bogarde73 wrote on Aug 18
th, 2016 at 7:23am:
The limited partnership business structure which Aldi chooses to use is an old model and perfectly legal.
Nobody has ever said that it isn’t, as far as I am aware. It has been around since the 1890s, although these days it seems to mainly be used for venture capital enterprises. It is a rather odd choice for a national retailer though, given that it is State and not Commonwealth legislation.
bogarde73 wrote on Aug 18
th, 2016 at 7:23am:
My guess is they choose that because it is a much cheaper structure to run than a public company structure today with all the red tape & disclosure rules that apply.
There would be no point in incorporating as a Public Company if you want to restrict the shareholders and directors to just one or two individuals, and do not want to raise money by issuing shares. A more logical option would be to incorporate as a Proprietary Limited Company, but that would mean that they would either have to have their accounts audited, or lodge financial documentation with ASIC, although the requirements for such companies are much less stringent than they are for Public Companies. The fact that a Limited Partnership does not have to publish its financial results is probably the real reason that they opted for this rather unusual structure. It helps them hide how much wealth they take out of Australia and send to Germany.
bogarde73 wrote on Aug 18
th, 2016 at 7:23am:
As a partmership they are not obliged to publish accounts or their tax details any more than a private citizen is, but they are still bound by all other laws such as cover employment, competition, advertising etc. And like any sole trader, partnership or company operating here they must account to the ATO.
The documents lodged with the ATO would show what the expenses and profits are, amongst other things, but would the documents lodged with the ATO detail how the expenses are calculated? For all we know, there could be millions being siphoned off overseas, without tax being paid, as licensing fees that are included in these expenses.
bogarde73 wrote on Aug 18
th, 2016 at 7:23am:
Do you object to them being foreign owned? Or able to undercut the big2?
I do prefer to do my shopping at a shop that is Australian owned. Do you really want to see Australia’s wealth go overseas or would you rather shop where you would see most of the profits stay here in Australia? I would rather buy from an Australian-owned company, as doing so is more likely to ensure a future for our grandchildren.
I do occasionally shop at Aldi, but I usually go elsewhere for most of what I buy (you can’t get everything you want in Aldi anyway). Some of their home brand products are good, some of them are not. It’s a bit of a lottery.
I do dislike their dressing up of generic home brand type goods as something resembling brand names, aping competitor’s logos and packaging in a way that must come close to infringing copyright. I do not like their insistence on paying full price for damaged goods, and I do not like the way they publicly state a pricing policy that they do not adhere to. I also can’t believe the savings that they claim can be made from shopping there - I recall one advertisement about a year ago that claimed someone was saving an amount on their weekly shopping that was more than half of what most people would spend in total each week.