Member Info for Capitalinvest

It’s that time of year again — when parts of the Speedy supply chain are asked to provide “prebates” on orders that may not even materialise unless suppliers agree to the request.

Many of us have supported the business for years, but the pressure to provide upfront financial concessions — effectively before goods are supplied — raises serious questions about how sustainable this approach is across the supply chain.

At the same time, the narrative in the market is that conditions are improving and new business is being won. Yet across the industry it’s widely recognised that some of the most aggressive pricing appears to be directed at winning new customers, often at levels that seem difficult to sustain long term.

For suppliers, the practical effect is straightforward: we price accordingly. When suppliers are asked to provide financial concessions ahead of orders, those costs inevitably get built into pricing. In effect, suppliers end up acting as a source of short-term financing rather than simply providing products.

None of this is healthy for a long-term partnership model.

If you are a shareholder, it may be worth asking at the next results presentation how much reported performance is influenced by supplier prebates and similar arrangements linked to long-lifecycle capital equipment.

Strong supply chains rely on transparency, sustainable pricing and mutual trust. That benefits customers, suppliers and shareholders alike.

Following Speedy’s recent full-year results announcement, the reported £1.5M loss should prompt serious scrutiny from shareholders on this forum. Rather than drawing optimism from broad commentary about a recovering construction market, it’s important to acknowledge that the UK hire sector remains under pressure—a situation likely to persist for at least the next 12 months. Furthermore, any growth in the housing market offers limited benefit to Speedy, given the minimal exposure in that segment.

More troubling, however, is Speedy's continued reliance on pre-bates as a condition of supply. This is not a commercially viable or sustainable model for suppliers focused on delivering quality and service.

In our own experience, we were asked to heavily discount supply in support of Speedy’s recent contract wins, including with Amey, which were clearly secured on unsustainably low margins—a fact well recognised within the rental industry. This relentless drive for turnover in order to make the Velocity strategy appear successful is deeply concerning. It's a short-term fix that shifts commercial strain onto the supply chain, risking long-term damage.

It raises a key question: Of the £1.5M reported loss, how much worse would it have been without the millions extracted from suppliers through pre-bates and aggressive rate negotiations?

This model is unfair, unsustainable, and deeply concerning—not just for suppliers, but for investors assessing the true financial health of Speedy Hire.

I would a perspectives from others in the industry facing similar challenges.

As a large supplier to the hire industry, we’re increasingly frustrated with the way Speedy is approaching the supply chain. The growing demand for not just rebates but substantial pre-bates is shifting the focus away from quality and service, instead favoring those willing to prop up their profits ahead of year-end.

It raises serious questions—how much of Speedy’s financial performance is being supported by pre-bates rather than genuine trading? From discussions with other suppliers, it’s clear that many of us are being offered more business, but only if we agree to pay these pre-bates, often at the cost of other vendors.

This practice puts unnecessary pressure on suppliers and should also be a red flag for investors. Sustainable, long-term business should be built on partnerships, quality, and service—not artificial financial boosts. Would be great to hear others’ thoughts on this issue.