2010 prices, Clos Rougeard

originally posted by Kay Bixler:
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
But, I'd hope that those who try to enjoy wine in a Disorderly manner can imagine a wine being wasted when employed as a status symbol, rather than a beverage.
Click to expand...

Jim, all I'm trying to say really is that as wine geeks we are all guilty of this on some level and are in no position to judge.

Sorry for sassin' you.
Click to expand...

True enough. At least we try, some of the time.

It's just annoying when high rollers who can't find the Jura on a map and have never had a Poulsard start demanding allocations of Houillon. The wine market is a market, so even retailers who want to do the right thing are somewhat hamstrung.

I do agree with a prior comment that the spirit of the bored is not so much to gripe about a wine becoming expensive as to suggest other bottles without cachet. In that vein, all those who find Ganevat too pricy should check out Buronfosse. The wines differ of course, but they have similar terroir and can be similarly lovely.
 
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
The wine market is a market, so even retailers who want to do the right thing are somewhat hamstrung.
Click to expand...

Except in France, where they seem curiously impervious. Some intangible values prevail?
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
The wine market is a market, so even retailers who want to do the right thing are somewhat hamstrung.
Click to expand...

Except in France, where they seem curiously impervious. Some intangible values prevail?
Click to expand...

IME, that's not exactly true.
 
Speaking as someone who is part owner of a retail establishment, it's a really tough thing. On the one hand, we have to buy a lot of shit to get Rougeard and we buy a lot of shit that we think is great which just sits around.

For example, we have Burgundies from Louis Boillot which we think are fantastic, we even have some 2008 1er Champonnets, at really good pricing sitting around collecting dust. Every day they sit around, we are losing money (it's a COD state). From a business perspective, shouldn't we make money on something that doesn't even hit the shelves before it is sold out? OTOH, that makes us part of the commodification of wines that we love and have been buying for years.

Noel opted to take a standard mark-up rather than price to market. I guess the hope there is that the folks who get an allocation from us at under market pricing will favor us with their business for other wines.

So there's the dilemma. Take the money and run or leave some money on the table and hope for longer term loyalty. Not an easy thing to decide.
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
But, I'd hope that those who try to enjoy wine in a Disorderly manner can imagine a wine being wasted when employed as a status symbol, rather than a beverage.
Click to expand...

Jim, all I'm trying to say really is that as wine geeks we are all guilty of this on some level and are in no position to judge.

Sorry for sassin' you.
Click to expand...

And the longer you've been in, the more wines you've seen this happen to. Once upon a time, everything was available to anyone (at least as a special occasion).

Better not sass me, boy.
 
Every day they sit around, we are losing money (it's a COD state). From a business perspective, shouldn't we make money on something that doesn't even hit the shelves before it is sold out?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have stuck to academics and leave business to the bean counters?

With 0% interest rates, it is hard to see how you are 'losing money' on something you have in stock. You're a business, and can write off losses, right? I've noticed many businesses have an aversion to collecting on these.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
Every day they sit around, we are losing money (it's a COD state). From a business perspective, shouldn't we make money on something that doesn't even hit the shelves before it is sold out?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have stuck to academics and leave business to the bean counters?

With 0% interest rates, it is hard to see how you are 'losing money' on something you have in stock. You're a business, and can write off losses, right? I've noticed many businesses have an aversion to collecting on these.
Click to expand...

No one is giving small businesses like ours a line of credit, so interest rates have nothing to do with our profitability. Thus, the time cost of money starts eating into the profit of wine the minute we get it. If you look at forgone profits as losing money (and not necessarily having the bottle itself go into the red), then we lose money the second it hits the shelf and the question is only how much.

Anything that sits around eats into the profitability of the business as a whole. There is no "collecting" on loses. I can use any K-1 loses against profits from another passive income stream or my income.
 
we don't need to go too deep in this, but time value of money is a function of the comparable investment return rate and the rate of inflation; so in a low interest (i.e., reinvestment) and low inflation environment, the stockist does indeed "lose" less money when inventory sits around unsold than in a high interest rate-high inflation environment. BUT, if the comparison is to opportunity cost, even in the low/low environment we have now, the stockist prefers to move inventory, make his mark-up and reinvest in new inventory to allow the cycle to begin again. As for the whole topic of passive activity losses, my guess is that, unlike organic chemistry, which is harder, but has intrinsic benefits and interestingness, it is well beyond what should be of any interest to the denizens of this bored. (I consulted knowledgeable persons and they concurred.)
 
You sure can. Unless you disagree. I was thinking of course of you and Joe. You guys always make/made it seem more interesting than tax law. But maybe that isn't the highest bar....
 
originally posted by kirk wallace:
we don't need to go too deep in this, but time value of money is a function of the comparable investment return rate and the rate of inflation; so in a low interest (i.e., reinvestment) and low inflation environment, the stockist does indeed "lose" less money when inventory sits around unsold than in a high interest rate-high inflation environment. BUT, if the comparison is to opportunity cost, even in the low/low environment we have now, the stockist prefers to move inventory, make his mark-up and reinvest in new inventory to allow the cycle to begin again. As for the whole topic of passive activity losses, my guess is that, unlike organic chemistry, which is harder, but has intrinsic benefits and interestingness, it is well beyond what should be of any interest to the denizens of this bored. (I consulted knowledgeable persons and they concurred.)
Click to expand...

Kirk, thanks for clarifying. I guess my situation is more opportunity cost than time value of money since the business is not in the business of investing and the way I was thinking about it is more opportunity cost. Inventory is money sitting idly instead of churning and we need churn or else we have to close the doors.

If you're ever in the neighborhood, I hope you'll come by Rue Cler and let me pester you with tax law questions.
 
originally posted by VLM:

For example, we have Burgundies from Louis Boillot which we think are fantastic, we even have some 2008 1er Champonnets, at really good pricing sitting around collecting dust.
Click to expand...

Come to NYC, open some of the wines and maybe you'll make some sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top