Why does Warren Buffett hate oenophiles?

By Guest Contributor
November 8, 2010


By David White
The opinions expressed are his own.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway recently purchased Tennessee’s largest alcoholic beverage distributor. This move comes just months after Berkshire Hathaway also acquired liquor distributors in Georgia and North Carolina.

This is a bad sign for consumers. It’s yet more proof that America’s anachronistic system of alcohol distribution is here to stay. This system — which exists only because of government regulations — stifles consumer choice and keeps prices artificially high.

The laws that keep consumers away from alcohol date back to prohibition. When the “Noble Experiment” was repealed in 1933, states were given the power to regulate alcohol within their borders. Some chose to take over the sale and distribution of alcohol. But just about every other state created a “wholesale tier” to sit between producers and consumers.

In part, this was at the urging of temperance activists and retailers. Prohibitionists blamed producers for all the ills associated with drunkenness. Restaurants and liquor stores didn’t like the power that producers could wield. By creating a middle tier, lawmakers hoped to weaken the influence of brewers and distillers. Instead, they simply made wholesalers incredibly powerful.

Southern Wine and Spirits, America’s largest liquor distributor — and one of the nation’s largest private companies — had revenues of nearly $8.5 billion in 2008.

Also in 2008, during the election cycle, the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) donated nearly $3 million to candidates for federal office. At the state level, the donations are even larger. Between 2000 and 2006, wholesalers contributed nearly $50 million to statewide campaigns, according to the Specialty Wine Retailers Association. In Texas, wholesalers spent more on campaign contributions in 2006 than every single labor union combined.

Those donations make sense. Wholesalers need politicians to keep the regulatory structure in place — their survival depends on it. But the three-tier structure is at direct odds with the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power that ensures free trade between the states. This Constitutional question was addressed, in part, by the 2005 Supreme Court case of Granholm v. Heald. In part because the case only dealt with direct wine sales.

When Americans started developing a taste for high-quality, small-production wines — and could find them, thanks to the internet and the tourism appeal of Northern California — many folks started ordering wine directly from the producers. Direct sales cut wholesalers out of the deal, so they spearheaded a campaign to prohibit winery-to-consumer shipping. By 1998, after a few years of aggressive lobbying, only 17 states were allowed to direct ship their wine.

Consumers responded with lobbying and lawsuits. By 2005, 27 states allowed some form of direct-to-consumer wine sales. In Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court justices ruled that states could only limit direct sales if laws were applied consistently. Put simply, lawmakers could only prohibit direct shipping from out-of-state wineries if states were willing to block their own wineries from shipping wine.

Because that decision was so narrow, all sorts of silly regulations have remained. In Alabama, citizens can only order wine directly if they’ve received approval from the state’s Beverage Control Board. In Delaware, consumers can only order from out-of-state wineries if the wine is ordered in person.

This year, wholesalers convinced Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) to introduce the “Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act.” A Wine Spectator investigation found that this proposal was literally written by NBWA.

This bill would roll back Granholm by affirming states’ rights to ignore the Commerce Clause when it comes to alcohol. And it would make it extremely difficult to challenge a state’s liquor laws in court.

The wholesaling industry claims that it’s pushing the bill to protect children and prevent tainted liquor from entering the supply chain.

Teens are certainly creative when it comes to getting their hands on booze, but it’s hard to imagine a 16-year-old shelling out a few hundred dollars for a California cult wine. The “tainted product” argument is just plain silly. No other industry needs a government-backed middleman to keep its supply chain safe.

In the United States today, there are nearly 7,000 wineries. Most wine shops and supermarkets, though, offer just a couple of brands — think Kendall Jackson, Sutter Home, and Beringer, the three best-selling wine brands in the United States.

The reason? It’s a lot easier for wholesalers to work with the big producers than seek out small labels. Kendall Jackson produces about 6 million cases annually, and most of its wine is cheap.

While this bill is great for the Kendall Jacksons, it is incredibly damaging for the smaller wineries – and consumers. It would cut many consumers off from online specialty retailers — wholesalers see interstate sales as a threat to the three-tier system. And it could hurt direct shipping from wineries.

Meanwhile, the bill further encourages even more consolidation in the wholesale industry. The nation’s six largest liquor wholesalers already control more than 50 percent of the market. So to gain access to most consumers, all the nation’s wineries are fighting for the attention of just a handful of companies.

Worse, this consolidation of wholesalers would also drive prices higher. It’s estimated that the existence of wholesalers adds nearly 25 percent to the price of every single alcoholic beverage, whether sold at a liquor store, bar, or restaurant.

Buffett’s acquisition of Tennessee’s Horizon Wine and Spirits suggests that he’s willing to bet on wholesalers over consumers. This is tragic for wine lovers — as it means a free market in wine is unlikely to emerge any time soon.

David White, a member of the Society of Wine Educators, is the founder and editor of Terroirist.com, a new wine blog.

Photo: Bottles of Barolo wine are seen on a wall at the Barolo wine museum in Barolo, south of Turin. REUTERS/Paolo Bona


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Good article. It is interesting to learn about all the ways our government is scamming the public with absolute impunity. This also gives good speculation for what might happen as “medical marijuana” becomes more mainstream; unless we can somehow convince our government officials that they will be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Posted by gonzo0013 | Report as abusive

Hi, you wrote Not necessarily.

Buffet could simply see that major brands–the kinds wholesalers are really built to handle–are underrepresented, or poorly distributed in TN. Or, he might have realized that Horizon is just plain inefficient and can easily double its operating margins by making a few small changes.

Even if direct shipping for wine becomes possible in all 50 states, it won’t put a dent into wholesale sales for the Gallos and Beringers of the world. My guess is that he sees the direct shipping issue as interesting but irrelevant.

Posted by jbmcc99 | Report as abusive

The heavy hitters in alcohol distribution are making a serious play at a monopoly on distribution. David White’s point about Warren Buffett betting on the wholesalers and distributors is very disturbing. There is now even more money behind the push to pass HR 5034. That’s a lot of lobbying muscle to an already strong lobbying group. Unfortunately it will be the consumer’s choices and ability to get these wines that will be the casualty in this effort, not to mention the thousands of wineries and breweries.

Posted by wineriff | Report as abusive

To take a contrarian position, one might hypothesize that Buffet loves enophiles, as by investing in wine distribution companies he is betting on continued growth in wine and spirits consumption in the U.S.
Nice tabloid-esque headline, though. It got me to take notice of the piece.

Posted by Joe_Cz | Report as abusive

I can only speak for tennessee but there are many more choices for consumers than in the big box and chain stores.Our prices are very competitive. Consumers here can still order the hard to find wines across the world. By the way there are plenty of wines that wholesalers would love to carry but the wineries want only to sell direct. Have you ever checked out the winery price on line and then go to a local store. The price is about the same and that is without shipping cost which is usually about 2 to 3 dollars per bottle. So I am not sure why the wineries are not selling it for a whole lot less.In Tenn.there are more wholesalers than in most big states.That brings competition.

Posted by utweb4 | Report as abusive