With consumers set to be squeezed after the 2010 election, supermarket shares may not prove to be as defensive as they used to be.  Stockmarket folklore has it that supermarket shares are defensive because people always need to eat and this held true in the days when supermarkets only sold groceries.  But these days supermarkets sell far more than just groceries.  With Tesco taking one pound in every eight spent by British consumers, they will not be able to escape the effects of consumers battenning down.  It is true that food retailers are shifting their offering downmarket in an effort to follow their customers as they trade down in tough times.  However not every food retailer will be able to protect their sales volumes & profits in this way.

Sales of organic produce fell 14% in 2009, indicating that consumers are already trading down, with organic meat sales being hit hard (beef down 25% and chicken down 28%).  Consumers may buy organic & ethically produced food when they feel they can afford it but with the Food Standards Agency stating that there is no scientific evidence that organic food has health benefits, when the squeeze comes consumers will trade back down quickly.

The pain thus far has been felt most by those people who have lost their jobs during the recession.  As interest rates have been cut sharply, the vast majority who are employed have seen their monthly budgets improve as mortgage payments have fallen.  However any post-election tax increases are going to be felt by all 29 mln employed people in the UK (and their families) and this effect will be very broad-based indeed.  The supermarket shopper is going to look to cut back even further and now that the weaker retailers have already gone bust, the one-off boost to the survivors’ sales has already been seen and all are likely to suffer.

The counter-argument to this is that consumers will cut back on eating & drinking out and spend more on their weekly grocery shop instead. This will affect the pub & restaurant sector (which has already de-rated in anticipation and offers better value than supermarket shares).  It remains to be seen what consumers will choose to do when the squeeze is applied by a government seeking to get the budget deficit back under control, but investors should choose to invest where the risks have at least been somewhat discounted and upside is on offer.

However with Tesco, Sainsburys and Morrisons all trading on 13x estimated 2010 earnings, yielding 2.9%, 4.1% and 2.1% respectively, these shares are not a Buy.  If you feel compelled to hold a food retailer then SBRY yields the most and benefits from periodic bouts of takeover speculation.  Much better value is available elsewhere in the market and owners of TSCO, SBRY or MRW should sell out of them as they are too highly rated, still trading within 8% of last year’s highs, and do not offer sufficient upside to compensate for the risk that their sales start to suffer later this year as consumers begin to be squeezed.

The key issue for the markets to contend with in 2010 is the risk that the economy slips back into recession (the so-called “double-dip”).  As the banks have now been largely fixed, should the economy double-dip then it is likely the retailers will be foremost amongst the suffers.   

The retail sector had a strong rally last year as the stockmarket discounted a recovery.  If we use MKS as a proxy for the sector, they rallied from just above 200p in Dec 2008 to finish at the 400p mark, with the annual dividend cut to 15 pence along the way.  The risk now is that the consumer gets squeezed after the May election and consumer spending suffers as a result.  Even if consumer spending does manage to hold up, the sector has already priced in a recovery and there is not enough upside left to reward investors sufficiently to risk owning the shares.  If the sector continues to trade lower then at some point it will make sense to buy back in for the next recovery trade.

A second sector to be very careful of in 2010 is the pub & restaurant sector.  Wet-led tenanted operators such as ETP and PUB are going to continue to struggle whilst their food-led competitors MAB and MARS may fare relatively better.

It is likely that a newly elected government will both cut spending and signal tax rises once the economy is strong enough to bear them. The Government has a massive hole to fill in, net borrowing will end up somewhere around £175 bln in 2009/10 and £180 bln is forecast for 2010/11.  The fact that this is 12.5% of GDP does not tell the whole story as it also represents 39% of pre-credit crunch tax receipts.  The government’s income has fallen by 12% over the past two years but spending has yet to be cut by a single penny.  The emperor has no clothes – Gordon Brown will not countenance spending cuts and doesn’t have any money to “invest in services”, whilst the best David Cameron will be able to do is maintain spending on the NHS and cut spending significantly everywhere else. 

Take a minute to think about the mountain that needs to be climbed in the UK.  Central government total tax income is forecast to be £397 bln in 2009/10.  Adding on £175 bln net borrowing implies total government spending of £572 bln.  In the best year ever, total taxes raised were £451 bln (2007/8).  Its going to be a long, hard slog to get back onto an even keel and it will take years to fill in this particular hole via a combination of spending cuts, tax rises and hopefully renewed economic growth causing the tax base to grow as well.  The Bank of England will wait a very, very long time before risking any rate rises against this backdrop – it is more likely that QE will be resumed (from its current £200 bln) to support the economy/gilts market before any QE exit strategies are implemented.

At the moment the retail sector carries all the risk of being first in the firing line should consumer spending weaken and lead the wider economy into a double-dip recession.  Avoid retailers until the sector offers patient long-term investors a much better risk/reward.