Sandhusker: "This article was about the futures markets, particularly the use of puts. Pickett was about captive supply."
Hahaha!
Forward contracts are based on the futures market and forward contracts are captive supply.
This debate is not for the clueless!
Kindergarten: "Jason, you probably do not understand the econometric analysis that was done on the data. The analysis allows for movements of the markets."
Translation: I can't back my position on Pickett so I'll pretend that I can.
Kindergarten: "The question was never a question of movement of the markets. It was always a discrimination of the cash market compared to the captive supply. There is a big difference here. This is the reason that this argument is moot."
There is no way you can account for the difference between the cash market and the formula market without accounting for normal market movements. You failed to do that!
The argument is relevant.
Kindergarten: "Just because the market is on an upward trend and the captive supply is at a one week price lag or whatever it happens to be, does not necessarily mean that the cash will always be higher."
How do you figure?
Can you show where the market was in an upward trend where the captive supply price was lower?
I didn't think so!
Still throwing sh*t against the wall to see what might stick.
Kindergarten: "If the cash market was higher during all of these times during certain periods, then it can be shown that another argument that SH and Agman makes is incorrect. SH and Agman argue that grid and formula pricing bring value and that is why they were higher paid. Of course this is disproved if over a long period of time this hypothesis is not proven."
Futures market is not formula pricing!
You don't know anything do you?
Kindergarten: "ANYTIME there is a significant difference in the price of the cash market compared to captive supplies for the same product there is evidence of market manipulation."
Hahaha!
He just gets done acknowledging that there could be a price difference between formula pricing and cash prices due to normal market movements then turns right around and defends his previous position that a significant difference between cash prices and formula prices is proof of market manipulation. Absolutely amazing!
Just ignores the evidence and keeps convincing himself that there should never be a difference between the cash price and the formula price.
Kindergarten:
"As has been shown by RKaiser and others on this forum, boxed beef prices could be a factor in buying of cattle in the cash market but so is the inventory that the packers have. To the extent that packers are using their inventory to lower their cash price and hence their formula cattle and next week's grid (captive supply) price, there is market manipulation. This market depression can be shown on rising or falling markets."
Canada's situation of not having access to the U.S. market is hardly comparable to normal supply and demand situations in the U.S. You have to be pretty desperate to draw any comparison.
Packers will always lower their cash price as their needs are being met just like the feeder cattle buyers lower their price as their needs are met.
If it's market manipulation in one area, it has to be market manipulation in the other.
Lowering your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.
I would have loved to ask Johnny Smith and Pat Goggins why nobody wants their cattle to sell at the end of the sale and why that is different than lowering your price for fat cattle as your needs are met.
Kindergarten: "There has been no plausible explanation as to why Judge Strom overturned this jury verdict or why the appellate court did."
Judge Strom listed many reasons as to why he overturned the verdict in his ruling. Mainly that there was no proof of market manipulation as is evidenced by the anti corporate packer blamers here trying to discredit him without providing the proof to back their market manipulation conspiracy theory.
Kindergarten: "In the case of the appellate court, the court made some very big mistakes in their brief."
Talk is cheap!
Kindergarten: "With the payoffs the packers are giving to members of the senate judiciary and they ties Arlen Specter has to packer interests, there are some serious questions to be raised about the integrity of the U.S. court system."
Typical conspiracy theorist!
You got nothing!
~SH~