Dear GT, with all the very same due respect I have yet to see ANY evidence of the numbers you are trying to defend here - and not just me but the market has not seen this evidence, first of all, what an incredibly statement "we know Robusta production was 23.0 mln bags" --how on earth do we know that, how do YOU know that? There has NEVER been a SINGLE report, even if USDA has claimed conilon production as hgh as 22M-23M range, that actually proves the existence of such a big robusta crop in Brazil, and I have visited Espirito Santo since my first trip to Brazil over 22 years ago and LONG before concilon even started expanding.
As for so-called "pipeline stocks" we have zero evidence of ANY pipeline stocks from the last year and the only year where there potentially was a possibility of surplus stocks, call it or include this in the figure for pipeline stocks if you want to but it's not going to make a difference, would have been the 2020 crop. And I can say with the very same assertiveness that you proclaim that "we know Brazil's 2020 harvest was no where NEAR 70M bags and even less 74M bags." But you are not answering my question GT, because if the 2020 Brazil crop HAD been even as high as 66M-68M, where did that coffee go? If there had been actual pipeline stocks from 2020 they would have been delivered into a port warehouse LONG ago, and yet the only actually measurable figure for stocks that we have in ports in IMPORTING countries -- Japan is extremely stable so we are only counting Europe and U.S. certified warehouses -- never increased in ANY meaningful way. If there has been 1-2 months from the end of the 2020 crop through the 2 years until now - when even with all the logistics pandemic excuses which are grossly exaggerated - for sure the 2020 crop including every single back of pipeline stocks HAVE been delivered and there was NEVER any replenishment of stocks. Sorry, but the figures do NOT match, 2+2 does not = 5.
Working stocks? Another popular term that some analysts like Judith Ganes still like to refer to this, but the basic fact is that ever since the international financial crisis 2009-2010 no commercials except a very few big exemptions are holding working stocks anymore and roasters from tiny garage artisan roasters to very sizable medium roasters have learned to live with ONLY what they need for the next 2-4-6 weeks ahead, but do NOT any longer hold 2-3-4 months worth of supply. Only notable exemption here would be the Brazil industry that DOES hold 2-3 months worth of PURCHASED stocks in VERY individually-based facilities, and since this is coffee already purchased and set aside for specific use this is NOT included or accounting for stocks.
Your comment as to I am "not happy with the stock number" I wonder if this a language or translation issue? I do not have any problems about stock figures, on the contrary, it's all very simple, so this comment about why I "think it should be lower" is either not correct or completely misunderstood. It's a fact that we have much less stocks today, both globally and in Brazil, as we had in 1997 when Arabica prices hit 2nd highest levels ever BUT world consumption today is double that of back then. Hence world stocks are at decade lows, and that's not something I am making up but based on reliable numbers from importing countries. The stock numbers that never have been reliable are those that USDA and others LOVE to publish as being figures originating from producing countries when USDA even has acknowledged that they don't even HAVE physical staff in any producing countries any longer, so just HOW and on what basis can such a figure be justified? It cannot, and what we DO know is that it is NOT possible for growing countries, or even multinationals in producing countries, to hold any significant volumes of stocks because i takes up too much space, is much too costly and the infrastructure simply is NOT there!! So no, your comment about
What I also frequently recognize in public forums - such as Twitter but not sure if you follow any of my work - is that Brazil has always proven to be able to "find" 1M-2M bags more in any given year, but this is not a figure that in the last 8-10 years have been getting even REMOTELY close to 5M bags and completely IMPOSSIBLE for anyone, even multiple players, to hold 14M bags - I'm sorry but that is simply ridiculous, this would be equivalent to 10 entire copies of the Cooxupe "Japy" storage facility with a capacity close to 1.4M bags which is THE only one in the world and THE only one even in Brazil, and no other facility or exporter comes close, again, because of space limitations, costs and lack of infrastructure to administer such a huge facilities.
If your 14M-bag figure for 2014 in alleged "stocks" for Brazil -- which I would LOVE to see in print somewhere with a detailed list of exactly WHERE and in how many locations and what numbers all this coffee was held in "stocks" in Brazil -- ever has existed, that would include between 10M-12M bags of coffee SOLD and PURCHASED and held by private industry participants as ALWAYS have been the tradition in Brazil, but this does NOT count toward stocks. And yes, I will therefor say that what you are suggesting to be possible in regard to stocks in Brazil is entirely IMPOSSIBLE and simply NOT happening.
Here you again say that I "do not like the stock number" ???? I am really trying to understand what you mean, because it's never been about liking or not liking a stock number, but I chose to ONLY use numbers that can ACTUALLY be verified. ANd in terms of what is realistic or NOT realistic I will go back to a point I have made for the past 10-15-20 years and that is the very vast majority of people participating in the coffee market has NOT realized - for what ever reason - how very dramatically the socio-economic conditions have entirely changed the possibility for small-holder growers accounting for 90-95% of the world's entire producers and over 50-60% of production has changed DRAMATICALLY since the early beginnings of the Millennium. Hence when it comes to what is "realistic" any single calculation HAS to be based on not just cultivated land and yield but MANY more very specific details to how demographics, local politics and MUCH more indicators actively impact the realistic outcome of a production cycle. Hence I do get to numbers that are lower than your and other here BUT that does not make them less credible but on the contrary ACTUALLY is based on what DOES "jive with the conditions the the coffee park endure" across the world, and that include over 60 coffee producing countries where I personally have conducted reporting and research.
What I do find astonishing is how this forum here deliberately IGNORES my own numbers for Brazil in the "median consensus" number published, as well as this forum also CHOOSES to ignore all other figures in the lower rank from producer groups in Brazil. How can you possibly "help the community" when you ignore a bunch of information simply because you disagree with it? The forum here are happy to publish numbers from Judith Ganes, who ONLY has visited coffee farms and some growing regions in Brazil during the last 18 months and have ZERO comparative basis for how she reaches her numbers, all on her own and with no published methodology for how she possibly even get to her number - but at the same time the forum ignores to include my numbers even though I have made regular crop trips ACROSS all producing regions in Brazil for over 22 years, as well as the forum ignores producer groups like Sincal, the Consejo and Procafe. My numbers are actually NOT that low as some here tempt to believe, but unless the forum is willing to include ALL numbers, such reports should not be published as "median" or average for how the Brazil forecasts are coming in, because - since you mention this - this is definitively HURTING the community more than the other way around!
I have never had ANY problem with agreeing to disagree - on the contrary I do that all the time and that IS why I have such a big following on Twitter and elsewhere, even if that somehow is surprising to many here - and when it comes to Brazil, as I also constantly repeat, we will never have people across the market agreeing on a single number. This is not - unlike what you seem to argue - about being more realistic or not, but simply about recognizing the many different numbers and ways people use to reach their calculations.
As for you being "more bullish" than me, that is a hilarious statement - which I say as a compliment - and I will reply to that in a different comment all together!!
« Back to index