Agreed. There's so many issues with the article, it's kind of weird.
As you point out, they were hedging (and so did not see their bean prices go up), and even if they had, bean prices aren't even a major cost driver. But imagine, for a moment, that coffee beans were a major cost driver for Starbucks: The article suggests Starbucks' management should not be expected to manage these costs. That's ridiculous to the point of outright laughter.
In other news, Southwest execs say "damn, but there's just nothing we can be expected to do about fluctuating fuel prices" and analysts admit that Facebook "can't be expected to understand how to run large data centres; after all that's unrelated to their core business". </sarcasm>
As you point out, they were hedging (and so did not see their bean prices go up), and even if they had, bean prices aren't even a major cost driver. But imagine, for a moment, that coffee beans were a major cost driver for Starbucks: The article suggests Starbucks' management should not be expected to manage these costs. That's ridiculous to the point of outright laughter.
In other news, Southwest execs say "damn, but there's just nothing we can be expected to do about fluctuating fuel prices" and analysts admit that Facebook "can't be expected to understand how to run large data centres; after all that's unrelated to their core business". </sarcasm>