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

Bearing Point, Inc. Problems for NCBA?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

GLA

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Stratford, Texas
Jolley: BearingPoint Fights Financial Default Claims



BearingPoint Inc., the consulting firm that forms the keystone of the NCBA bid to develop an animal ID system by January, is facing serious financial difficulties. In a story published in the Washington Post this morning, the company said it will "fight an expected effort by bondholders to demand an early repayment of some of its debt."



BearingPoint has been grappling with accounting problems for several years and has not reported financial results since the fourth quarter of 2003. The firm said it will also miss today's deadline for filing its third-quarter 2005 results.



In September, BearingPoint recieved two default notices demanding that it catch up on its financial statements within 60 days or face legal efforts to collect a $450 million debt. If BearingPoint is in default, it could be forced to repay the debt immediately BearingPoint might not have to face that financial crisis, the default claims can be added to a long list of financial problems for a company that has already been the target of shareholder lawsuits and an SEC investigation related to its accounting practices.



BearingPoint chief executive Harry L. You described the default notices as a "cynical attempt to extract leverage," from the company.



Cynical attempt or not, it does raise a question about their management focus at a critical time in the development of a contentious animal ID program.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That points out my number one problem with Mandatory ID going with any private companies---Anymore so many corporations come and go on the whim of the day and the ability and integrity of the CEO and board of Directors- What will happen with all the cattle producers info if the company that ends up with the info goes belly up and ends up in bankruptcy court where everything may be open to scrutiny?---Will it be sold to the highest bidder :???: Will the cattle owners security and privacy be compromised?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
Oldtimer said:
That points out my number one problem with Mandatory ID going with any private companies---Anymore so many corporations come and go on the whim of the day and the ability and integrity of the CEO and board of Directors- What will happen with all the cattle producers info if the company that ends up with the info goes belly up and ends up in bankruptcy court where everything may be open to scrutiny?---Will it be sold to the highest bidder :???: Will the cattle owners security and privacy be compromised?

OT - this is not an issue. BearingPoint is well known to be on hard times. HOWEVER the Government spends billions of dollars with contractors and the majority of software applications, networks, etc. are developed by contractors. Software is OWNED by the Government if they pay for it in most cases and they can specify this. As part of development of applications, the contractor is required to provide complete documentation and training and whatever is needed for the Govt to take over the application and maintain it or hand it to another contractor to maintain,

Actually BearingPoint is a large and long-lived company, which was renamed a couple of years ago. However they are mostly or were mostly in the commercial space and came into the Govt space due to the 2000 softening in industry.

As far as privacy goes, contracts usually carry very strict legal obligations to protect privacy. The Congress has passed laws for exactly this purpose and material has to be kept under lock and key, restricted to only those who have need to know, firewalled and so on. Believe me, contractors have access to even more sensitive info than this.

And that is where the problem surfaces-- The way I understand it, this will not be a contract with the government or government owned software...USDA is saying it will be mandatory-BUT that NCBA and a private consortium set up by the NCBA should run and oversee it.....That leaves it without the safeguards of a government contracted program......
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
reader (the Second) said:
I see your point although private corporations have their own procurement processes to ensure the same things that govt contracts ensure. I think we discussed this before and I felt that NCBA was unlikely to be a good procurer or manager of these types of complex solutions. It would make more sense for the govt to procure it with NCBA in the loop for reqts.


Yet again, where have you seen any corroboration for your statements that NCBA is or will be running the consortium?

A consortium of ALL industries affected by M-ID is NOT just NCBA.

NCBA representatives in such a consortium would have a voice, just like the other representatives, in determining who will be the leaders of the non-profit organization handling M-ID, according to the most recent "talk" coming out of the working group that I've seen.

Anyone who has seen something else, please share it with us. Until then, it looks like the comments critical of NCBA are more of the same old attempts to trash a good organzation with accusations without merit.

MRJ
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
reader (the Second) said:
I see your point although private corporations have their own procurement processes to ensure the same things that govt contracts ensure. I think we discussed this before and I felt that NCBA was unlikely to be a good procurer or manager of these types of complex solutions. It would make more sense for the govt to procure it with NCBA in the loop for reqts.


Yet again, where have you seen any corroboration for your statements that NCBA is or will be running the consortium?

A consortium of ALL industries affected by M-ID is NOT just NCBA.

NCBA representatives in such a consortium would have a voice, just like the other representatives, in determining who will be the leaders of the non-profit organization handling M-ID, according to the most recent "talk" coming out of the working group that I've seen.

Anyone who has seen something else, please share it with us. Until then, it looks like the comments critical of NCBA are more of the same old attempts to trash a good organzation with accusations without merit.

MRJ

SDCA statement on USDA’s announcement of key component of animal ID system


The South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association is pleased with yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture setting guiding principles for development of a public/private partnership as part of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). "The guidelines, which give an outline for the requirements that must be met by a privately-held animal ID system, will allow the creation of an effective trace back system while ensuring producers’ privacy, a major concern expressed by our members," says Mike Stahly, SDCA president from Cavour. “In July we submitted comments to USDA on the NAIS. The concerns we shared centered on confidentiality, cost, producer involvement and identification methods. We feel strongly that this system needs to efficiently and cost-effectively meet the needs of animal health regulators while protecting sensitive information submitted by producers. In our opinion that is best accomplished by a privately-held database system. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is building a multi-species system that fits within USDA's guidelines and is scheduled to be operational by January of 2006. USDA’s plan calls for mandatory animal id and traceability in 2009, three years after NCBA's privately held data warehouse is online. With concerns about agri-terrorism and increasing awareness of animal health issues, we think the sooner this system is up and running the better. These guidelines will allow that to happen without compromising producers’ right to privacy.”
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
The concerns we shared centered on confidentiality, cost, producer involvement and identification methods. We feel strongly that this system needs to efficiently and cost-effectively meet the needs of animal health regulators while protecting sensitive information submitted by producers. In our opinion that is best accomplished by a privately-held database system.

Determining who will be the leaders of the non-profit organization handling M-ID .WHAT a CAT FIGHT !!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
MRJ said:
reader (the Second) said:
I see your point although private corporations have their own procurement processes to ensure the same things that govt contracts ensure. I think we discussed this before and I felt that NCBA was unlikely to be a good procurer or manager of these types of complex solutions. It would make more sense for the govt to procure it with NCBA in the loop for reqts.


Yet again, where have you seen any corroboration for your statements that NCBA is or will be running the consortium?

A consortium of ALL industries affected by M-ID is NOT just NCBA.

NCBA representatives in such a consortium would have a voice, just like the other representatives, in determining who will be the leaders of the non-profit organization handling M-ID, according to the most recent "talk" coming out of the working group that I've seen.

Anyone who has seen something else, please share it with us. Until then, it looks like the comments critical of NCBA are more of the same old attempts to trash a good organzation with accusations without merit.

MRJ

SDCA statement on USDA’s announcement of key component of animal ID system


The South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association is pleased with yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture setting guiding principles for development of a public/private partnership as part of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). "The guidelines, which give an outline for the requirements that must be met by a privately-held animal ID system, will allow the creation of an effective trace back system while ensuring producers’ privacy, a major concern expressed by our members," says Mike Stahly, SDCA president from Cavour. “In July we submitted comments to USDA on the NAIS. The concerns we shared centered on confidentiality, cost, producer involvement and identification methods. We feel strongly that this system needs to efficiently and cost-effectively meet the needs of animal health regulators while protecting sensitive information submitted by producers. In our opinion that is best accomplished by a privately-held database system. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is building a multi-species system that fits within USDA's guidelines and is scheduled to be operational by January of 2006. USDA’s plan calls for mandatory animal id and traceability in 2009, three years after NCBA's privately held data warehouse is online. With concerns about agri-terrorism and increasing awareness of animal health issues, we think the sooner this system is up and running the better. These guidelines will allow that to happen without compromising producers’ right to privacy.”

rancher, sorry to disappoint you, but those statements are not mutually exclusive. It is very likely that Mike referred to the pilot program which NCBA is conducting. I believe, according to statements by NCBA leaders involved in that program, that if successful, it will THEN become the outline for the consortium run program for M-ID.

The issue here which I find of REAL interest, is why are you so determined to find fault with the only outfit (and which involves many cattle groups, not just NCBA) that is trying to do something positive to help the cattle industry comply with Homeland Security M-ID. Wouldn't it be better to use your time and effort to work on assuring your needs are met in designing a system that complies with the law?

MRJ
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
Some countrys will not allow the livestock groups to run the database ID systems because of coruption and favors.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
STAFF said:
Some countrys will not allow the livestock groups to run the database ID systems because of coruption and favors.

I've heard about corruption and favors being a way of life in some countries.......but have no personal knowledge of it.

Do you have any personal knowledge of any such thing in the livestock groups in the USA?

MRJ
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
BearingPoint has been grappling with accounting problems for several years and has not reported financial results since the fourth quarter of 2003. The firm said it will also miss today's deadline for filing its third-quarter 2005 results.

Sounds like WorldCom,nothing but a bunch of crooks running the store.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
BearingPoint was spun off from KPMG LLC in 2000 when large accounting firms were under pressure to divide their auditing and consulting units because of conflict of interest concerns. Allowing one branch of a company to advise a client on what to do, while another signed off on the books, had become a recipe for trouble in the opinion of federal regulators.

Given that the company advertises itself as an expert in building financial-management systems, it was troublesome enough last November when officials announced that some of its invoices had been counted twice and followed that two weeks later with news that $92.9 million in assets had been misclassified.

Magnifying the impact of the information was its timing. BearingPoint's troubles came during a string of high-profile revelations about corporate accounting trouble -- from the Washington-based saga of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allegedly manipulating financial information to the unraveling of alleged accounting fraud at companies such as WorldCom Inc. and HealthSouth Corp.
In recent months, the company announced it was closing operations in Peru and Thailand, strengthening its presence in India, and focusing on landing larger, more profitable projects like the NCBA deal.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
I think you as American producers should let RCALF run any ID system. They are your voice afterall.

Hope it doesn't crash when you enter your 18,001 th animal!
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Murgen said:
I think you as American producers should let RCALF run any ID system. They are your voice afterall.

Hope it doesn't crash when you enter your 18,001 th animal!

R-CALF doesn't want to run a national ID system.
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
That points out my number one problem with Mandatory ID going with any private companies---Anymore so many corporations come and go on the whim of the day and the ability and integrity of the CEO and board of Directors- What will happen with all the cattle producers info if the company that ends up with the info goes belly up and ends up in bankruptcy court where everything may be open to scrutiny?---

Emerge is sickly TOO and will lose their listing on the stock exchange.They have fell down into the cents bracket.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan-Florida
Emerge is sickly TOO and will lose their listing on the stock exchange.They have fell down into the cents bracket.

Neighbor's broker said stock ain't worth nothing..
 

STAFF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
178
Reaction score
0
Location
Sarasota Florida
ScoringAg Makes Agriculture Field Data Available On The Web In Seconds

New arrivals to data management in agriculture are ignoring the problems involved in capturing accurate, reliable agriculture data at precise locations in the field in real time.

(PRWEB) October 14, 2005 -- Supply chain collaboration, synchronization and optimization are focused on problems with data capture, resulting in inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete transfer and management that can't meet the speed of commerce. Information that affects a company's profit is more accurate when it is collected at later production / processing stages.

Data collected early in the production process are more difficult to collect and usually less accurate; this often makes the benefits of traceback unrealizable, and sometimes false data can be taken as true. Deep subject experiences, not IT solutions, are more able to properly solve PIDC field data problems that are even rarely obvious to people not familiar with agricultural situations. IT solutions don't account for agricultural terms, truths, and experience that are needed to know what data must be collected to solve PIDC field data problems.

Capturing data first hand is better than reconstructing it afterward. The challenge of direct collection is to do this without interrupting production workflow. Passive data capture is preferable to human input. Automation tends to reduce error rate and improves speed of commerce.

Data collection on the farm or ranch must be simple, automatic using TCP/IP technology. Data collection using this updated, high-speed transfer can run in the background without interfering with the producer's work. Avoid the complexity and cost of real-time data collection if possible. Data accuracy is best qualified and validated at the source. Data conversion and correction later is slower, less effective.

Don't pursue elegance at the expense of content. Content must not be sacrificed to automation. Simple, less costly, systems that combine with agriculture expertise and deep subject matter are better. Don't assume that bigger and faster is always better when it comes to data capture and reporting. Direct, real-time data capture is usually necessary in some situations. Don't think that data collection requires an active Internet link. Direct offline collection is more practical and accurate, with upload later to online system.

Just because you think (that) you might want (the) data, don't think (that) you have to collect it. Basic data, including PIDC, is always needed and collected for a complete and effective system; additional, enhanced data can be archived, but there is a need to prioritize all data collected. Data clean up and conversions are often tougher than they appear. Interfacing the growing number of systems is difficult but necessary; offline, locally resident systems are subject to data loss and corruption.

ScoringAg.com and its traceback and traceup system for agriculture products, featuring Site-Specific Recordkeeping™ and PIDC location code, is one of the many divisions of ScoringSystem, Inc. Located in Sarasota, Florida USA, the company specializes in providing solutions with mobile data, via wireless PDAs, laptops, and Semacode-programmed Nokia, Siemens, and Sony Ericsson cell phones. Whether using RFID or barcodes for traceup and traceback of livestock, from birth through the packing plants and on to the consumer; or tracking transport containers or perishable meats and other food consumer goods, www.ScoringAg.com makes managing data easier -- and does it in an extremely cost effective manner from “Field-to-Fork.”
 

Latest posts

Top