• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Agman Refuted by Tyson president and chief operating officer

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tyson forecast a second-quarter loss and projected fiscal 2006 income of 50 cents to 80 cents per share.



Analysts had been expecting 2006 earnings of $1.07 per share.



Beef lost $64 million for the quarter and executives said in a conference call that the segment is expected to have steeper losses in the second quarter.



“Beef was ugly,” John Tyson said.



Tyson president and chief operating officer Dick Bond said higher beef prices are not what they seem.



“Demand is not that good,” Bond said. “Prices are high, but supply is what’s driving that, not necessarily demand."


The whole article:

http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/28052.sh
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Where does Tyson contradict Agman?

Recently Agman gave a cattle on feed mention as well as a forcast of cattle prices being lower by about $5/cwt.

Remember Conman was the one who didn't even know what the cwt stood for.

Agman has never made a prediction on the boards as to Tyson making or losing money in a future quarter.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Where does Tyson contradict Agman?

Recently Agman gave a cattle on feed mention as well as a forcast of cattle prices being lower by about $5/cwt.

Remember Conman was the one who didn't even know what the cwt stood for.

Agman has never made a prediction on the boards as to Tyson making or losing money in a future quarter.


Jason, it is time for you to put up or shut up. Where do you get that I don't know what "cwt" stands for? Where did you make that up? Do you just have to make up stuff to post anything that is negative about my positions? Bring your little "proof" that I did not know what "cwt" stands for. You need to jog your own memory, not claim it as anyone else's memory. You have probably been reading too many private messages by someone other than me and believing them.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Are you really that dumb conman, or do you suffer from memory problems?

It was over the poor example you tried to prove about hamburger ground from the entire animal.

I asked if you could explain cwt and you diverted away from it like the plague.

If you never answer a question it gets pretty easy to see the level of you intelligence.

By the way nice diversion away from your lie about Tyson refuting Agman.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Are you really that dumb conman, or do you suffer from memory problems?

It was over the poor example you tried to prove about hamburger ground from the entire animal.

I asked if you could explain cwt and you diverted away from it like the plague.

If you never answer a question it gets pretty easy to see the level of you intelligence.

By the way nice diversion away from your lie about Tyson refuting Agman.

You have been smoking something, Jason. Just because I don't spend my time getting into the habit of answering all your stupid little questions doesn't mean I don't know the answers. It might just mean that the arguments you present are just not worth my time.

I hate to tell you how conceited you are, but you pushed me into it.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Oh what a zinger! I am hurt :roll:

So back to the real topic, how did Tyson refute Agman?

They didn't.

I've lost track how many lies that brings you to.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
Oh what a zinger! I am hurt :roll:

So back to the real topic, how did Tyson refute Agman?

They didn't.

I've lost track how many lies that brings you to.

Read the bold print. Then go read the old threads, Jason. You might want to take your packer backer glasses off first.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
The bold print doesn't contradict anything Agman has ever stated.

HE CLEARLY SAID NUMBERS WERE TIGHT.

You are the idiot that said prices can't climb unless supplies drop. It is one factor, but other factors are at play. The author says demand is lower for beef. Consumers are backing away from higher priced product AS AGMAN PREDICTED THEY WOULD.

The packers still need cattle unless they are ready to slow the chains. The lower price of boxed beef lowers their margins when they have to compete for smaller numbers of cattle. It is better so far to lose some money paying feeders for cattle than lose more by slowing production.

Care to try again conman?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
The bold print doesn't contradict anything Agman has ever stated.

HE CLEARLY SAID NUMBERS WERE TIGHT.

You are the idiot that said prices can't climb unless supplies drop. It is one factor, but other factors are at play. The author says demand is lower for beef. Consumers are backing away from higher priced product AS AGMAN PREDICTED THEY WOULD.

The packers still need cattle unless they are ready to slow the chains. The lower price of boxed beef lowers their margins when they have to compete for smaller numbers of cattle. It is better so far to lose some money paying feeders for cattle than lose more by slowing production.

Care to try again conman?

Jason, you have clearly shown you are the new Canadian packer backer SH imitator.

I hope you get your operation reversed, for all our sakes.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Tyson forecast a second-quarter loss and projected fiscal 2006 income of 50 cents to 80 cents per share.



Analysts had been expecting 2006 earnings of $1.07 per share.



Beef lost $64 million for the quarter and executives said in a conference call that the segment is expected to have steeper losses in the second quarter.



“Beef was ugly,” John Tyson said.



Tyson president and chief operating officer Dick Bond said higher beef prices are not what they seem.



“Demand is not that good,” Bond said. “Prices are high, but supply is what’s driving that, not necessarily demand."


The whole article:

http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/28052.sh

Where did he contradict anything I said? Was production up or down in the last quarter of 2005 and for the year? Beef production and the makeup of that supply are two entirely different conditions. That is way over your head Conman.

Since you will never answer a question truthfully as you most often don't know the answer or you will simply twist and lie I will answer the questions from above for readers.

Beef production for 2005 was ABOVE the previous year as was fourth quarter beef production. Beef demand declined 2.65% for the year of 2005 and 2.98% for the fourth quarter. I stated throughout the year that the squeeze on discretionary income and spending, a result of record energy prices, would limit beef demand and favor the competing meats especially chicken. That is precisely what occurred. Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?

When Dick Bond referred to supply the reference was not to total beef production rather to events that limited the supply of choice cattle. First, sustained average high temperatures this summer knocked the grading as much as 33%-40% in Kansas and to a lesser degree in Texas and Nebraska. That is what caused the market to turn up in mid-August when the sustained heat stress manifested itself in lower grading cattle. Second, a severe snow storm hit Nebraska, especially in the central region, in late November. That not only adversely affected the grading of those cattle but also it deferred some of their marketing dates by as much as 6-8 weeks. To a lesser degree the Midwest was also adversely affected by wet and adverse feeding conditions. That said, beef production was still higher in the fourth quarter of 2005 than 2004.
So Conman, how did Dick Bond from Tyson contradict anything that I said? What twist and lie will you dream up this time? Your lack of any real knowledge of the beef industry shows with every post you make. That is truly pathetic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Another classic example of your inability to back any of your lies.

Show everyone where anything Agman has stated was refuted in this article.

BRING IT CONMAN!

Observe the diversion.....................


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Tyson forecast a second-quarter loss and projected fiscal 2006 income of 50 cents to 80 cents per share.



Analysts had been expecting 2006 earnings of $1.07 per share.



Beef lost $64 million for the quarter and executives said in a conference call that the segment is expected to have steeper losses in the second quarter.



“Beef was ugly,” John Tyson said.



Tyson president and chief operating officer Dick Bond said higher beef prices are not what they seem.



“Demand is not that good,” Bond said. “Prices are high, but supply is what’s driving that, not necessarily demand."


The whole article:

http://www.ellinghuysen.com/news/articles/28052.sh

Where did he contradict anything I said? Was production up or down in the last quarter of 2005 and for the year? Beef production and the makeup of that supply are two entirely different conditions. That is way over your head Conman.

Since you will never answer a question truthfully as you most often don't know the answer or you will simply twist and lie I will answer the questions from above for readers.

Beef production for 2005 was ABOVE the previous year as was fourth quarter beef production. Beef demand declined 2.65% for the year of 2005 and 2.98% for the fourth quarter. I stated throughout the year that the squeeze on discretionary income and spending, a result of record energy prices, would limit beef demand and favor the competing meats especially chicken. That is precisely what occurred. Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?

When Dick Bond referred to supply the reference was not to total beef production rather to events that limited the supply of choice cattle. First, sustained average high temperatures this summer knocked the grading as much as 33%-40% in Kansas and to a lesser degree in Texas and Nebraska. That is what caused the market to turn up in mid-August when the sustained heat stress manifested itself in lower grading cattle. Second, a severe snow storm hit Nebraska, especially in the central region, in late November. That not only adversely affected the grading of those cattle but also it deferred some of their marketing dates by as much as 6-8 weeks. To a lesser degree the Midwest was also adversely affected by wet and adverse feeding conditions. That said, beef production was still higher in the fourth quarter of 2005 than 2004.
So Conman, how did Dick Bond from Tyson contradict anything that I said? What twist and lie will you dream up this time? Your lack of any real knowledge of the beef industry shows with every post you make. That is truly pathetic.


Beef was ugly,” John Tyson said.



Tyson president and chief operating officer Dick Bond said higher beef prices are not what they seem.



“Demand is not that good,” Bond said. “Prices are high, but supply is what’s driving that, not necessarily demand."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman:"Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?"

I thought we went through this before, Agman. Increase in consumption and prices at the same time is not necessarily an indicator of a shift in demand upward. You need to go back and read Schroeder's article again, Agman.

You began using some of the operative words in another post, "when all other things are held constant". Unless you show your work, your economic interpretation in these matters is just a bunch of hoooey. You may be able to fool your packer backers, but it is not hard to lead the mindless. If you are promising them a brain at the end of the yellow brick road, I think they will all be disappointed. I know I have been disappointed in their economic acuity. Yours is nothing more than a wizard's elaborate deception.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman:"Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?"

I thought we went through this before, Agman. Increase in consumption and prices at the same time is not necessarily an indicator of a shift in demand upward. You need to go back and read Schroeder's article again, Agman.

You began using some of the operative words in another post, "when all other things are held constant". Unless you show your work, your economic interpretation in these matters is just a bunch of hoooey. You may be able to fool your packer backers, but it is not hard to lead the mindless. If you are promising them a brain at the end of the yellow brick road, I think they will all be disappointed. I know I have been disappointed in their economic acuity. Yours is nothing more than a wizard's elaborate deception.

Where did I use those operative words regarding Tyson's comment? Two separate issues fool; don't you know the difference? Please scroll up to my comments concerning Tyson and copy those words!! Another lie that you cannot backup-par for you.

If you think I am wrong then proceed to prove it hero!!!! All your previous accusations have been unsupported, so is this one. Why would you want me to reference Schroeder's study when you previously claimed the study was faulty? Watch Conman provide an elaborate dissertation that will be totally meaningless as usual.

Accusing someone of being mindless must be your echo on the rebound. You remain the most inept person to ever post on these forums-a total joke everyday-a true mental midget. Better luck arguing with yourself next time as you get squashed everytime you post on these forums Conman.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ's signature:
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. Plato

Econ, is it because you are so incredibly wise that you are averaging 12.7 posts per day on this site or is it the latter part of Plato's quote that your trying to live up to?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Agman:"Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?"

I thought we went through this before, Agman. Increase in consumption and prices at the same time is not necessarily an indicator of a shift in demand upward. You need to go back and read Schroeder's article again, Agman.

You began using some of the operative words in another post, "when all other things are held constant". Unless you show your work, your economic interpretation in these matters is just a bunch of hoooey. You may be able to fool your packer backers, but it is not hard to lead the mindless. If you are promising them a brain at the end of the yellow brick road, I think they will all be disappointed. I know I have been disappointed in their economic acuity. Yours is nothing more than a wizard's elaborate deception.

Where did I use those operative words regarding Tyson's comment? Two separate issues fool; don't you know the difference? Please scroll up to my comments concerning Tyson and copy those words!! Another lie that you cannot backup-par for you.

If you think I am wrong then proceed to prove it hero!!!! All your previous accusations have been unsupported, so is this one. Why would you want me to reference Schroeder's study when you previously claimed the study was faulty? Watch Conman provide an elaborate dissertation that will be totally meaningless as usual.

Accusing someone of being mindless must be your echo on the rebound. You remain the most inept person to ever post on these forums-a total joke everyday-a true mental midget. Better luck arguing with yourself next time as you get squashed everytime you post on these forums Conman.

Not all things in Schroeder's study were incorrect. I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors.

Show your work, Agman, and I will gladly look to see its validity. I have asked for this little bit of information from you before. I have always said that you can find a little truth in someone else even if they disagree with you. You just like playing the same game as Tyson: Hide your deeds so they can't be questioned or refuted, and then claim innocense on the assumption of not being guilty until proven so. Sounds like you and Tyson have the same strategists.
 

pknoeber

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
SW KS
Econ101 said:
Show your work, Agman, and I will gladly look to see its validity. I have asked for this little bit of information from you before. I have always said that you can find a little truth in someone else even if they disagree with you. You just like playing the same game as Tyson: Hide your deeds so they can't be questioned or refuted, and then claim innocense on the assumption of not being guilty until proven so. Sounds like you and Tyson have the same strategists.

Econ, how about YOU show YOUR work. I have yet to see you post with anything but accusations. You fire away at Schroeder's work, which has been very widely peer-reviewed and still stands as a seminal work in that area, but you have yet to show a SINGLE NUMBER. Where's your work? Agman puts up real, factual numbers to support his argument, you simply bring out the thesaurus and start calling names.

Then comes out the conspiracy theorist ideas and you throw around a lot of EMOTION and absolutely zero FACT.

It's time that you either start bringing in facts or at least stop the wild accusations and name-calling.

Phil
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
pknoeber said:
Econ101 said:
Show your work, Agman, and I will gladly look to see its validity. I have asked for this little bit of information from you before. I have always said that you can find a little truth in someone else even if they disagree with you. You just like playing the same game as Tyson: Hide your deeds so they can't be questioned or refuted, and then claim innocense on the assumption of not being guilty until proven so. Sounds like you and Tyson have the same strategists.

Econ, how about YOU show YOUR work. I have yet to see you post with anything but accusations. You fire away at Schroeder's work, which has been very widely peer-reviewed and still stands as a seminal work in that area, but you have yet to show a SINGLE NUMBER. Where's your work? Agman puts up real, factual numbers to support his argument, you simply bring out the thesaurus and start calling names.

Then comes out the conspiracy theorist ideas and you throw around a lot of EMOTION and absolutely zero FACT.

It's time that you either start bringing in facts or at least stop the wild accusations and name-calling.

Phil

Phil, I don't disagree with Schroeder's article in question. I do disagree with Agman's definition of causuality of changes in demand. Agman did some calculations but did not disclose where he got his numbers, what they were based on, the assumptions, etc. He just presented them as gospel truth along with all the interpretation of those numbers.

Agman first disputed my claim of supply driven price increases, then did an analysis that largely supported my claims (with his own calculations) but then argued with me on the number he attributed to demand. I simply asked him to show his work so we could look into the interpretation and analysis to see if it was correct. He did not provide that information, and wants to stick with his own interpretation even though the top guy at Tyson says differently publically.

Coming from where you say you come from, Phil, you should be able to look into the details that I have asked for from Agman to support his claims, but instead you defend him in not showing his work.

When you said you worked under Schroeder, I assumed it meant you had the education to be able to look into the facts, when presented, and be able to see if his "expert" conclusions are warranted. I might have been mistaken. You seem to want to believe Agman even though he has not shown or even told on this board where he got his underlying data and his underlying assumptions.

Schroeder's demand index is nothing more than a basis to compare numbers and is similar to the idea of parity (value always has this problem). You have to know some of the other variables (like price and quantity of substitutes) to be able to draw any meaningfull conclusions. I have asked Agman if those were included in his calculations and he has not answered. Now I don't know if he is correct in his analysis, but if he does not reveal his methodology and assumptions, we will never know the answer. Then we are left with his "expert opinion" on the issues. They are no better than SH's opinions with a number assigned to them under these circumstances.

I did not call Agman(Conman) a name on this issue other than trying to goad him on providing the information that could possibly exonnerate his position. It is people like you who give economists a bad name. We should all ask for an "expert" opinion so we don't have to think for ourselves. You seem to be supporting that position. I do not.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sorry I did not have time to finish all of the points that are alluded to in your accusatory post so I will finish here.

The panhandle study on some of these issues was distributed to other ag. economists at some of the land grant universities and was pretty critical of the methodology and accuracy of the numbers that went into the study. It is ironic that the investigations into the AMs that has been posted on this board has itself come under criticism. If you have garbage coming into your analysis, you will get dubious results on the conclusions. It has become increasingly apparent that the USDA is using its money to fund studies that have little relevance to understanding the market games and tricks that regular farmers and ranchers are complaining about.

I myself have pointed out examples of this with the yet to be completed hog study that is partly under the direction of Tomislave Vukina from N. Carolina. When the USDA funds land grant universities that are approved by a board consisting of recently departed JoAnn Waterfield from GIPSA, Gary McBride, an economist with GIPSA and now head of the competition unit there, as well as the head of the office of policy and litigation at GIPSA, we have to ask ourselves if the studies by the USDA are in fact impartial exercises to seek the truth, or just the truth that the USDA and its packer bias wants to support. I don't think it is a coincidence that the new head of GIPSA comes from the NCBA and is from academia. The power of the purse has a lot to do with the conclusions of these studies if it is pushed that way. It is the centralization of power through money that will lead to its corruption of "expert" opinions and a real problem for the credibility of these "experts" which your guy, Schroeder is a one.

We have an industry that is becoming more centralized with more market power and a government that is helping fulfil that destiny. It is outreagous that this is happening.

I hope that you too will continue to question studies to make sure that they represent the "truth" instead of some predetermined outcome that the industry wants and buys with political dollars and the revolving door. If we all follow the "experts" without question, we will get the answer that they want and not an answer that represents the "truth". It has become a problem with this opportunistic administration and the guys behind the scenes trying to sway public opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top