Retail profit warnings more than double as high street pressures mount
The latest report from EY- Parthenon also revealed that overall profit warnings among UK-listed firms jumped by a fifth year-on-year in the second quarter – with a record proportion citing policy changes and geopolitical uncertainty as the leading factor.
The data showed that seven UK-listed retailers, including supermarkets, cut profit guidance between April and June.
Britain's retail sector has come under significant pressure since last autumn's Budget move to hike National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and the minimum wage, both taking effect in April.
But EY said the high street was also facing tough consumer spending challenges, with shoppers cutting back and focusing on value.
EY partner Silvia Rindone said the spike in retail warnings 'highlights both softening consumer demand and the deeper structural headwinds facing the sector'.
'Retailers we speak to tell us that falling sales are currently indicative of a longer-term shift, with consumers becoming more value-focused and less brand-loyal, which leaves cost-pressured retailers in a bind,' she said.
Tariff woes sparked by US President Donald Trump waging a trade war also featured heavily in the report, contributing to a rise in the number of alerts more widely across corporate plc.
The report found that the number of profit warnings issued by UK-listed companies rose by 20% to 59 in the second quarter compared with 49 a year ago.
The top factor was policy change and geopolitical uncertainty, cited in nearly half (46%) of all warnings – up from 4% a year earlier and the highest since the study was launched over 25 years ago.
Over one in three (34%) warnings flagged tariff-related impacts, such as weaker demand, supply chain disruption and volatility in currency movements.
The proportion of warnings to cite contract and order cancellations or delays remained at a record high of 40% in the quarter.
Jo Robinson, EY-Parthenon partner and turnaround and restructuring strategy leader, said: 'The latest profit warnings data reflects the scale of persistent uncertainty and how heavy it continues to weigh on UK businesses.
'While this uncertainty has been a recurring theme since mid-2024, it has intensified so far this year – driven largely by geopolitical tensions and policy shifts – compounding pressure on both earnings and forecasts.
'While the announcement of global tariffs has clearly played a part in amplifying uncertainty, they are just one factor among broader geopolitical and policy upheaval.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Minister insists fuel supplies not under threat despite oil refinery closure
An energy minister has insisted fuel supplies will not be under threat after no buyer was found for one of Britain's largest oil refineries. State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – collapsed into administration last month, putting hundreds of jobs at risk. Michael Shanks pledged to support the workers who are facing redundancy, but said there is little action the Government can take to improve the statutory redundancy offer. Speaking in the Commons, he said: 'We have worked urgently to ensure the safety of the refinery site, the security of fuel supplies and to protect workers. 'This has also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site. 'Following a thorough process, the official receiver has rigorously assessed all the bids received and concluded that sale of the business as a whole is not a credible option.' He added: 'A package has been offered to all those directly employed at the refinery, which guarantees their jobs and pay over the coming months. 'And alongside the usual support that is offered to workforces in insolvency situations, the Government will also immediately fund a comprehensive training guarantee for those refinery workers to ensure they have the skills needed and the support to find jobs, for example, in the growing clean energy workforce.' The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland. Prax Group is led by majority owner and chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, who bought the Lindsey oil refinery from French firm Total in 2021. Shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie, who tabled the urgent question, claimed 625 jobs are at risk as he pressed the minister for an update on its investigation into the collapse of the company. He also asked: 'What, if any, assessment has been made into the UK's resilience given the steep reduction in our refining capacity over the past six months? 'What, if any, assessment has been made on the increased reliance on imports that will be necessary as a result of the reduction in British refining capacity?' Mr Shanks said fuel supplies had 'adjusted' in the past few weeks, adding: 'Our assessment suggests there isn't an immediate risk to fuel supplies locally or in the wider area, but we'll continue to monitor that.' On the investigation, he said: 'There is not much I can update the House on at the moment, because the insolvency service is carrying out that investigation.' Conservative MP Martin Vickers, whose Brigg and Immingham constituency includes the oil refinery, said he wanted to see 'the maximum support given to those workers'. Mr Shanks replied: 'We have looked and pushed and pushed to see if there is more action Government can take to change or to give any additional payments. 'It's not possible for Government to do that, not least because the insolvency service has to follow very specific rules in terms of creditors and what their parameters are to operate in the event of an insolvency. 'But I do think the owners of this company have profited from this business, and they should do the right thing by the workforce that delivered that for them.'
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
How to boost your pension pot now if you have no savings at all
Warnings that millions of people are heading for a retirement crisis due to a shortfall in pension savings are nothing new, but a new government review aims to tackle the issue to prevent a 'tsunami of pensioner poverty'. It's estimated that a single person will need more than £14,000 for every year of retirement, while a couple will need £22,000 to maintain a minimum level of lifestyle. It sounds a lot, but it is achievable without the need to immediately start stuffing thousands of pounds a month into an account. But how do you get there if you haven't already started saving? Check employer contributions If you're already in work, the first thing you should do is check if your employer pays the minimum three per cent of your salary or higher – some may well offer to match your own contributions, but this might only happen if you opt to pay more. For example, if you're paying in five per cent, your employer could raise their contributions by an additional two per cent, and it won't cost you anything extra or remove anything from your pay packet. Do remember to ask if it means you change pension plan, provider or anything else though, to make sure it suits your needs. Focus on building an emergency savings buffer Next, it's time to get that money in place so you don't need to worry about unexpected bills or costs. Experts say you should ideally have between three and six months' worth of expenses in an easy-access account paying a good level of interest, to cope with things such as the loss of a job, higher-than-expected living expenses or a major outlay for repairs or purchases. Again, if you're just starting out, it's important to forget the eventual size of the pension pot and focus on the first steps. If you are starting with nothing, open a new savings account and start to pay money in weekly or monthly, whichever helps you stay on track best. The consistency of seeing it grow will help you get used to building a savings buffer, and it doesn't matter if that begins with £5, £20 or whatever else you can initially afford. Cut expenses if you need to; one pint of beer fewer a week is about £6-8 (depending where you live), which could add to your savings, and one unused subscription cancelled is a monthly boost of even more than that. Regularity and time will see you hit your goals. And, if you are really in need of a quick boost to your savings, you can consider changing banks. Several will offer over £150 in cash or bring other perks to your account if you switch your current account. Check here for details, and always ensure you choose a bank or building society right for your needs, not just which offers the most immediate funds. Pensions contributions are no different The same process can see you boost your pension pot once you've got a chunk of savings you're happy with – plus, if you're putting money into a personal pension, you'll get tax relief too. For example, if you're a basic rate taxpayer and you put £80 into a pension pot, the government will add £20. Again, it seems small, but do that monthly over a 40-year work career and it's an extra £9,600 being put to work for your future. 'Putting your money away in a pension is a good place to start, rather than a standard savings or investing account. You get the perk of government tax relief on the money and this will significantly boost your pot over time, particularly as you benefit from investment returns on your own money,' said Laura Suter, director of personal finance at AJ Bell. 'The money will be locked up until your pension age, which is currently 57. It means that you can't dip into the cash if you needed it in the short term, so you need to bear that in mind, but it also means that you can't be tempted to dip into it before retirement. Even small contributions each month can add up. Putting away £100 a month, which then gets topped up to £125 a month after tax relief, would be worth almost £52,000 after 20 years, assuming 5 per cent investment growth a year after charges.' What if you earn more but have no pension? Pension concerns are far from limited to those with low earnings. There are plenty of reports, for example, of NHS staff – who would typically get a large employer contribution – opting out of that pension plan to receive a larger immediate salary because the cost of living is so high. If so, trying to take advantage before any possible rule changes might be wise. If you're a higher- or additional-rate taxpayer – with income over £50,270 this tax year – then making use of the extra tax relief can provide a huge boost to your retirement pot. There, instead of the aforementioned 20 per cent relief, you can get 40 or 45 per cent (whichever tax band you are in). The government will contribute at the basic tax rate, as your pension provider will claim it for you, and then you are able to claim the additional amounts by noting your pension contribution when you complete a self-assessment form for the tax year. It has been suggested that such relief may change in future, which makes it important to utilise existing allowances, says Reme Holland, a financial planning partner at accountancy firm Albert Goodman. 'My top advice would be to act now while we know the available allowances and reliefs,' he said. 'For an additional rate taxpayer, you can receive 45 per cent tax relief on your pension contributions, there is the ability to use the last three years of unused allowances via a mechanism known as carry forward. If a flat rate of tax relief is introduced, that could make it far more expensive to fund pension contributions in the future.'
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Greenpeace hails Italy court ruling allowing climate lawsuit against energy company ENI to go ahead
Italy's highest court has ruled that a lawsuit brought by climate activists against Italian energy company ENI and its government shareholders can go ahead, in what Greenpeace said on Tuesday was a victory for efforts to pursue climate justice in Italy. In an ordinance released on Monday, the Court of Cassation rejected ENI's motions to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds and ordered the case to be heard on its merits by a Rome tribunal. ENI, for its part, said that it was greatly satisfied with the decision, and it expected that the Rome court would ultimately 'dismantle' the climate activists' claims of responsibility. Greenpeace, environmental group ReCommon and a dozen Italian citizens had sued ENI and its two main government shareholders, the Italian finance ministry and development bank, in 2023 seeking damages for what they said were the effects of climate change. The plaintiffs cited their fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as Italy's ratification of various international climate accords and ENI's stated commitment to reaching climate reduction targets. ENI and the government sought to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional and other grounds, but the Cassation court ruled that the case could go ahead. For more than a century, scientists have known that large quantities of greenhouse gases, released from the burning of fossil fuels, go up into the atmosphere and heat the planet, leading to higher temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events that are both more frequent and more intense. Around the world in recent years, individuals, climate activist groups and local governments have sued energy companies and governments to try to force them to take concrete action to curb greenhouse gas emissions and compensate for losses associated with climate change. Greenpeace and ReCommon called the ruling historic, saying it would impact current and future climate-related litigation in Italy. They say it brings Italian courts in line with other European countries that have recognized the rights of people to try to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for global warming through lawsuits, and called the ruling itself one of the most significant in climate change litigation internationally. 'No one, not even a colossus like ENI, can escape its responsibilities anymore,' the two groups said in a statement. 'Judges will finally be able to examine the merits of our case: those who pollute and contribute to the climate crisis must answer for their actions.' ENI said that it welcomed the ruling. 'The proceedings can finally resume before the Court of Rome, where the unfounded theories put forward by Greenpeace and ReCommon regarding the alleged responsibility of Eni for climate change-related damages will be dismantled, in a context that is rigorous and respectful of the law, rather than driven by the instrumental, unfounded, and often misleading slogans of the two associations,' ENI said in a statement. While the ruling doesn't enter into the merits of the case, Greenpeace and Recommon highlighted the judges' determination that Italian courts can have jurisdiction over claims about emissions by ENI subsidiaries in foreign countries, since in this case, harm allegedly occurred in Italy and decisions were made by the Italy-based parent company.
