Bank of England dismisses Starbucks attack on coffee 'speculators'

[MarillionFan]

Starbucks are two faced conts. Starbucks set up businesses and pay high rents in order to push up the average rental values artificially high. As commercial rent reviews are based on the latest similar local rentals, smaller independent coffee shops are driven out due to high rents. It’s Starbucks way of getting rid of competition and distorting the market. Starbucks buys krap coffee beans anyway.

Exactly.

The only thing you see on the highstreet these days are coffee shops and hairdressers. They're the only bloody things you can't get over the internet. Coffee has a massive markup, hence they're the only twats who can afford the rents.

If they only served hot water it would still be £2 a cup!!!!

[Paddy]

Charlie Bean, the deputy Governor, and Paul Fisher, the executive director of markets, said prices tend to be underpinned by "fundamentals".

Addressing the recent crash and mini-rebound, Mr Fisher said: "There's always clearly some froth in markets. We saw that last week, that sort of move up and down can only be positioning in markets."

But he added: "Prices tend to be driven more by fundamentals." Mr Bean said: "Inherently ... you should expect the price to be quite volatile." (AtW's comment - he probably means tendency over long period of time...)

They were responding to Starbucks president Howard Schultz who said the price of commodities such as coffee is "not based on supply and demand"

Mr Schultz, who masterminded Starbucks' growth from four stores in Seattle to more than 17,000 worldwide, had attacked speculators for pushing up the price of coffee to a 34-year high.

Speaking in London as part of a book tour, Mr Schultz, who is also Starbucks' chairman and chief executive, said: "I don't know the rules and regulations in the UK but unfortunately in the US you can't identify who is buying the commodities. So there is no transparency. I just think it is [unfortunate that] at a time in the world where there is such concern over the economy, unemployment and the cost of food – not to mention the cost of oil – we could be in a position where we have inflationary prices on food not based on supply and demand. This is the first time in my 30-years of being in the coffee business where this exists.

"I don't think, by the way, that this is sustainable, however it is not a good situation for the consumer and I am not convinced that the farmers benefit from this," he said.

Source: Bank of England dismisses Starbucks attack on coffee 'speculators' - Telegraph

----------

So who is right then: pen pusher from BoE or someone who buys coffee for decades for one of the largest coffee companies?

Starbucks are two faced conts. Starbucks set up businesses and pay high rents in order to push up the average rental values artificially high. As commercial rent reviews are based on the latest similar local rentals, smaller independent coffee shops are driven out due to high rents. It’s Starbucks way of getting rid of competition and distorting the market. Starbucks buys krap coffee beans anyway.

[amcdonald]

Charlie Bean with a name like that there must a Columbian connection

[AtW]

Charlie Bean, the deputy Governor, and Paul Fisher, the executive director of markets, said prices tend to be underpinned by "fundamentals".

Addressing the recent crash and mini-rebound, Mr Fisher said: "There's always clearly some froth in markets. We saw that last week, that sort of move up and down can only be positioning in markets."

But he added: "Prices tend to be driven more by fundamentals." Mr Bean said: "Inherently ... you should expect the price to be quite volatile." (AtW's comment - he probably means tendency over long period of time...)

They were responding to Starbucks president Howard Schultz who said the price of commodities such as coffee is "not based on supply and demand"

Mr Schultz, who masterminded Starbucks' growth from four stores in Seattle to more than 17,000 worldwide, had attacked speculators for pushing up the price of coffee to a 34-year high.

Speaking in London as part of a book tour, Mr Schultz, who is also Starbucks' chairman and chief executive, said: "I don't know the rules and regulations in the UK but unfortunately in the US you can't identify who is buying the commodities. So there is no transparency. I just think it is [unfortunate that] at a time in the world where there is such concern over the economy, unemployment and the cost of food – not to mention the cost of oil – we could be in a position where we have inflationary prices on food not based on supply and demand. This is the first time in my 30-years of being in the coffee business where this exists.

"I don't think, by the way, that this is sustainable, however it is not a good situation for the consumer and I am not convinced that the farmers benefit from this," he said.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...eculators.html

----------

So who is right then: pen pusher from BoE or someone who buys coffee for decades for one of the largest coffee companies?