Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Strategic decision · 1997–2018

Sa Sa lost money in Taiwan for six years — then closed all 21 stores at once

Hong Kong's cosmetics chain expanded to Taiwan, posted six consecutive years of losses, and shuttered all 21 stores in 2018 to focus on China.

Sa Sa International · 2018-02-21

What happened

Sa Sa International, the Hong Kong cosmetics retailer founded in 1978 by Simon Kwok, entered Taiwan in 1997 and opened 21 stores across Taipei, Taoyuan, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung. Listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since 1997, Sa Sa was a dominant player in Hong Kong's cosmetics retail market with over 280 stores across Asia at its peak.

The Taiwan operations never turned a profit. Sa Sa posted losses for six consecutive years. For the 10 months to January 2018, Taiwan sales fell 11.5% year-on-year to HK$154.3 million — just 2.5% of group turnover. Yuanta Securities estimated the Taiwan division lost approximately HK$16 million in 2017 alone. The company tried reorganising the management team, cutting costs, and improving operational efficiency, but none of it worked.

On 21 February 2018, Sa Sa announced it would close all 21 Taiwan stores by 31 March 2018, affecting approximately 260 employees. Chairman Simon Kwok said: 'The group's performance in Taiwan has been persistently weak and the possibility of improvements is low into the foreseeable future.' The company redirected resources to mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia, and e-commerce. The stock rose 2.15% on the announcement — investors welcomed the exit.

Why it happened

  • Sa Sa entered Taiwan in 1997 and never found a competitive edge. The brand's Hong Kong identity did not translate, and local incumbents already owned the cosmetics retail space.
  • Six consecutive years of losses should have triggered an exit much earlier. The sunk-cost fallacy kept stores open past any rational recovery point.
  • The Taiwan exit mirrored Sa Sa's Singapore exit a year later — same company, same failure pattern, same inability to compete outside Hong Kong.
What it cost21 stores closed; ~260 staff; HK$16M loss; 6 years of lossescostly

The lesson

A dominant home-market retailer does not automatically succeed next door. If local incumbents own the customer, six years of losses is not a strategy — it is a refusal to admit the thesis was wrong.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →