do something is the human race that has been affected by the economy, because there might not be as much credit available [as before] and some people got Madoff-tized or other little wicked investment schemes, but in the grand order of things, how many people have actually lost part of it or all of it from the total multi-billion population of planet earth?

Why do I opine so?

There are enough of us that buy into the: "oh it's got such and such a movement...........", "yeah but it can go down to this depth............." "yeah but it can withstand electrical fields..............." "but this one passed the wiggle test............" We have given ourselves a reason to justify the expense, investment, or whatever we tell ourselves. The name is related to the coming of success, wealth, wannabe-ism, etc.....

There are the new generations (that we are training) that will repeat the mantra of : "oh it's got such and such a movement...........", "yeah but it can go down to this depth............." "yeah but it can withstand electrical fields..............." "but this one passed the wiggle test............".

If ROLEX is buying back stock, I won't be surprised. They must have cash stocks as large as the Federal Reserve. It's a mass produced watch but not many know that and those of us that do, don't seem to care. It's well made thou. Those of us that own them are happy and those that don't might want one. We are part of the 1,000,000.00 per year club, wow, how exclusive is that (lol)!!!!!
Rolex does want it wants, not what we want...........they can do it because the 1million per year club continues to buy them despite the yearly increases, all Geneva needs to do is to keep making minor changes and giving it fancy names like (parachrome blue). It's not going to change until the buyers force it to change............look at the former largest corporation in the world, GMC. Change came and big time. But ROLEX is pretty much on firm footing and will probably never come in danger of us forcing them to do anything. When I say "us", I mean the market.

My prediction is:

Once the new TT/SUB becomes available later this year..........people will pay premiums to be the first to own one. 6 - 8 months later the prices will come down and settle.............but the first on the bandwagon, the ones that cannot wait for a better deal............now that dear reader is the power of the ROLEX NAME. It's amazing. Economy? What economy?

[Rolex116520]

Originally Posted by DARK_KNIGHT

I can't see why ROLEX will be forced to do anything. The ones forced to do something is the human race that has been affected by the economy, because there might not be as much credit available [as before] and some people got Madoff-tized or other little wicked investment schemes, but in the grand order of things, how many people have actually lost part of it or all of it from the total multi-billion population of planet earth?

Why do I opine so?

There are enough of us that buy into the: "oh it's got such and such a movement...........", "yeah but it can go down to this depth............." "yeah but it can withstand electrical fields..............." "but this one passed the wiggle test............" We have given ourselves a reason to justify the expense, investment, or whatever we tell ourselves. The name is related to the coming of success, wealth, wannabe-ism, etc.....

There are the new generations (that we are training) that will repeat the mantra of : "oh it's got such and such a movement...........", "yeah but it can go down to this depth............." "yeah but it can withstand electrical fields..............." "but this one passed the wiggle test............".

If ROLEX is buying back stock, I won't be surprised. They must have cash stocks as large as the Federal Reserve. It's a mass produced watch but not many know that and those of us that do, don't seem to care. It's well made thou. Those of us that own them are happy and those that don't might want one. We are part of the 1,000,000.00 per year club, wow, how exclusive is that (lol)!!!!!
Rolex does want it wants, not what we want...........they can do it because the 1million per year club continues to buy them despite the yearly increases, all Geneva needs to do is to keep making minor changes and giving it fancy names like (parachrome blue). It's not going to change until the buyers force it to change............look at the former largest corporation in the world, GMC. Change came and big time. But ROLEX is pretty much on firm footing and will probably never come in danger of us forcing them to do anything. When I say "us", I mean the market.

My prediction is:

Once the new TT/SUB becomes available later this year..........people will pay premiums to be the first to own one. 6 - 8 months later the prices will come down and settle.............but the first on the bandwagon, the ones that cannot wait for a better deal............now that dear reader is the power of the ROLEX NAME. It's amazing. Economy? What economy?

VERY VERY TRUE , would we buy the exact same watch at the same price if it doesn't say ROLEX on it ? It is certainly an excellent watch but we do pay 50% for the product itself and we are also willing to pay 50 % extra for the name and what it represents ... succes , some wealth etc..
I was a couple of weeks with my uncle ( he has enormous business contacts all over the world and one particularly with the owner of one of the largest watch stores in Hong Kong ) he recently bought a Richard Mille with 40% discount , but I still could not afford 25 % of that , we sat down at a terrace with some friends and family . A couple of people made remarks about my SDDS being it the latest Rolex ... blabla and how expensive they and hence as I got a couple of them how well I must be doing . Nobody remarked my uncle's , none had a clue what it was let along its price tag. Can't say that Richard Mille watches are discrete looking watches really .
Just to say that ROLEX has this world wide image and they sell it well .

[allanofcalifornia]

I think it makes sense and it's good for those who own or plan to own a Rolex. If they did nothing, then the value of a Rolex could go way down and lose the high end appeal. I would hope everyone on TRF would like to keep the image of their Rolex watches as special and not just a watch that everyone buys.


Allan

[cody p]

makes sense to me - they have a name and reputation to protect.

[trickyric]

I get the idea of reducing supply on the street so when we break out of reccesion the prices and values for new watches won't be reduced by overstock in the marketplace but they should also do a price freeze because raising your prices with reducing sales is ussually a bad plan in any buisness.

[C. Davidson]

Thanks for the post, very enlightening.

[DanP]

Good thing I got a rad discount on the GV in HK. Im wondering if this(OP) stated was a north america thing and not elsewhere? interesting both ways. I know from relatives in HK business is smooth as silk for luxury watches

[handdoc]

good idea for rolex considering the second hand market pricing is at the lowest in years

[kzm40]

Makes perfect sense, It's just like a cash rich company buying it's own stock to maintain it's share price and the value of shares for the shareowners. Normal supply and demand models are different for luxury goods, brands like Breitling and Omega go down the discount route and we all know what that does for resale values.

[jdc]

Sounds a strange business model and/or is evidence that they have there pricing wrong and a panic measure to prop up their stance.
If it is true they are hoping that the economy gets back to levels of a couple of years ago, if not they are going to have egg on their faces and will have to admit pricing is wrong and start discounting or lowering prices before all the AD's go out of business

[nylawbiz]

I don't have a MBA, but it seems all very simple to me. Let's pretend that Rolex isn't manufacturing and selling fine watches, but instead it's the lowly widget. They have an assembly line with widgets coming out at the end. Demand doesn't meet the supply of the widgets, so they start piling up at the end of the distribution chain. Market pressures prices down, as those who hold title to the amassing widgets want to turn them over, to free up capital.

There is only two ways of dealing with the problem: either decrease production, or increase consumer demand. Buying back inventory is not a solution.

What buying back inventory does, is open a possibilty to take over full vertical distribution of their product. Being a global company, Rolex can not, all at one time, globally replicate their current distribution system with company owned retail stores, being the exclusive source for Rolex watches. But they can do it in a key market, provided the domstic antitrust alws permit complete vertical intergration.

So my thought is, lets say they take a large market: USA, GB, or France for example. Pick a country. Start terminating AD's, and buy back their inventories, so as not to make waves in the marketplace, and keep things hush hush with as a condition of buying back the terminated AD's inventory, the AD agrees to sign a MDA. That way everything is kept quiet. I don't know the term of the distributor agreements with Rolex AD's but usually those agreements don't run more than a year or two, they have to be annually or biannually renewed. So they can cycle out all the existing AD's in the subject market, in a couple of years. Once the only legitimate way of buying a new Rolex in that particular market is at a Rolex boutique at full SR, then Rolex is complete control of the market for their watches.

Now, the big issue is antitrust. I do not pretend to be an anti-trust expert, so I defer to the other memebrs of this board as to whether such a plan would violate price fixing laws. Once there is a restrain on the prices the consumer pays, it becomes circumspect to me.

Whattya think?

[cmr]

Originally Posted by nylawbiz

I don't have a MBA, but it seems all very simple to me. Let's pretend that Rolex isn't manufacturing and selling fine watches, but instead it's the lowly widget. They have an assembly line with widgets coming out at the end. Demand doesn't meet the supply of the widgets, so they start piling up at the end of the distribution chain. Market pressures prices down, as those who hold title to the amassing widgets want to turn them over, to free up capital.

There is only two ways of dealing with the problem: either decrease production, or increase consumer demand. Buying back inventory is not a solution.

What buying back inventory does, is open a possibilty to take over full vertical distribution of their product. Being a global company, Rolex can not, all at one time, globally replicate their current distribution system with company owned retail stores, being the exclusive source for Rolex watches. But they can do it in a key market, provided the domstic antitrust alws permit complete vertical intergration.

So my thought is, lets say they take a large market: USA, GB, or France for example. Pick a country. Start terminating AD's, and buy back their inventories, so as not to make waves in the marketplace, and keep things hush hush with as a condition of buying back the terminated AD's inventory, the AD agrees to sign a MDA. That way everything is kept quiet. I don't know the term of the distributor agreements with Rolex AD's but usually those agreements don't run more than a year or two, they have to be annually or biannually renewed. So they can cycle out all the existing AD's in the subject market, in a couple of years. Once the only legitimate way of buying a new Rolex in that particular market is at a Rolex boutique at full SR, then Rolex is complete control of the market for their watches.

Now, the big issue is antitrust. I do not pretend to be an anti-trust expert, so I defer to the other memebrs of this board as to whether such a plan would violate price fixing laws. Once there is a restrain on the prices the consumer pays, it becomes circumspect to me.

Whattya think?

i agree, the anti trust they could probably deal with in one fashion or another but keeping it quiet i think would be a problem. too many ways for the info to leak out.

[djoseph1174]

Good info

[rolexBuddy]

I don't think antitrust really applies to the buyback program for Rolex. Antitrust would've applied if Rolex was buying back their competitors and increasing the prices on those watches to drive customers to buy Rolex. In Rolex case, all they are doing is buying back inventory AD cannot sell. And I'm sure they don't have to strong arm dealers either, as those are happy to free up capital to buy something they can move - either jewelry or other brand of watches. The only company with risk here is Rolex themselves. They either out wait the resession and keep the trademark of never decreasing prices, or being forced to allow bigger discounts or actually lowering MSRP. In both last cases they loose as they have to figure out what to do with old inventory.

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by rolexBuddy

I don't think antitrust really applies to the buyback program for Rolex. Antitrust would've applied if Rolex was buying back their competitors and increasing the prices on those watches to drive customers to buy Rolex. In Rolex case, all they are doing is buying back inventory AD cannot sell. And I'm sure they don't have to strong arm dealers either, as those are happy to free up capital to buy something they can move - either jewelry or other brand of watches. The only company with risk here is Rolex themselves. They either out wait the resession and keep the trademark of never decreasing prices, or being forced to allow bigger discounts or actually lowering MSRP. In both last cases they loose as they have to figure out what to do with old inventory.

I believe the question of antitrust was actually with regards to Rolex revoking AD licenses verse the buyback. Buy back is not illegal, just a question of being a sustainable business practice.

[nylawbiz]

Originally Posted by rolexBuddy

I don't think antitrust really applies to the buyback program for Rolex. Antitrust would've applied if Rolex was buying back their competitors and increasing the prices on those watches to drive customers to buy Rolex. In Rolex case, all they are doing is buying back inventory AD cannot sell. And I'm sure they don't have to strong arm dealers either, as those are happy to free up capital to buy something they can move - either jewelry or other brand of watches. The only company with risk here is Rolex themselves. They either out wait the resession and keep the trademark of never decreasing prices, or being forced to allow bigger discounts or actually lowering MSRP. In both last cases they loose as they have to figure out what to do with old inventory.

I was referring to a scheme where Rolex eliminates their AD's in a particular market, and only sell direct to consumers at Rolex company owned stores, at full MSRP.

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by nylawbiz

I was referring to a scheme where Rolex eliminates their AD's in a particular market, and only sell direct to consumers at Rolex company owned stores, at full MSRP.

Does Rolex actually have company owned stores? I believe that your example was more in terms of hypothetical, correct?

[BigHat]

I doesn't understand why people don't see the logic of reabsorbing a small amount of stock from ADs in trouble. Why is a watch in the safe of an AD aging any differently than in the Rolex warehouse?

Again, not saying I have a clue if it's happening, but if they have dealers (that they want to keep) in dire straits in terms of cash flow, why isn't it better to suck back some stock than sit by and watch them dilute the prices by excessive discounts?

I also don't think it's a "reduce production" vs "buy back" issue. First, I'd bet they have dropped production at least 50% already. The aggregated Swiss watch output is known to have taken a huge hit. Rolex is such a large piece of that it must be severely impacted too. Have we forgotten about the RSC closures and the bldg sales? Doesn't sound like the "Federal Reserve" level cash balances either, but that's another topic.
Second, screwing around with production at the plant means zero to the ADs stuck with expensive stock. If they are in a situation where they wish/need to help the ADs and they think it's in the best interest to the brand, they basically buy their own product. Aside from an uncollateralized loan or car dealer style rebates and hold backs, what can they do?

If this is an issue at all, it's a transitory issue. Rolex isn't going vertical, it isn't an anti-trust issue (in about 99% of the ways they could do it), or any of that other "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night level" MBA opining underway.

[nylawbiz]

Originally Posted by diablojota

Does Rolex actually have company owned stores? I believe that your example was more in terms of hypothetical, correct?

Yes, hypothetical. I'm sure they have considered the idea of controlling their product form raw materials, to retail sales.

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by nylawbiz

Yes, hypothetical. I'm sure they have considered the idea of controlling their product form raw materials, to retail sales.

Well, let me fill in the blanks a bit. Rolex is about as vertical as they want to get. They produce their own gold ore for their watches, etc. They basically control their raw materials all the way up to the distribution of their watches. To complete the integration, they would have to go retail, but I think they'll avoid that just because of the costs involved. That's all I know.