PepsiCo bottler Varun Beverages opts to expand reach as competitors in soft-drinks market engage in price war
'Strong double-digit volume growth in India with margin expansion should allay investor concerns around Reliance's Campa, a key positive in Q1," analysts at Jefferies India said in a report on 30 April, referring to the competitor's disruptive pricing. 'Although Q2CY25 is quite important from a seasonality perspective."
India Ebitda margin rose 111 basis points (bps) due to operational efficiencies aided by volume growth. VBL's consolidated revenue increased 29% in Q1CY25, encouraging it to guide for a double-digit growth for CY25. This despite rivals splurging on campaigns in the ongoing Indian Premier League cricket tournament and sweetening trade margins.
Nuvama Institutional Equities noted that Tata Consumer has re-indexed retailer margins in its NourishCo business to match the competition. Coca-Cola highlighted double-digit volume growth in Q1CY25, led by strong performances from Coca-Cola and Thums Up, although it reported a drop in non-alcoholic ready-to-drink beverages.
'Coca-Cola saw over 180 million servings during the Maha Kumbh Mela festival, which in our view would have helped the industry growth rate," Nuvama's analysts said.
Reliance Consumer has announced new plants in Bihar and Assam to ramp up its manufacturing and distribution footprint.
Against this backdrop, VBL coped by doubling down on expanding its outlet coverage and cold-chain infrastructure. Its mantra: deepen market penetration and sharpen the product mix. It believes rising competition is expanding the overall category, reiterating that with only 4 million of India's 12 million FMCG outlets covered, distribution remains a key growth lever.
VBL's energy and hydration categories grew over 100% in Q1CY25. Value-added dairy, a new engine, also grew at 100%+, albeit on a smaller base. Smaller packs—though costlier to make—helped lift realisation per case, which rose 1.8% in India but stayed flat in the overseas markets.
On the flipside, VBL's consolidated gross margin fell to 54.6%, down 171 basis points year-on-year. Higher volumes from South Africa hurt as a large part of sales there came from owned brands that have lower margins. Plus, overall water costs have been shifted into direct costs, while the rising share of carbonated soft drinks and smaller pack sizes pushed up the cost of goods sold.
The Ebitda margin drop of 20 bps to 22.7% was much smaller in Q1CY25. VBL continues to hold firm on its India Ebitda margin floor of 21%. The management said that while inflation and product-mix shifts could pressure the margin temporarily, its backward integration, improved scale and focus on operational efficiency give it confidence in defending profitability—even in an aggressive market.
VBL has a capex plan of
₹
3,100 crore for this year. It is adding four plants, including the Bihar and Meghalaya sites set to go live in May.
Meanwhile, South Africa remains a work in progress. Volumes rose 13% year-on-year over the trailing 12 months, and Pepsi's contribution improved from 15% to 20%. It is trimming loss-making SKUs. The South Africa business Ebitda margin improved from 10% at acquisition to 14% but is still much lower.
VBL shares fell 2% on Wednesday after the results as investors weighed the near-term pressures. Jefferies cut its earnings per share estimates by 7-9% on moderation in its assumptions on growth in the international segment and lower margin assumptions.
Even so, with the market offering enough growth potential, VBL's bet on reach may well pay off if execution is healthy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Beverage makers' April-June quarter takes a hit due to unseasonal rain
Early monsoon and unseasonal rainfall this year in most parts of the country have impacted the topline of beverage makers in the June quarter. This has not only impacted sales of the cola brands but also traditional milk-based beverage products, such as lassi, shakes, flavoured milks, and buttermilk. Interestingly, the beverage makers had early volume gains in 2026 as summer arrived early. They had stocked inventory and channels in anticipation of a repeat of last year's bumper sales. However, by mid-April, intermittent rainfall started hitting southern and western India, impacting overall which sales from early May. The Coca-Cola Company Chairman and CEO James Quincey, in the latest investors' call, said the company got a "hit by some early monsoon in India", in the June quarter, which is the important selling season in the country. The company had a good start in the quarter, but early arrival of monsoon impacted it, said Quincey. "In India, after a strong start to the year, volume declined, as our business was impacted by early monsoons and geopolitical conflict (India-Pakistan conflict) early in the important summer season," he said. India is the fifth largest market for The Coca-Cola Company, which operates here with brands as ThumsUp, Sprite, Maaza, Minute Maid, Kinley, besides Coca-Cola and Coke. For PepsiCo, India continues to be a double-digit growth path; however, its beverage business was also hit in India during the quarter under review. PepsiCo's International Beverages Franchise (IBF) segment, which focuses on the bottling and distribution of PepsiCo's beverage brands outside of North America, had "a decline in India" in the second (June) quarter, the company said earlier this month in its earnings statement. IBF includes PepsiCo's international franchise beverage businesses, as well as its SodaStream business. In India, PepsiCo's bottling operations in India are mostly handled by its largest franchisee is Varun Beverages Ltd (VBL). Several dairy companies also faced an impact on sales of beverage products in the quarter, due to unseasonal rainfall and early arrival of monsoon. IDA President R S Sodhi told PTI more rain has affected the demand for beverages, including dairy-based ones, this year. Moreover, he said the rural demand is also tight because of inflation. "The emergence of many local and regional brands in the beverage segment is also impacting sales of large companies," he said. Tata Consumer Products Ltd, which operates in the beverages segment with its glucose-based drink Gluco+ and Fruski, said volume growth of its ready to drink (RTD) business "was impacted by unseasonal rain" in the June quarter. "RTD business was impacted by unseasonal rains and recorded a moderate volume growth of 3 per cent," the Tata group FMCG arm said in its earnings statement. Similarly, home-grown FMCG major Dabur India said its consolidated revenue in the June quarter is expected to grow in low-single digits on account of a decline in beverages, which was impacted during the quarter due to unseasonal rainfall and a short summer. "The beverage portfolio was impacted during the quarter due to unseasonal rains and short summer," Dabur said earlier this month in its quarterly updates.
Mint
10 hours ago
- Mint
Why MAGA Wants to Make Mexican Coke in the US
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Coca-Cola is launching a new product in the US this fall featuring cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup, and at least one restaurant chain is planning to offer sugar Coke as soon as next week. This news prompted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to post his reaction online: 'MAHA is winning.' This new Coke is highly unlikely to Make America Healthy Again. But it raises the question of how US soda manufacturers came to rely so heavily on the corn-based sweetener in the first place. The answer is protectionism, one of the main items on the Make America Great Again agenda. As it turns out, when you combine MAHA and MAGA, what you get is … Mexican Coke. Because sugar-based Coca-Cola is already available in the US — it's just imported from Mexico and known colloquially as 'Mexican Coke.' The company does that because the US has extensive trade protections for American sugar growers, which pushes the domestic price of sugar in the US far above the world level. That means that it makes more economic sense to use corn-based sweeteners in US-based soda production while importing sugar soda from Mexico. Kennedy believes the ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup in the American diet has a significant deleterious impact on Americans' health. My more informed colleagues can adjudicate that claim, which I doubt. My concern is the distortionary impact of America's sugar policy on global trade flows and the allocation of natural resources. Turning corn into sugar is an inefficient process compared to turning sugar cane into sugar, so using HFCS is significantly more land-intensive than using regular sugar. Blocking sugar cane to promote HFCS therefore promotes global deforestation, on the margin, and raises the domestic price of food and land for Americans. In the grand scheme of things these are minor impacts — meat and especially cattle have by far the biggest land impacts of any economic sector — but they're something. The cornerstone of US sugar policy is a system of tariff rate quotas. Under the so-called TRQ system, a limited amount of sugar can be imported to the US and lightly taxed. These quotas are set on both a national basis and for dozens of sugar-producing countries. Any sugar above the quota level is taxed at a rate of at least 15 cents per pound — and with the global price of sugar at only about 16 cents per pound, that's a huge tax. These TRQs, meanwhile, are only one part of a larger plan whose objective is to prevent domestic sugar prices from getting too low while providing guaranteed profits to domestic sugar farmers. Another aspect of it, for example, is the US Department of Agriculture's practice of giving guaranteed discounted loans to sugar producers, with sugar itself offered up as collateral. The USDA is then instructed to manage an Overall Allotment Quantity (OAQ) — basically a national sugar production target — designed to ensure that the collateral is good for the loans and avoid credit losses. The upshot of all this is a windfall for a tiny number of American sugar farmers; a modest boost for America's corn farmers; higher prices for American consumers; and economic losses for America's trading partners in Latin America. This set of policies dates to the 1980s and has nothing in particular to do with President Donald Trump. But it amounts to a real-world road test of some MAGAnomics principles, and underscores how self-defeating protectionism can be. It's not just that American sugar policy raises costs and thus lowers living standards for the majority of people. It's that it undermines US manufacturing, because sugar is used as an input for other processes. Yes, in a naive sense, blocking sugar imports would seem to improve the US balance of trade. But the actual impact is unknowable. If tropical sugar-producing countries were allowed to export more sugar, they would have higher incomes. Those incomes would be spent on things, likely including the kinds of things that the US exports — airplanes, turbines, medical devices, beef, and whatever else. There would be real losses for some Americans, specifically the ones who own sugar plantations, but it's fundamentally a negative sum bargain that hurts most people on both sides of the trading relationship. Meanwhile, bad as all this sugar protectionism is as overall economic policy, the relationship to public health is borderline nonexistent. Coke simply manufacturing a cane sugar soda to give Trump a propaganda win, for starters, isn't going to change consumer behavior. Sodas sweetened with cane sugar are already widely available in the US, not only from competing brands but from Coca-Cola itself. They are less popular because they are more expensive. Even if consumers did switch, there is no real evidence that cane sugar is healthier than HFCS. Mexico, for example, where non-HFCS sodas are mainstream, has recently surpassed the US in its obesity rate. The reason HFCS is bad for you is not that it's worse for you than cane sugar — it's that the development of HFCS technology has made it cheaper to add sweetener to all kinds of things. And while most people like the sweet stuff, all this sweetened hyper-palatable food and drink encourages overconsumption. A serious conversation about what, if anything, to do about this would be welcome. But it solves nothing to pile scientifically illiterate policies onto economically illiterate ones. Elsewhere in Bloomberg Opinion: For more, subscribe to our newsletter. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Matthew Yglesias is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A co-founder of and former columnist for Vox, he writes the Slow Boring blog and newsletter. He is author of 'One Billion Americans.' More stories like this are available on
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SSA to roll out August payments for beneficiaries soon: Check schedule, eligibility and more
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is scheduled to roll out its August payments for beneficiaries soon. Depending on the number of benefits you are entitled to receive, your payment dates will differ according to a pre-decided calendar. However, due to the complexities in next month's calendar, beneficiaries will receive two checks, and some even three, during August. For those impacted by this change, it is important to understand the reasons behind it. SSA to roll out August payments for beneficiaries soon: Check schedule, eligibility and more (REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo)(REUTERS) How much will you receive? 'The monthly maximum Federal amounts for 2025 are $967 for an eligible individual, $1,450 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, and $484 for an essential person,' reads the official SSA website. 'In general, monthly amounts for the next year are determined by increasing the unrounded annual amounts for the current year by the COLA effective for January of the next year. The new unrounded amounts are then each divided by 12, and the resulting amounts are rounded down to the next lower multiple of $1.' Also receive supplemental security income (SSI) The usual date for beneficiaries who began receiving social security before 1997 or those who receive both social security and SSI benefits would have been August 3. However, due to it falling on a weekend, these payments will now be rolled out on August 1 itself. Since September 1 is Labor Day, payments for that month will be rolled on August 29. This change is in line with the SSA's policy of distributing checks early in case the payment date falls on a weekend or federal holiday and is undertaken to keep beneficiaries' accounts in balance. Hence, this is not a double payment but simply a prepayment. Regular payment schedule For those who only receive social security benefits, payments are rolled out depending on the beneficiary's birthdate. This process is undertaken over the last three Wednesdays of the month. • For those born from the 1st to 10 of any month, payments are given on the second Wednesday, i.e., August 14 • For those born from the 11th to 20th of any month, payments are given on the third Wednesday, i.e., August 21 • For those born from the 21st to 31st of any month, payments are given on the fourth Wednesday, i.e., August 28 Eligibility criteria You are eligible to receive this paper check if you • Are an SSI beneficiary • Have updated your bank information • Haven't had a recent change in status Direct deposits usually take less time than mailed checks to arrive and are distributed depending on the receiver's preferred mode of payment. The SSA usually advises beneficiaries to wait for three days in case they haven't received their check before raising a complaint. – By Stuti Gupta
