George Chen

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

When you walk around Hong Kong’s Central commercial and business district these days, you may notice a number of stores are holding “removal sales”, which means they can no longer remain in the same location. The reason? In most cases, just blame soaring rents.

Many analysts have forecast declines in residential and commercial property prices in Hong Kong for next year, although at a stable pace rather than a sharp drop. This may be true for some suburban areas where purchase options are more plentiful than those in downtown areas, but until that happens, prices are likely to keep rising, at least for the rest of the year.

A couple of years ago, mobile phone industry leader Nokia took a moderately sized space on Russell Road in Causeway Bay just opposite Times Square, one of the busiest shopping districts in Asia, for its flagship store in Hong Kong. Local media said the store used to be one of Nokia’s busiest in Asia, thanks to mainland Chinese travelers. But the good old days are going to end soon.

The Hong Kong Economic Times reported on October 27 that British luxury brand Burberry had signed a new lease with the owner of a site currently occupied by Nokia. Burberry is said to have agreed to pay HK $6.5 million (about US $836,600) per month for the two-floor 5,200 square foot space,versus the HK $1.8 million that Nokia is paying.

When the news came out, the reaction from the market was quite naturally, “Wow”. One reader on Sina Weibo, China’s most popular micro-blogging service, wondered: “How many coats and bags will Burberry need to sell to cover the monthly rent?” In Hong Kong, a coat or bag at Burberry usually sells for about HK $10,000-15,000. You can do your own calculations.

Burberry is not alone.

Bidding wars for prime retail locations in Hong Kong have been heating up in recent months. Some analysts call this a typical “changing hands season” for Hong Kong’s high-end property market. The only key to victory is price.

Asia’s leading fashion brand Shanghai Tang opened its first shop in the mid-1990s on the ground floor of the historic Pedder Building on Central’s Pedder Street. The same location will soon be home to a new name.

U.S. fashion brand Abercrombie & Fitch, known for welcoming customers to its flagship store on Fifth Avenue in New York City with muscular male models, will reportedly pay about $1 million per month for the location, 2.5 times more than the rent Shanghai Tang paid.

Despite the surprisingly fast rising rents in Central, Shanghai Tang, now owned by Richemont, one of the world’s leading luxury goods groups, is keen to stay in the Pedder Building, but has decided to move upstairs where rents are cheaper, local media reported.

Luxury brands are rushing into Hong Kong to tap the fast-growing demand from middle-class consumers from mainland China who swarm to Hong Kong to buy luxury products at prices far cheaper than in mainland China. U.S. upscale bag maker Coach is said to be planning to float shares in Hong Kong in the wake of Prada’s successful listing in the financial centre.

Local Hong Kong people and even some government officials and legislators in the former British colony have already complained about the quantity of money flowing into Hong Kong from the mainland, pushing property prices higher than the city’s towering skyscrapers.

Perhaps, the fast-growing retail rents willingly paid by global luxury brands can also be blamed on the luxury-loving mainland consumers who are becoming their best customers.

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: The closing Shanghai Tang store in Central, Hong Kong, seen on Oct. 26, 2011. REUTERS/George Chen

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

It could be the perfect story to show how China Inc and its American partner can work together for a win-win result, but Chinese consumers are having second thoughts on this.

Earlier this year, upscale U.S. handbag and accessory maker Coach said it planned to list in Hong Kong to reflect the growing importance of China’s luxury market. Coach didn’t give a timeframe for the IPO plan, but one thing is fairly certain – before Coach launches its IPO, its local partner in the small city of Dongguan, near Hong Kong, will aim to rise $200 million first.

The company, Sitoy (Dongguan) Leather Products has hired Bank of America-Merrill Lynch for a Hong Kong listing by the end of November. In IPO marketing materials distributed to potential investors, Sitoy described itself as the largest handbag OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in China, although it didn’t name any of its clients.

However, Chinese netizens quickly found out from the company’s website (www.sitoy.hk) that one of Sitoy’s OEM clients is Coach, a  New York-based brand popular among China’s fast-growing middle-class. In China, Coach prices are far lower than those for top-tier brands such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci, although it is still considered a luxury brand among consumers in the world’s No.2 economy.

“Why not buy expensive Caoch bags directly from the Dongguan factory? I believe the cost must be very cheap,” said one Sina Weibo user in response to the news. Foreign brands — not only luxury fashion brands but also consumer electronic makers — have many OEM partners in China, although they are often reluctant to identify them to avoid such unsatisfaction from local customers.

In a company newsletter dated May 31, published on Sitoy’s website, the top headline is about senior executives of Coach visiting the factory and expressing satisfaction with Sitoy’s products for Coach. It’s now seems likely that at least some of Coach’s handbags are designed in New York but manufactured in Dongguan.

Coach was already in trouble after Chinese media pointed out that Coach handbags are much more expensive in China than they are in the United States, sometimes with a difference of hundreds of U.S. dollars. When the news about the OEM factory in Dongguan started circulating on China’s Twitter-like micro-blogging service Sina Weibo, some consumers felt they had been cheated after spending thousands of yuan on a bag that was probably made in Dongguan, a city whose reputation is usually linked with cheap labor costs.

On Sitoy’s website, the company expresses pride in being an example of the small city’s success as the world’s factory for shoes, garments and so on. Sitoy is in a position to list in Hong Kong, largely thanks to cheap labor costs and strong OEM demand from global clients such as Coach. But the case of Sitoy and Coach that is causing such frustration among Chinese consumers also raises the question of how luxury brands can keep selling at high prices while reducing costs.

Other fashion and leather brands including Salvatore Ferragamo and Burberry have said they do not plan to manufacture products in China, although Burberry has chosen other countries such as Turkey to make some low-end products such as T-shirts.

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: A Coach store in Hong Kong’s Central financial and business district, seen on Dec. 6, 2008. REUTERS/George Chen