Annex 2
TENANTED PUB SURVEY DETAILS
This survey was conducted in conjunction with
the Morning Advertiser, one of the pub industry's leading
journals. The survey was carried out in April 2004 among tenants
and lessees on the Morning Advertiser's circulation. The
objective of the survey was to examine the nature of the relationship
between tenants and their landlords, the Pubcos and brewers, and
perceptions of these companies by tenants. The survey is a repeat,
with some changes, of a survey conducted in February 2003. A self-completion
questionnaire was distributed in selected issues of the magazine,
and a total of 624 respondents returned it before the cut-off
date. Results are based on all respondents, unless otherwise stated.
Percentages occasionally add to slightly more or less than 100
due to rounding.
Basic demographic data
63% of respondents claim to be lessees.
Table 1 shows the breakdown by length
of lease, which varies greatly
|
| Length of lease (base: lessees—390)
| % |
|
| 5 or less | 7
|
| 6-10 | 31 |
| 11-15 | 7 |
| 16-20 | 31
|
| 21-25 | 15
|
| 26+ | 7 |
| Not stated | 3
|
| Average years | 16.1
|
|
39% of respondents say they are tenants.
Table 2 shows the breakdown by length of tenancy, which
is generally much shorter than that of leases
|
| Length of tenancy (base: tenants—241)
| % |
|
| 3 or less | 59
|
| 4-5 | 10 |
| 6-8 | 8 |
| 9-10 | 15 |
| 11+ | 2 |
| Not stated | 7
|
| Average | 4.8
|
|
Most respondents have been in their current pub for less
than 10 years, with just over half saying five years or less.
A much larger proportion this year did not state a figure.
Table 3
|
| Number of years in current pub | %
| % |
|
| 03 |
04 |
| 5 or less | 60
| 52 |
| 6-10 | 19 |
16 |
| 11-15 | 10
| 10 |
| 16-20 | 5 |
3 |
| 21-30 | 3 |
2 |
| 31+ | 1 |
1 |
| Not stated | 2
| 16 |
| Average | 6.5
| 6.2 |
|
Pub Company/landlord
Table 4 shows the breakdown of respondents by Pubco/brewer
operating as their landlord. The most common landlords are Enterprise,
Punch, Unique, Pubmaster and Greene King, together accounting
for 70% of respondents. The remainder of the respondents are scattered
across the rest of the landlords.
Table 4
|
| Pub company/landlord | 2003 %
| 2004 % |
|
| Enterprise | 21
| 21 |
| Punch | 15
| 20 |
| Unique | 15
| 14 |
| Pubmaster | 14
| 9 |
| Greene King | 5
| 6 |
| S&N Pub Enterprises | 4
| 2 |
| Wolverhampton and Dudley | 4
| 4 |
| Avebury | 2
| 3 |
| InnSpired | 2
| 5 |
| Thwaites | 2
| 1 |
| Wellington | 2
| 2 |
| Wadworth | 1
| 1 |
| Shepherd Neame | 1
| 1 |
| Frederic Robinson | 1
| 1 |
| Pub Estate | 1
| 1 |
| Country Estate | 1
| * |
| Fullers | 1
| 1 |
| Pyramid | 1
| 1 |
| Charles Wells | *
| 1 |
| Other | 12
| 9 |
| Not stated | 1
| 3 |
|
Rating of landlords regarding contract and legal advice
The following series of tables shows respondents' rating
of their landlord on various measures relating to the lease or
contract, and advice given or offered prior to signing. The ratings
on the questionnaire were verbal, ranging from Excellent to Very
Poor.
In order to make easy comparisons between landlords, a system
of scoring was applied, whereby each verbal rating point was given
a numerical value (Excellent 5, Good 4, etc). A mean score was
then calculated, and is shown in the tables. The tables show figures
for the total sample, together with those for respondents with
the top five landlords on the survey, which are the only ones
for which a large enough sub-sample exists for analysis.
As with most of the ratings, those for how well the landlord
explained the lease/tenancy contract are very similar to 2003,
with the main landlords all clustered around the average rating
of 3.08 (Satisfactory).
Table 5
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR HOW WELL THEY EXPLAINED LEASE/TENANCY
CONTRACT
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 10
| 7 | 6
| 4 | 4
| 6 | 10 |
9 | 15 | 5 | 11
| 5 |
| Good (4) | 23
| 27 | 24
| 23 | 14
| 24 | 23 |
24 | 27 | 22 | 30
| 30 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 38
| 40 | 37
| 43 | 40
| 38 | 42 |
45 | 36 | 48 | 45
| 38 |
| Poor (2) | 18
| 16 | 22
| 20 | 26
| 18 | 17 |
11 | 13 | 17 | 11
| 22 |
| Very poor (1) | 8
| 9 | 7
| 8 | 14
| 12 | 5 |
8 | 6 | 5 | 4
| 5 |
| Not stated | 2
| 2 | 3
| 2 | 2
| 2 | 3 | 2
| 4 | 2 | 0 |
— |
| Mean score | 3.09
| 3.08 | 3.01
| 2.96 | 2.68
| 2.92 | 3.17
| 3.15 | 3.33 | 3.05
| 3.32 | 3.08 |
|
Landlords receive similarly unspectacular ratings for disclosure
of information. Punch's average score has increased slightly over
2003, but Pubmaster's has gone down.
Table 6
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR DISCLOSING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 9
| 8 | 7
| 5 | 1
| 6 | 6 | 9
| 10 | 5 | 11 |
14 |
| Good (4) | 22
| 23 | 18
| 23 | 18
| 17 | 26 |
32 | 29 | 12 | 23
| 19 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 34
| 34 | 32
| 34 | 29
| 38 | 38 |
32 | 31 | 48 | 40
| 32 |
| Poor (2) | 20
| 21 | 24
| 19 | 32
| 25 | 17 |
17 | 21 | 26 | 15
| 27 |
| Very poor (1) | 11
| 11 | 14
| 16 | 16
| 11 | 8 |
5 | 7 | 9 | 9
| 5 |
| Not stated | 4
| 3 | 4
| 4 | 3
| 2 | 5 | 5
| 2 | — | 2
| 3 |
| Mean score | 2.96
| 2.96 | 2.79
| 2.81 | 2.54
| 2.80 | 3.06
| 3.25 | 3.13 | 2.79
| 3.13 | 3.08 |
|
All the major landlords are rated comparatively badly for
flexibility in drawing up the contract. Punch has again improved
slightly, and Pubmaster's score has decreased.
Table 7
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR FLEXIBILITY IN DRAWING UP CONTRACT
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 5
| 5 | 1
| 2 | 1
| 4 | 6 | 6
| 6 | 5 | 6 |
5 |
| Good (4) | 15
| 14 | 12
| 7 | 7
| 16 | 14 |
13 | 16 | 12 | 19
| 16 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 31
| 35 | 35
| 38 | 26
| 23 | 32 |
37 | 36 | 36 | 34
| 46 |
| Poor (2) | 28
| 25 | 29
| 29 | 38
| 30 | 23 |
26 | 24 | 26 | 26
| 16 |
| Very poor (1) | 17
| 18 | 18
| 20 | 26
| 25 | 20 |
14 | 12 | 19 | 13
| 14 |
| Not stated | 4
| 3 | 5
| 5 | 1
| 2 | 5 | 5
| 5 | 2 | 2 |
3 |
| Mean score | 2.62
| 2.63 | 2.46
| 2.41 | 2.16
| 2.43 | 2.63
| 2.69 | 2.80 | 2.58
| 2.80 | 2.83 |
|
The landlords achieve below-Satisfactory scores for making
it clear what investment they would make. Pubmaster and Greene
King both score lower than last year.
Table 8
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR MAKING IT CLEAR WHAT INVESTMENT
THEY WOULD MAKE
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 6
| 5 | 4
| 8 | 3
| 2 | 5 | 5
| 9 | 5 | 6 |
3 |
| Good (4) | 16
| 13 | 18
| 8 | 12
| 15 | 10 |
13 | 10 | 12 | 26
| 16 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 25
| 26 | 23
| 27 | 31
| 25 | 29 |
23 | 27 | 19 | 30
| 24 |
| Poor (2) | 27
| 30 | 33
| 25 | 23
| 30 | 26 |
32 | 27 | 38 | 17
| 35 |
| Very poor (1) | 23
| 23 | 18
| 27 | 28
| 25 | 26 |
24 | 22 | 21 | 19
| 22 |
| Not stated | 4
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 4
| 2 | 5 | 3
| 6 | 5 | 2 |
— |
| Mean score | 2.53
| 2.45 | 2.55
| 2.42 | 2.37
| 2.37 | 2.39
| 2.39 | 2.54 | 2.40
| 2.83 | 2.43 |
|
Landlords are again rated somewhat better at communicating
the investment required from tenants than they are at saying what
investment they will make. Punch has increased slightly and Pubmaster
has decreased slightly.
Table 9
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR MAKING IT CLEAR WHAT INVESTMENT
WAS REQUIRED FROM RESPONDENT
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 10
| 9 | 10
| 9 | 4
| 7 | 7 | 9
| 12 | 7 | 13 |
3 |
| Good (4) | 25
| 23 | 24
| 19 | 17
| 25 | 24 |
21 | 27 | 21 | 23
| 30 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 35
| 36 | 36
| 36 | 36
| 35 | 43 |
36 | 39 | 36 | 38
| 32 |
| Poor (2) | 17
| 20 | 22
| 19 | 23
| 19 | 14 |
23 | 11 | 26 | 15
| 27 |
| Very poor (1) | 10
| 9 | 4
| 11 | 17
| 12 | 9 |
7 | 6 | 7 | 9
| 8 |
| Not stated | 3
| 3 | 5
| 6 | 3
| 2 | 4 | 3
| 5 | 3 | 2 |
— |
| Mean score | 3.09
| 3.03 | 3.13
| 2.97 | 2.68
| 2.94 | 3.06
| 3.02 | 3.31 | 2.95
| 3.17 | 2.92 |
|
Respondents again give their landlords below-Satisfactory
scores for putting investment commitments in writing (Table 10).
Pubmaster and Greene King both achieve lower ratings than last
year.
The ratings for sticking to their investment commitments
also remain less than Satisfactory, with Pubmaster and Greene
King slipping again. (Table 11).
Table 10
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR PUTTING THEIR INVESTMENT COMMITMENTS
IN WRITING
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 6
| 5 | 3
| 8 | 1
| 2 | 7 | 5
| 6 | 2 | 9 |
3 |
| Good (4) | 11
| 12 | 10
| 7 | 9
| 17 | 8 |
11 | 6 | 9 | 19
| 14 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 24
| 20 | 27
| 26 | 24
| 16 | 23 |
18 | 27 | 17 | 32
| 19 |
| Poor (2) | 23
| 28 | 25
| 26 | 26
| 27 | 23 |
30 | 23 | 31 | 17
| 41 |
| Very poor (1) | 31
| 29 | 28
| 25 | 34
| 34 | 34 |
29 | 32 | 38 | 19
| 24 |
| Not stated | 5
| 5 | 6
| 9 | 6
| 4 | 5 | 7
| 6 | 3 | 4 |
— |
| Mean score | 2.34
| 2.32 | 2.31
| 2.42 | 2.13
| 2.25 | 2.27
| 2.28 | 2.25 | 2.02
| 2.80 | 2.30 |
|
Table 11
RATING OF LANDLORD FOR STICKING TO THEIR INVESTMENT COMMITMENTS
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 7
| 6 | 6
| 8 | 4
| 3 | 6 | 5
| 9 | 2 | 11 |
3 |
| Good (4) | 11
| 13 | 10
| 6 | 7
| 16 | 8 |
13 | 6 | 12 | 17
| 22 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 26
| 24 | 30
| 30 | 24
| 20 | 28 |
23 | 24 | 16 | 38
| 24 |
| Poor (2) | 19
| 23 | 17
| 20 | 24
| 19 | 22 |
26 | 20 | 31 | 13
| 27 |
| Very poor (1) | 30
| 27 | 29
| 27 | 32
| 37 | 29 |
21 | 34 | 34 | 17
| 24 |
| Not stated | 7
| 7 | 9
| 9 | 10
| 6 | 8 | 13
| 6 | 5 | 4 |
— |
| Mean score | 2.41
| 2.44 | 2.42
| 2.42 | 2.20
| 2.25 | 2.37
| 2.47 | 2.32 | 2.11
| 2.91 | 2.51 |
|
24% of respondents think their pub's profitability is higher
than they expected, but 35% think it is lower. Among Greene King's
tenants, the decrease from last year is particularly marked.
Table 12
PUB'S PROFITABILITY COMPARED TO INITIAL EXPECTATIONS
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Much better (5) | 11
| 7 | 11
| 8 | 7
| 8 | 9 | 8
| 13 | 2 | 13 |
8 |
| Somewhat better (4) | 20
| 17 | 21
| 17 | 15
| 9 | 17 |
16 | 20 | 17 | 32
| 8 |
| About the same (3)34 | 38
| 36 | 36
| 37 | 42
| 42 | 39 |
32 | 47 | 26 | 32
|
| Somewhat worse (2) | 23
| 24 | 19
| 25 | 26
| 21 | 26 |
28 | 23 | 21 | 23
| 38 |
| Much worse (1) | 10
| 11 | 12
| 12 | 13
| 15 | 6 |
6 | 10 | 12 | 6
| 11 |
| Not stated | 1
| 3 | 1
| 2 | 1
| 5 | 1 | 3
| 2 | 2 | 0 |
3 |
| Mean score | 2.98
| 2.85 | 3.01
| 2.84 | 2.77
| 2.73 | 2.97
| 2.93 | 3.02 | 2.75
| 3.21 | 2.64 |
|
65% said they were given enough time to check that they were
happy with their contract — a drop of 10 percentage points
from last year. 59% took legal advice, but only 42% were encouraged
by the Pubco to do so.
Table 13
|
| Advice taken before signing lease |
% | %
|
|
| 03
| 04 |
| Given enough time to check that you were happy with the contract
| 75 | 65
|
| Took legal advice | 61
| 59 |
| Encouraged by Pubco/landlord to take legal advice
| 42 | 42
|
| Pubco/landlord asked whether you had taken legal advice
| 33 | 37
|
| None of the above | 14
| 20 |
|
62% think all prospective lessees and tenants should pay
for their own legal advice before being allowed to take over a
pub.
Rating of landlords for help and support/relationship with
landlord
Around one-third of respondents see their BDM once a month,
but nearly half do so only once every six months, and 15% do so
annually or less often.
Table 14
|
| Frequency of seeing landlord's Business Development Manager
| % |
|
| Once a month | 36
|
| Once every 6 months | 45
|
| Once a year | 7
|
| Less often | 5
|
| Never | 3 |
| Not stated | 4
|
|
Respondents generally rate their relationship with the BDM
between satisfactory and good. Punch's score has improved significantly
since the last survey; Greene King, while still above average,
has slipped.
Table 15
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR RELATIONSHIP WITH BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 18
| 21 | 14
| 20 | 7
| 17 | 17 |
20 | 29 | 22 | 36
| 24 |
| Good (4) | 28
| 31 | 29
| 36 | 18
| 30 | 23 |
23 | 31 | 33 | 36
| 35 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 28
| 24 | 38
| 22 | 28
| 22 | 29 |
30 | 23 | 21 | 15
| 27 |
| Poor (2) | 15
| 12 | 12
| 13 | 26
| 13 | 17 |
14 | 11 | 14 | 9
| 11 |
| Very poor (1) | 10
| 11 | 6
| 9 | 19
| 15 | 12 |
14 | 6 | 10 | 4
| 3 |
| Not stated | 2
| 2 | 0
| — | 1
| 3 | 3 | —
| 1 | — | 0
| — |
| Mean score | 3.30
| 3.39 | 3.34
| 3.45 | 2.68
| 3.22 | 3.16
| 3.21 | 3.67 | 3.43
| 3.91 | 3.68 |
|
Respondents remain far less impressed with the way their
landlord has helped them with their food offering, with only 9%
rating them excellent or good. Punch has improved its rating but
Greene King has slipped back significantly. Greene King's rating
for help with developing the wine offering has also decreased
markedly, although it remains above average for all landlords.
(Tables 16 and 17).
Respondents remain on balance dissatisfied with the help
from the landlord in generally developing the business. Greene
King's score has once more decreased since last year, although
it remains above average.
Table 16
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR HELP IN DEVELOPING FOOD OFFERING
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 2
| 2 | 1
| 1 | 0
| 2 | 2 | 2
| 2 | 2 | 6 |
— |
| Good (4) | 7
| 7 | 5
| 3 | 6
| 8 | 8 | —
| 11 | 12 | 17 |
11 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 21
| 23 | 19
| 25 | 17
| 16 | 15 |
24 | 31 | 28 | 34
| 30 |
| Poor (2) | 27
| 26 | 32
| 27 | 27
| 27 | 26 |
28 | 21 | 26 | 26
| 32 |
| Very poor (1) | 30
| 28 | 30
| 31 | 40
| 28 | 33 |
28 | 19 | 17 | 9
| 24 |
| Not stated | 13
| 14 | 14
| 13 | 10
| 18 | 16 |
18 | 15 | 16 | 9
| 3 |
| Mean score | 2.13
| 2.16 | 2.01
| 2.03 | 1.88
| 2.15 | 2.04
| 2.04 | 2.49 | 2.47
| 2.86 | 2.28 |
|
Table 17
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR HELP IN DEVELOPING WINE OFFERING
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 3
| 3 | 1
| 1 | 0
| 2 | 2 | 1
| 2 | 2 | 15 |
— |
| Good (4) | 10
| 9 | 4
| 5 | 8
| 11 | 8 |
5 | 10 | 12 | 32
| 16 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 22
| 24 | 22
| 19 | 20
| 26 | 18 |
22 | 33 | 34 | 32
| 38 |
| Poor (2) | 27
| 26 | 31
| 34 | 30
| 23 | 31 |
33 | 27 | 19 | 13
| 22 |
| Very poor (1) | 29
| 29 | 32
| 33 | 35
| 28 | 32 |
31 | 19 | 26 | 6
| 22 |
| Not stated | 9
| 9 | 10
| 8 | 7
| 10 | 10 |
8 | 9 | 7 | 2
| 3 |
| Mean score | 2.23
| 2.26 | 1.99
| 1.99 | 2.02
| 2.30 | 2.06
| 2.04 | 2.44 | 2.41
| 3.37 | 2.50 |
|
Table 18
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR HELP IN GENERALLY DEVELOPING
THE BUSINESS
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 4
| 4 | 1
| 4 | 1
| 6 | 4 | 1
| 2 | 9 | 15 |
3 |
| Good (4) | 12
| 13 | 8
| 12 | 7
| 16 | 13 |
7 | 16 | 9 | 36
| 16 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 22
| 24 | 29
| 21 | 16
| 17 | 14 |
30 | 23 | 31 | 21
| 43 |
| Poor (2) | 31
| 26 | 32
| 28 | 35
| 25 | 35 |
28 | 35 | 24 | 19
| 22 |
| Very poor (1) | 28
| 29 | 27
| 33 | 40
| 33 | 32 |
32 | 20 | 28 | 9
| 16 |
| Not stated | 3
| 3 | 4
| 2 | 1
| 3 | 2 | 2
| 2 | — | 0
| — |
| Mean score | 2.32
| 2.36 | 2.22
| 2.24 | 1.94
| 2.34 | 2.20
| 2.15 | 2.44 | 2.47
| 3.30 | 2.68 |
|
Overall, Pubcos appear to have improved their ordering systems,
according to respondents. Punch tenants have seen the biggest
improvement. Greene King remains the highest-rated company. Distribution
and delivery have also seen improvements, again with Punch improving
significantly and Greene King remaining the top-rated Pubco.
Table 20
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR THE ORDERING SYSTEM
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 10
| 15 | 7
| 9 | 6
| 18 | 11 |
13 | 11 | 12 | 15
| 30 |
| Good (4) | 30
| 32 | 28
| 25 | 26
| 31 | 32 |
48 | 30 | 26 | 55
| 35 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 40
| 36 | 44
| 44 | 46
| 38 | 39 |
32 | 41 | 50 | 21
| 30 |
| Poor (2) | 10
| 7 | 11
| 12 | 8
| 5 | 8 | 2
| 10 | 3 | 9 |
— |
| Very poor (1) | 8
| 7 | 7
| 9 | 13
| 7 | 8 | 3
| 6 | 9 | 0 |
5 |
| Not stated | 3
| 3 | 3
| 2 | 1
| 1 | 2 | 1
| 2 | — | 0
| — |
| Mean score | 3.23
| 3.44 | 3.16
| 3.15 | 3.03
| 3.48 | 3.31
| 3.65 | 3.30 | 3.29
| 3.77 | 3.84 |
|
Table 21
RATING OF PUBCO/BREWER FOR DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY SYSTEM
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 13
| 19 | 11
| 13 | 7
| 19 | 6 |
14 | 11 | 22 | 34
| 41 |
| Good (4) | 31
| 31 | 32
| 27 | 29
| 36 | 36 |
39 | 35 | 16 | 45
| 35 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 32
| 33 | 32
| 35 | 35
| 30 | 35 |
31 | 31 | 48 | 19
| 19 |
| Poor (2) | 12
| 9 | 15
| 16 | 7
| 8 | 12 |
9 | 15 | 7 | 0
| 3 |
| Very poor (1) | 9
| 6 | 9
| 8 | 20
| 6 | 8 | 6
| 7 | 7 | 2 |
3 |
| Not stated | 2
| 2 | 1
| 1 | 1
| 1 | 2 | 1
| 2 | — | 0
| — |
| Mean score | 3.29
| 3.49 | 3.22
| 3.20 | 2.97
| 3.55 | 3.20
| 3.47 | 3.29 | 3.40
| 4.09 | 4.08 |
|
51% say their landlord has changed due to Pubco/brewer takeovers
and mergers in the past 10 years. Those who said their landlord
had changed have had an average of 2.3 landlords in their tenure.
Table 22 shows that, of those whose business has been affected
by such a change, more say it has been for the worse than say
it has been for the better.
Table 22
HOW CHANGE OF LANDLORD HAS AFFECTED BUSINESS (BASE: ALL
WHOSE LANDLORD HAS CHANGED DUE TO TAKEOVERS OR MERGERS)
|
| 2003 %
| 2004 % |
|
| 03
| 04 |
| Very much for the better | 4
| 2 |
| Somewhat for the better | 9
| 12 |
| Not at all | 42
| 39 |
| Somewhat for the worse | 27
| 25 |
| Very much for the worse | 14
| 14 |
| Not stated | 3
| 9 |
|
Of those who said the change was for the better, the main
reasons given were:
— Better communications—7%
— Refurbishments planned—5%
Those who said the change was for the worse gave the following
reasons:
— One-sided relationship—4%
— Tighter restrictions—4%
— Not enough promotions—2%
— Forced to change suppliers—2%
Product range offered
74% of respondents think the product range offered is sufficiently
wide, a similar proportion to 2003. However, while the figures
for Enterprise, Punch and Pubmaster have improved, those for Greene
King have decreased sharply from 77% to 59%.
Table 23
WHETHER RESPONDENT THINKS PRODUCT RANGE OFFERED IS SUFFICIENTLY
WIDE
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Yes | 71 |
74 | 74
| 80 | 69
| 80 | 89 |
91 | 74 | 79 | 77
| 59 |
| No | 27 |
23 | 26
| 18 | 28
| 19 | 10 |
7 | 23 | 19 | 19
| 41 |
| Not stated | 2
| 3 | 0
| 2 | 3
| 1 | 1 | 2
| 3 | 2 | 4 |
— |
|
The main products respondents would like to stock more of
are:
— Cask ales/real ales—30%
Turnover/rent
Respondents' pubs have a wide range of annual turnover, with
the largest single proportion falling between £100,000 and
£200,000. Rent constitutes an average of 13% of turnover.
(Table 25).
Table 24
APPROXIMATE ANNUAL TURNOVER OF PUB
|
| (£000) | %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Up to 100 | 7
| 6 |
| 100-200 | 36
| 33 |
| 200-300 | 29
| 29 |
| 300-400 | 12
| 16 |
| 400-500 | 6
| 4 |
| More than 500 | 5
| 1 |
| Not stated | 5
| 5 |
|
Table 25
ANNUAL RENT AS A PROPORTION OF TURNOVER
|
| (%) | %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| 5 or less | 5
| 3 |
| 6-10 | 27 |
29 |
| 11-15 | 32
| 29 |
| 16-20 | 12
| 10 |
| 21+ | 9 |
7 |
| Not stated | 15
| 22 |
| Average | 14.18
| 13.35 |
|
46% of respondents think their rent is fair; 53% do not.
Those thinking it unfair would like to see a 10% decrease (compared
with 13% last year).
Table 26
FAIRNESS OF RENT
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Very fair | 8
| 8 |
| Quite fair | 36
| 38 |
| Quite unfair | 32
| 36 |
| Very unfair | 22
| 17 |
| Not stated | 2
| 1 |
|
Table 27
PERCENTAGE DECREASE THAT WOULD MAKE RENT FAIR (BASE: ALL
THINKING RENT IS UNFAIR)
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| 5 or less | 38
| 16 |
| 6-10 | 22 |
46 |
| 11-15 | 6 |
14 |
| 16-20 | 5 |
1 |
| 21+ | 16 |
2 |
| Not stated | 12
| 21 |
| Average % decrease desired | 13.16
| 9.93 |
|
Overall rating of landlords/opinions of fairness
25% of respondents rate their landlords as excellent or good
for fairness as a business partner, but 45% rate them as poor
or very poor. Greene King has the best average rating, as it did
in 2003.
Table 28
OVERALL RATING OF pUBCO/BREWER'S FAIRNESS AS A BUSINESS
PARTNER
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Excellent (5) | 5
| 5 | 3
| 2 | 1
| 3 | 3 | 3
| 3 | 2 | 9 |
8 |
| Good (4) | 15
| 20 | 11
| 13 | 7
| 19 | 14 |
21 | 16 | 12 | 26
| 22 |
| Satisfactory (3) | 33
| 29 | 38
| 30 | 21
| 22 | 38 |
33 | 36 | 33 | 36
| 43 |
| Poor (2) | 31
| 27 | 32
| 31 | 40
| 30 | 29 |
28 | 30 | 34 | 21
| 22 |
| Very poor (1) | 16
| 18 | 15
| 24 | 29
| 25 | 17 |
15 | 13 | 17 | 6
| 5 |
| Not stated | 1
| 1 | 1
| — | 1
| — | —
| — | 2 | 2
| 2 | — |
| Mean score | 2.62
| 2.67 | 2.53
| 2.36 | 2.12
| 2.44 | 2.58
| 2.70 | 2.66 | 2.46
| 3.09 | 3.05 |
|
30% would take out another lease with their current Pubco,
up from 25% last year. 45%, however, said they would not, compared
with 47% last year.
These respondents give a similar range of reasons to last
year, mainly financial, but with a higher proportion this year
blaming being tied to particular products.
Table 29
WHETHER WOULD TAKE OUT ANOTHER LEASE WITH CURRENT LANDLORD
|
| Total %
| Enterprise %
| Punch % |
Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King %
|
| 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03
| 04 | 03 | 04
| 03 | 04 |
|
| Definitely (5) | 10
| 13 | 7
| 6 | 4
| 7 | 8 | 7
| 8 | 9 | 26 |
11 |
| Probably (4) | 14
| 17 | 11
| 11 | 7
| 14 | 14 |
21 | 19 | 16 | 19
| 32 |
| Possibly (3) | 26
| 23 | 26
| 23 | 19
| 17 | 36 |
30 | 31 | 29 | 17
| 19 |
| Probably not (2) | 21
| 21 | 27
| 26 | 21
| 25 | 23 |
17 | 23 | 24 | 21
| 14 |
| Definitely not (1) | 26
| 24 | 29
| 34 | 48
| 36 | 20 |
24 | 18 | 16 | 15
| 16 |
| Not stated | 1
| 1 | —
| — | 1
| 1 | 0 | 1
| 2 | 7 | 2 |
8 |
| Mean score | 2.61
| 2.72 | 2.40
| 2.29 | 1.98
| 2.29 | 2.65
| 2.69 | 2.76 | 2.76
| 3.20 | 3.09 |
|
Table 30
REASONS FOR RESPONDENT SAYING WOULD NOT TAKE OUT ANOTHER
LEASE WITH CURRENT LANDLORD
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Rent increase/rent too high | 18
| 22 |
| They are only interested in profits/greedy |
23 | 23
|
| Tied products/fixed pricing | 10
| 20 |
| Lack of support | 10
| 14 |
| Prices | 9
| 5 |
| Retiring/leaving business | 8
| 8 |
| Maintenance | 7
| 8 |
| One-sided relationship | 5
| 12 |
| Don't fulfil promises | 5
| 8 |
| Inflexibility | 5
| 1 |
| Lack of communication | 4
| 5 |
| No/less discounts | 4
| — |
| Lied to/ripped off/untrustworthy | 6
| 4 |
| Want a freehold | 4
| 4 |
| Not competitive | 3
| — |
| Being restricted by them | 2
| — |
| Slow to change/react | 2
| — |
| Discourage success | 2
| — |
| Lack of investment | 2
| 1 |
| Work done is not recognised | 1
| — |
| Not knowing enough/being informed | 1
| — |
| Landlord/BDM | 1
| — |
| Not stated | 22
| 18 |
|
When asked which Pubco/brewer is fairest to its licensees,
respondents were not particularly minded to single out any particular
company. However, Greene King emerged highest at 10%. 41% named
no company at all.
Table 31
PUBCO/BREWER THAT IS FAIREST TO ITS LICENSEES
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Enterprise | 6
| 6 |
| Greene King | 6
| 10 |
| Unique | 5
| 7 |
| Pubmaster | 4
| 4 |
| S&N Pub Enterprises | 3
| 3 |
| Frederic Robinson | 2
| 2 |
| Shepherd Neame | 2
| 2 |
| Wolverhampton and Dudley | 2
| 3 |
| Punch | 2 |
4 |
| Wadworth | 2
| 2 |
| Thwaites | 1
| 2 |
| Charles Wells | 1
| 1 |
| Avebury | 1
| 3 |
| InnSpired | 1
| 2 |
| Fullers | 1
| 1 |
| Pyramid | *
| 1 |
| Pub Estate | *
| * |
| Country Estate | *
| * |
| Wellington | *
| * |
| Other | 7 |
9 |
| None/not stated | 54
| 41 |
|
46% of those who did name a company said that company was
their own Pubco; 51% said it was not.
Despite the improvements in its ratings on some measures
this year, Punch once more emerges as the Pubco voted least fair
to its licensees, with nearly one-quarter of respondents naming
it. Enterprise once again comes second and Pubmaster third.
40% of those who named a company said this was their own
Pubco.
Table 32
PUBCO/BREWER THAT IS LEAST FAIR TO ITS LICENSEES
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Punch | 18
| 23 |
| Enterprise | 9
| 16 |
| Pubmaster | 5
| 7 |
| Unique | 3
| 3 |
| S&N Pub Enterprises | 3
| 5 |
| Greene King | 2
| 1 |
| InnSpired | 1
| 3 |
| Shepherd Neame | 1
| 1 |
| Avebury | 1
| 3 |
| Wolverhampton and Dudley | 1
| 1 |
| Thwaites | *
| 1 |
| Country Estate | *
| 1 |
| Pub Estate | *
| 1 |
| Fullers | *
| 1 |
| Wadworth | *
| * |
| Pyramid | *
| 1 |
| Wellington | *
| 1 |
| Other | 2 |
2 |
| None/not stated | 50
| 41 |
|
Just over two-thirds (68%) of respondents think family brewers
are better landlords than Pubcos.
Table 33
RATING OF FAMILY BREWERS AGAINST PUB COMPANIES AS LANDLORDS
|
| %
| % |
| 03
| 04 |
|
| Much better | 29
| 36 |
| Somewhat better | 34
| 32 |
| About the same | 18
| 20 |
| Somewhat worse | 1
| 1 |
| Much worse | 1
| 1 |
| Not stated | 17
| 10 |
|
One in four respondents say their Pubco is making more of
an effort to be a better business partner than it was last year.
However, 67% say it is not. Punch emerges as well above average
for making an attempt to be a better partner.
Table 34
WHETHER PUBCO IS MAKING MORE EFFORT TO BE BETTER PARTNER
THAN LAST YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| Yes | 25 |
22 | 39
| 16 | 19
| 22 |
| No | 67 |
73 | 56
| 76 | 72
| 76 |
| Not stated | 8
| 5 | 6
| 8 | 9
| 2 |
|
The main reasons for respondents saying the Pubco had made
more effort are:
— Better communication/listening more—28%
of those saying "yes"
— Generally making more effort—13%
— Repair work being carried out—4%
One in five respondents feel better about their Pubco than
they did last year, but nearly two-thirds do not. Again, Punch
is well above average.
Table 35
WHETHER RESPONDENTS FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR PUBCO THAN
LAST YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| Yes | 19 |
13 | 29
| 10 | 14
| 19 |
| No | 63 |
70 | 54
| 76 | 71
| 70 |
| Not stated | 18
| 17 | 17
| 14 | 15
| 11 |
|
The main reasons given for feeling better are:
— Trying to improve—27% of those saying "yes"
— Relationship better—26%
— They leave you alone—1%
The main reasons for not feeling better are:
— No improvement—26% of those saying "no"
— Only interested in money—12%
— One-sided relationship—3%
— No incentive to improve business—2%
— Too little, too late—*%
Investment, costs and return on investment
On average, £17,422 has been invested in respondents'
pubs over the past 12 months. Greene King is well below average.
Table 36
INVESTMENT IN PUB IN PAST 12 MONTHS (£)
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| 5k or less | 23
| 22 | 22
| 22 | 28
| 38 |
| 5001-10k | 11
| 10 | 11
| 13 | 7
| 3 |
| 10001-15k | 6
| 8 | 6
| 11 | 2
| 5 |
| 15001-20k | 5
| 5 | 9
| 2 | 3
| 8 |
| 20001-50k | 7
| 7 | 7
| 9 | 5
| — |
| 50k+ | 5 |
5 | 6
| 5 | 3
| — |
| Not stated | 44
| 45 | 39
| 38 | 52
| 46 |
| Average | 17,422
| 14,904 | 19,347
| 16,709 | 13,054
| 6,735 |
|
On average, respondents expect £20,704 to be invested
in their pub next year, with Greene King tenants well below average.
However, most respondents do not know or are unprepared to say
what the investment will be.
Table 37
INVESTMENT IN PUB IN NEXT 12 MONTHS (£)
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| 5k or less | 13
| 15 | 11
| 20 | 10
| 19 |
| 5001-10k | 8
| 9 | 11
| 14 | 5
| — |
| 10001-15k | 1
| 2 | 1
| 1 | —
| 5 |
| 15001-20k | 2
| 2 | —
| 3 | —
| — |
| 20001-50k | 4
| 5 | 2
| 2 | 2
| 3 |
| 50k+ | 4 |
2 | 5
| 5 | 5
| — |
| Not stated | 68
| 66 | 71
| 55 | 78
| 73 |
| Average | 20,704
| 14,388 | 23,026
| 16,910 | 26,569
| 7,800 |
|
In most cases, the substantial majority of respondents had
to make most or all of last year's investment themselves, the
exception being Greene King tenants. The same applies to the coming
year.
Table 38
SPLIT IN INVESTMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND PUBCO LAST
YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| 100% tenant | 57
| 67 | 68
| 70 | 57
| 35 |
| 100% Pubco | 8
| 3 | 7
| 2 | 11
| 20 |
| 50/50 | 5 |
6 | 4
| 6 | 7
| — |
| Other mix | 13
| 7 | 10
| 7 | 7
| 10 |
| Not stated | 17
| 17 | 11
| 15 | 18
| 35 |
|
Table 39
SPLIT IN INVESTMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND PUBCO EXPECTED
THIS YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| 100% tenant | 52
| 60 | 57
| 67 | 46
| 20 |
| 100% Pubco | 8
| 5 | 9
| — | 8
| 20 |
| 50/50 | 2 |
— | 3
| 5 | 15
| — |
| Other mix | 18
| 12 | 11
| 7 | 16
| 30 |
| Not stated | 20
| 23 | 20
| 21 | 15
| 30 |
|
26% of respondents feel more confident about their pub's
business prospects compared with last year, and 36% feel less
so. Enterprise's and Unique's tenants feel less confident than
average.
Table 40
CONFIDENCE ABOUT PUB'S BUSINESS PROSPECTS COMPARED WITH
LAST YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| Much more confident | 8
| 6 | 7
| 8 | 10
| 5 |
| More confident | 18
| 13 | 16
| 15 | 17
| 14 |
| As confident | 32
| 34 | 37
| 29 | 33
| 43 |
| Less confident | 26
| 29 | 20
| 36 | 21
| 30 |
| Much less confident | 10
| 15 | 11
| 9 | 12
| 5 |
| Not stated | 5
| 3 | 7
| 3 | 7
| 3 |
|
One-third of respondents say they are making more money than
last year, but 60% say they are not. The figures for Greene King
are significantly lower than average, with only 19% saying they
are making more money and 76% saying they are not.
Table 41
WHETHER RESPONDENT IS MAKING MORE MONEY THAN LAST YEAR
|
| Total %
| Enterprise % | Punch %
| Unique % | Pubmaster %
| Greene King % |
|
| Yes | 33 |
34 | 29
| 30 | 26
| 19 |
| No | 60 |
65 | 62
| 61 | 62
| 76 |
| Not stated | 7
| 1 | 9
| 9 | 12
| 5 |
|
58% of respondents say that complying with government red
tape has reduced their profits in the past 12 months, while 38%
say it has not. On average, respondents say they have lost £3,917
in profits due to red tape.
Overheads have gone up by an average of £4,547 in the
past 12 months, but 51% of respondents did not answer this question.
Expected changes in status over next year
23% of respondents intend to sell their lease in the next
year. This figure rises to 34% among Enterprise tenants and 33%
among Punch tenants.
9% of respondents are looking to move from a tenancy to a
lease in the next 12 months. 37% are looking to buy a freehold.
21% are looking to leave the trade in the next year. The
main reasons given are:
— Too much work, not enough return—23%
— Not a fair playing field—9%
— Only want a freehold—2%
Feelings about the trade and Pubcos
53% say they don't regret going into the trade at all, but
this figure is down from 61% in 2003.
Table 42
WHETHER RESPONDENT REGRETS GOING INTO TRADE
|
| %
| % |
|
| 03
| 04 |
| Not at all | 61
| 53 |
| A little | 23
| 28 |
| Somewhat | 9
| 12 |
| Quite a lot | 3
| 3 |
| A lot | 4 |
3 |
| Not stated | 1
| 1 |
|
31% say that, if they have a problem with their landlord,
they are worried that if they complain they may lose the roof
over their heads (last year the figure was 28%). 68% say they
are not worried in this respect.
94% think the OFT should investigate the power and influence
of Pubcos, compared with 93% last year.
ANALYST CERTIFICATION
The following analysts hereby certify that their views about
the companies and their securities discussed in this report are
accurately expressed and that they have not received and will
not receive direct or indirect compensation in exchange for expressing
specific recommendations or views in this report: Jamie Rollo.
IMPORTANT US REGULATORY
DISCLOSURES ON
SUBJECT COMPANIES
The information and opinions in this report were prepared
by Morgan Stanley & Co. International Limited and its affiliates
(collectively, "Morgan Stanley").
As of 30 April 2004, Morgan Stanley beneficially owned 1%
or more of a class of common equity securities of the following
companies covered in this report: Punch Taverns, Enterprise Inns.
In the next 3 months, Morgan Stanley expects to receive or
intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from
Punch Taverns, Enterprise Inns.
Within the last 12 months, Morgan Stanley has either provided
or currently is providing investment banking services to the following
companies covered in this report Punch Taverns, Enterprise Inns.
The research analysts, strategists, or research associates
principally responsible for the preparation of this research report
have received compensation based upon various factors, including
quality of research, investor client feedback, stock picking,
competitive factors, firm revenues and overall investment banking
revenues.
OTHER IMPORTANT
DISCLOSURES
For a discussion, if applicable, of the valuation methods
used to determine the price targets included in this summary and
the risks related to achieving these targets, please refer to
the latest relevant published research on these stocks. Research
is available through your sales representative or on Client Link
at www.morganstanley.com and other electronic systems.
This report does not provide individually tailored investment
advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual
financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive
it. The securities discussed in this report may not be suitable
for all investors. Morgan Stanley recommends that investors independently
evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages
investors to seek the advice of a financial adviser. The appropriateness
of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's
individual circumstances and objectives.
This report is not an offer to buy or sell any security or
to participate in any trading strategy. In addition to any holdings
disclosed in the section entitled "Important US Regulatory
Disclosures on Subject Companies", Morgan Stanley and/or
its employees not involved in the preparation of this report may
have investments in securities or derivatives of securities of
companies mentioned in this report, and may trade them in ways
different from those discussed in this report. Derivatives may
be issued by Morgan Stanley or associated persons.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and its affiliate companies
do business that relates to companies covered in its research
reports, including market making and specialised trading, risk
arbitrage and other proprietary trading, fund management, investment
services and investment banking. Morgan Stanley sells to and buys
from customers the equity securities of companies covered in its
research reports on a principal basis.
Morgan Stanley makes every effort to use reliable, comprehensive
information, but we make no representation that it is accurate
or complete. We have no obligation to tell you when opinions or
information in this report change apart from when we intend to
discontinue research coverage of a subject company.
With the exception of information regarding Morgan Stanley,
reports prepared by Morgan Stanley research personnel are based
on public information. Facts and views presented in this report
have not been reviewed by, and may not reflect information known
to, professionals in other Morgan Stanley business areas, including
investment banking personnel.
Morgan Stanley research personnel conduct site visits from
time to time but are prohibited from accepting payment or reimbursement
by the company of travel expenses for such visits.
The value of and income from your investments may vary because
of changes in interest rates or foreign exchange rates, securities
prices or market indexes, operational or financial conditions
of companies or other factors. There may be time limitations on
the exercise of options or other rights in your securities transactions.
Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.
Estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that
may not be realised.
This publication is disseminated in Japan by Morgan Stanley
Japan Limited; in Hong Kong by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Asia
Limited; in Singapore by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Asia (Singapore)
Pte, regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which accepts
responsibility for its contents; in Australia by Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Australia Limited ABN 67 003 734 576, a licensed dealer,
which accepts responsibility for its contents; in Canada by Morgan
Stanley Canada Limited, which has approved of, and has agreed
to take responsibility for, the contents of this publication in
Canada; in Spain by Morgan Stanley, SV, SA, a Morgan Stanley group
company, which is supervised by the Spanish Securities Markets
Commission (CNMV) and states that this document has been written
and distributed in accordance with the rules of conduct applicable
to financial research as established under Spanish regulations;
in the United States by Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
and Morgan Stanley DW Inc, which accept responsibility for its
contents; and in the United Kingdom, this publication is approved
by Morgan Stanley & Co. International Limited, solely for
the purposes of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets
Act 2000 and is distributed in the European Union by Morgan Stanley
& Co. International Limited, except as provided above. Private
UK investors should obtain the advice of their Morgan Stanley
& Co International Limited representative about the investments
concerned. In Australia, this report, and any access to it, is
intended only for "wholesale clients" within the meaning
of the Australian Corporations Act.
The trademarks and service marks contained herein are the
property of their respective owners. Third-party data providers
make no warranties or representations of any kind relating to
the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the data they provide
and shall not have liability for any damages of any kind relating
to such data. The Global Industry Classification Standard ("GICS")
was developed by and is the exclusive property of MSCI and S&P.
This report or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold
or redistributed without the written consent of Morgan Stanley.
Morgan Stanley research is disseminated and available primarily
electronically, and, in some cases, in printed form.
Additional information on recommended securities is available
on request.
Morgan Stanley
| 
