Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
16 minutes ago, Danger Dassie said:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/shimano-crankset-recall-to-cost-dollar18million-company-reports

Snip .... "Shimano's report for 2023's financial year, which was published on Tuesday, revealed a year-on-year decline of 24.6% in revenue and a 52.3% drop in net profit.

Net sales decreased 29.5% from the previous year to JPY 364,679 million ($2.4 billion/£1.9 billion). 

“Although the booming popularity of bicycles cooled down, interest in bicycles continued to be high as a long-term trend,” the report reads. "On the other hand, market inventories generally remained high, despite ongoing supply and demand adjustments. 

"Overseas, in the European market, the strong interest in bicycles continued in our major market, namely, Germany and Benelux countries, and retail sales of completed bicycles were strong. On the other hand, in other countries, consumer demand waned on account of inflation and an economic slowdown, and market inventories remained at high levels."

Over-supply and under-demand tally with what Cycling Weekly has reported on the bike business in the UK, where a new report from the Bicycle Association this month said that it would take at least until 2025 for the British bike industry to correct itself.

Shimano expects further downward trends for 2024. It expects a further decrease in revenue by 10.8%, with the European market shouldering the biggest part of this decline; it also predicts a decrease in sales by 18% compared to last year.

Meanwhile, "retail sales of completed bicycles remained weak" in North America, partly "due to a reaction from the cycling boom". Net sales were down 22.5% between 2022 and 2023 in North America, but this covers all of Shimano's business, which also includes fishing tech."

Rolling 12 months average puts them on 3.38B$ which is around precovid levels. Not great but not bad considering the last 2 years have been around 30% above precovid levels.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SMNNY/shimano/revenue

Shimano should release their actual 2023 numbers in the next few days - I'm sure the market is waiting with baited breath!

Posted
2 hours ago, IceCreamMan said:

But should they lose and have to pay the 15 percent and declare insolvency some will believe they are vindicated. 

Not a lawyer but think they have already (all, as tried together) lost.

Taxes and loopholes, a dance as old as time itself. I'm not in the game but thought it was common practice for bikes to arrive in parts here and then get assembled, to avoid this exact duty.

obviously the 15% is on landed cost, not RRP 

Posted
19 hours ago, Shebeen said:

Not a lawyer but think they have already (all, as tried together) lost.

Taxes and loopholes, a dance as old as time itself. I'm not in the game but thought it was common practice for bikes to arrive in parts here and then get assembled, to avoid this exact duty.

obviously the 15% is on landed cost, not RRP 

A good few years back I was involved on behalf of an importer of plastic sheeting liner material which SARS decided was not exactly what it said on the box (biaxially oriented) and a higher duty was due. After a win in the High Court and being thrown out on appeal, SARS gave up. Back then judges were perhaps a bit better than now, but it does all turn on semantics and in some cases like this one, a bit of science, so a good expert is essential. When it comes to bikes, I suspect most Judges think they know what one is but its hard to see how a wheelless frame is a bike, unless it was also seen as a contrived attempt to escape duty, which it probably was.

Posted

Basically what they did was package the wheels in this box and the frame/groupset etc in that box and shipped them together in the same container and claimed "we aren't importing bikes" hoping to dodge the 15% duty.

Most times they're even marked "Box A" and "Box B".

There's no expert needed here. They tried and got busted. Simple really.

Posted
18 hours ago, GHOST FACE said:

Basically what they did was package the wheels in this box and the frame/groupset etc in that box and shipped them together in the same container and claimed "we aren't importing bikes" hoping to dodge the 15% duty.

Most times they're even marked "Box A" and "Box B".

There's no expert needed here. They tried and got busted. Simple really.

Wonder what the actual fines are too? In for more than just taxes, interest and legal fees.

Posted
On 2/13/2024 at 5:18 PM, Shebeen said:

Not a lawyer but think they have already (all, as tried together) lost.

Taxes and loopholes, a dance as old as time itself. I'm not in the game but thought it was common practice for bikes to arrive in parts here and then get assembled, to avoid this exact duty.

obviously the 15% is on landed cost, not RRP 

 

Exact same is happening with windfarms.

 

The "PARTS" are sources in Europe, and then the units are "manufactured" in Atlantis ..... 

 

The extent of the "manufacturing" is to bolt the segments of the blades together.

 

The full length blade is then transported to the site and installed.

 

 

If those bolts were fitted overseas the units were tax liable .....  But now it is "job creation" and "local content" ....

 

 

 

Back to the bikes and tax .... they should have used locally manufactured wheels, or saddles, or handle bars .... just something to move away from "Box A" and "Box B"

Posted
7 hours ago, ChrisF said:

 

Exact same is happening with windfarms.

 

The "PARTS" are sources in Europe, and then the units are "manufactured" in Atlantis ..... 

 

The extent of the "manufacturing" is to bolt the segments of the blades together.

 

The full length blade is then transported to the site and installed.

 

 

If those bolts were fitted overseas the units were tax liable .....  But now it is "job creation" and "local content" ....

 

 

 

Back to the bikes and tax .... they should have used locally manufactured wheels, or saddles, or handle bars .... just something to move away from "Box A" and "Box B"

Not exactly the same scenario. 

REI4P renewable energy projects have increased local content incentives/thresholds (amongst other criteria). Some of it is just not possible to build here (ie. Local solar pv is only viable as basic assembly, and even that has very limited capacity). The rider to that in pv for instance is that China has subsidized production to gain market share.  Pointless fighting that with our requirements and Rands.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout