Professor Morten Hviid is. He wrote (in his reponse to the BIS consultation on proposed intervention between tenants and pub companies:
"If the market really is competitive as claimed, then increasing the fixed costs of the industry will lead to exit until the price has increased to cover these additional costs. "
But that's not right is it? That would only be the case (at the retailing end) if variable costs remained the same. But the whole point is to give the option of buying beer out of tie (at lower cost), increasing the gross profit available to those tenants who chose that option. And doesn't this then increase the incentive for the tenant to sell beer (they would get to keep more of the profit), while offering pubcos some insulation from the actual wet beer market (they'd have a portfolio of market rents to wave at their shareholders / lenders)?
Wouldn't a FOT option allow tenants to obtain a higher share of the profit while accepting a higher risk? Or, alternatively, allow them to choose the tie for lower risk & lower profit. And contrariwise for the pubco? There being only so much risk (and profit) to go around.
Spook Me, Please: What Psychology Tells Us About the Appeal of Halloween - *By guest blogger *Mathias Clasen It’s the time of year, at least in our part of the world, when darkness encroaches on us—literally and metaphorically. T...
6 hours ago