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

Chicken Drives Tyson Earnings

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
You have to do a little math to come up with the amount that chicken gives to earnings. Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?


Chicken drives Tyson Q4

DJ Tyson Foods 4Q Net Jumps 48%, But Sales Fall 9.1% >TSN-2-

9:24 AM, November 14, 2005



Tyson's accounting cycle resulted in a 13-week fourth quarter, compared to a

14-week fourth quarter in fiscal 2004.



The company's fourth-quarter chicken sales fell 9.6% from a year earlier, to

$2.09 million. But operating income for its chicken business rose 40%.



Fourth-quarter beef sales dropped 6.3% to $2.95 million, while the beef

business swung to an operating loss of $13 million from an operating profit of

$40 million a year ago.



Tyson attributed the decline in its beef business to export market closures

and Canadian import issues. The company expects fiscal 2006 will present only

gradual recovery in beef sales as those markets begin to open and cattle

supplies improve, but the chicken business will remain solid, it said.



Tyson sees fiscal 2006 earnings of 95 cents to $1.25 a share, while analysts

surveyed by First Call project mean earnings of $1.33 a share. For fiscal 2005,

Tyson earned 99 cents a share, including items which hurt earnings by 2 cents a

share.



Although the company said it expects to post additional losses in the first

quarter, an estimate of the costs wasn't immediately available.



Tyson began a conference call Monday at 9:00 a.m. EST.



Source: Dow Jones Newswires

agriculture.com



Nov 14 (Reuters) -

TYSON FOODS INC. (TSN.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

Latest Forecast* No. of Yr ago



analysts qtr

EPS (diluted, $/shr) 0.28 -- -- 0.19

Net ($ million) 98.0 -- -- 66.0

Sales ($ million) 6,495.0 7,026.8 8 7,149.0



*Source: Reuters Estimates



--The largest U.S. meat company said its fourth-quarter earnings included a non-recurring income tax net benefit of $15 million and $8 million of pre-tax losses related to Hurricane Katrina. The net impact of the two items was a gain of 3 cents a share.



--The company said its pre-tax earnings for the year-ago quarter included costs of $46 million, or 8 cents a share, related to fixed asset write-downs and intangible asset impairments.



--For the latest quarter, eight analysts on average had expected the company to earn 31 cents a share, excluding exceptional items, according to Reuters Estimates. (Reporting by Dhanya Ann Thoppil in Bangalore)



today.reuters.com



Tyson Misses, Guides Lower

By TSC Staff

The Street

11/14/2005



Tyson Foods' (TSN:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) fourth-quarter earnings missed Wall Street estimates and the company, which is grappling with a difficult market for beef at home and abroad, guided 2006 lower.



The husbandry farmer earned $98 million, or 28 cents a share, in the latest quarter, including one-time items that boosted EPS by 3 cents. Analysts were forecasting earnings of 30 cents a share in the quarter. A year ago, Tyson earned $66 million, or 19 cents a share.



Sales fell to $6.5 billion in the latest fourth quarter, which had 13 weeks, from $7.1 billion in the year-ago quarter, which had 14 weeks. Analysts were forecasting sales of $7.03 billion in the most recent quarter.



By segment, chicken sales totaled $2.09 billion in the latest quarter compared with $2.31 billion a year ago; beef sales were $2.95 billion compared with $3.15 billion; and pork sales were $763 million compared with $889 million.



For 2006, Tyson expects to earn 95 cents to $1.25 a share. Analysts were forecasting $1.33 a share.



"We are encouraged by recent developments in export market access, but fiscal 2006 will present only gradual recovery in beef as those markets begin to open and cattle supplies improve," Tyson said. "As domestic hog supplies continue to improve, the pork segment should generate more normal returns. We expect our chicken business to remain solid, and our Prepared Foods' segment market share to improve."



The stock last traded at $18.50, or 14.8 times the high end of next year's guidance.



thestreet.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Econ 101, common sense would tell me that no business would purposely lose money to help another part of it's business. That is not something anyone with business experience would fall for. Are you telling me that is something you would do in your own private business? I don't think so. At least it wouldn't work in ours. It would catch up with you. I think for Tyson to remain viable, it would have to maximize on both chicken and beef products.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
You have to do a little math to come up with the amount that chicken gives to earnings. Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?


Chicken drives Tyson Q4

DJ Tyson Foods 4Q Net Jumps 48%, But Sales Fall 9.1% >TSN-2-

9:24 AM, November 14, 2005



Tyson's accounting cycle resulted in a 13-week fourth quarter, compared to a

14-week fourth quarter in fiscal 2004.



The company's fourth-quarter chicken sales fell 9.6% from a year earlier, to

$2.09 million. But operating income for its chicken business rose 40%.



Fourth-quarter beef sales dropped 6.3% to $2.95 million, while the beef

business swung to an operating loss of $13 million from an operating profit of

$40 million a year ago.



Tyson attributed the decline in its beef business to export market closures

and Canadian import issues. The company expects fiscal 2006 will present only

gradual recovery in beef sales as those markets begin to open and cattle

supplies improve, but the chicken business will remain solid, it said.



Tyson sees fiscal 2006 earnings of 95 cents to $1.25 a share, while analysts

surveyed by First Call project mean earnings of $1.33 a share. For fiscal 2005,

Tyson earned 99 cents a share, including items which hurt earnings by 2 cents a

share.



Although the company said it expects to post additional losses in the first

quarter, an estimate of the costs wasn't immediately available.



Tyson began a conference call Monday at 9:00 a.m. EST.



Source: Dow Jones Newswires

agriculture.com



Nov 14 (Reuters) -

TYSON FOODS INC. (TSN.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

Latest Forecast* No. of Yr ago



analysts qtr

EPS (diluted, $/shr) 0.28 -- -- 0.19

Net ($ million) 98.0 -- -- 66.0

Sales ($ million) 6,495.0 7,026.8 8 7,149.0



*Source: Reuters Estimates



--The largest U.S. meat company said its fourth-quarter earnings included a non-recurring income tax net benefit of $15 million and $8 million of pre-tax losses related to Hurricane Katrina. The net impact of the two items was a gain of 3 cents a share.



--The company said its pre-tax earnings for the year-ago quarter included costs of $46 million, or 8 cents a share, related to fixed asset write-downs and intangible asset impairments.



--For the latest quarter, eight analysts on average had expected the company to earn 31 cents a share, excluding exceptional items, according to Reuters Estimates. (Reporting by Dhanya Ann Thoppil in Bangalore)



today.reuters.com



Tyson Misses, Guides Lower

By TSC Staff

The Street

11/14/2005



Tyson Foods' (TSN:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) fourth-quarter earnings missed Wall Street estimates and the company, which is grappling with a difficult market for beef at home and abroad, guided 2006 lower.



The husbandry farmer earned $98 million, or 28 cents a share, in the latest quarter, including one-time items that boosted EPS by 3 cents. Analysts were forecasting earnings of 30 cents a share in the quarter. A year ago, Tyson earned $66 million, or 19 cents a share.



Sales fell to $6.5 billion in the latest fourth quarter, which had 13 weeks, from $7.1 billion in the year-ago quarter, which had 14 weeks. Analysts were forecasting sales of $7.03 billion in the most recent quarter.



By segment, chicken sales totaled $2.09 billion in the latest quarter compared with $2.31 billion a year ago; beef sales were $2.95 billion compared with $3.15 billion; and pork sales were $763 million compared with $889 million.



For 2006, Tyson expects to earn 95 cents to $1.25 a share. Analysts were forecasting $1.33 a share.



"We are encouraged by recent developments in export market access, but fiscal 2006 will present only gradual recovery in beef as those markets begin to open and cattle supplies improve," Tyson said. "As domestic hog supplies continue to improve, the pork segment should generate more normal returns. We expect our chicken business to remain solid, and our Prepared Foods' segment market share to improve."



The stock last traded at $18.50, or 14.8 times the high end of next year's guidance.



thestreet.com

You seem to have overlooked a key point which brings into serious doubt your question regarding Tyson's operation. If you looked at all the data you would realize that Tyson LOST market share for beef as they were losing money in the beef segment. They did not operate at a loss as you imply to gain market share and put competitors out of business.

You may choose to run a business as you suggest but I can assure you and all readers that those greedy corporate types make every sector accountable; one sector does not exist to subsidize the other.

Beef was a victim of declining consumer demand for beef, down 2.44% during the third quarter. The squeeze on discretionary consumer income from high energy costs, the high cost of beef relative to the competing meats, and a peak in the Atkins's diet craze were the primary factors contributing to lower beef demand during the third quarter of 2005.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
the real jake said:
Econ 101, common sense would tell me that no business would purposely lose money to help another part of it's business. That is not something anyone with business experience would fall for. Are you telling me that is something you would do in your own private business? I don't think so. At least it wouldn't work in ours. It would catch up with you. I think for Tyson to remain viable, it would have to maximize on both chicken and beef products.

You haven't read any of the history of the industrialization of America and Rockefeller's tricks, have you?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
You have to do a little math to come up with the amount that chicken gives to earnings. Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?


Chicken drives Tyson Q4

DJ Tyson Foods 4Q Net Jumps 48%, But Sales Fall 9.1% >TSN-2-

9:24 AM, November 14, 2005



Tyson's accounting cycle resulted in a 13-week fourth quarter, compared to a

14-week fourth quarter in fiscal 2004.



The company's fourth-quarter chicken sales fell 9.6% from a year earlier, to

$2.09 million. But operating income for its chicken business rose 40%.



Fourth-quarter beef sales dropped 6.3% to $2.95 million, while the beef

business swung to an operating loss of $13 million from an operating profit of

$40 million a year ago.



Tyson attributed the decline in its beef business to export market closures

and Canadian import issues. The company expects fiscal 2006 will present only

gradual recovery in beef sales as those markets begin to open and cattle

supplies improve, but the chicken business will remain solid, it said.



Tyson sees fiscal 2006 earnings of 95 cents to $1.25 a share, while analysts

surveyed by First Call project mean earnings of $1.33 a share. For fiscal 2005,

Tyson earned 99 cents a share, including items which hurt earnings by 2 cents a

share.



Although the company said it expects to post additional losses in the first

quarter, an estimate of the costs wasn't immediately available.



Tyson began a conference call Monday at 9:00 a.m. EST.



Source: Dow Jones Newswires

agriculture.com



Nov 14 (Reuters) -

TYSON FOODS INC. (TSN.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

Latest Forecast* No. of Yr ago



analysts qtr

EPS (diluted, $/shr) 0.28 -- -- 0.19

Net ($ million) 98.0 -- -- 66.0

Sales ($ million) 6,495.0 7,026.8 8 7,149.0



*Source: Reuters Estimates



--The largest U.S. meat company said its fourth-quarter earnings included a non-recurring income tax net benefit of $15 million and $8 million of pre-tax losses related to Hurricane Katrina. The net impact of the two items was a gain of 3 cents a share.



--The company said its pre-tax earnings for the year-ago quarter included costs of $46 million, or 8 cents a share, related to fixed asset write-downs and intangible asset impairments.



--For the latest quarter, eight analysts on average had expected the company to earn 31 cents a share, excluding exceptional items, according to Reuters Estimates. (Reporting by Dhanya Ann Thoppil in Bangalore)



today.reuters.com



Tyson Misses, Guides Lower

By TSC Staff

The Street

11/14/2005



Tyson Foods' (TSN:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) fourth-quarter earnings missed Wall Street estimates and the company, which is grappling with a difficult market for beef at home and abroad, guided 2006 lower.



The husbandry farmer earned $98 million, or 28 cents a share, in the latest quarter, including one-time items that boosted EPS by 3 cents. Analysts were forecasting earnings of 30 cents a share in the quarter. A year ago, Tyson earned $66 million, or 19 cents a share.



Sales fell to $6.5 billion in the latest fourth quarter, which had 13 weeks, from $7.1 billion in the year-ago quarter, which had 14 weeks. Analysts were forecasting sales of $7.03 billion in the most recent quarter.



By segment, chicken sales totaled $2.09 billion in the latest quarter compared with $2.31 billion a year ago; beef sales were $2.95 billion compared with $3.15 billion; and pork sales were $763 million compared with $889 million.



For 2006, Tyson expects to earn 95 cents to $1.25 a share. Analysts were forecasting $1.33 a share.



"We are encouraged by recent developments in export market access, but fiscal 2006 will present only gradual recovery in beef as those markets begin to open and cattle supplies improve," Tyson said. "As domestic hog supplies continue to improve, the pork segment should generate more normal returns. We expect our chicken business to remain solid, and our Prepared Foods' segment market share to improve."



The stock last traded at $18.50, or 14.8 times the high end of next year's guidance.



thestreet.com

You seem to have overlooked a key point which brings into serious doubt your question regarding Tyson's operation. If you looked at all the data you would realize that Tyson LOST market share for beef as they were losing money in the beef segment. They did not operate at a loss as you imply to gain market share and put competitors out of business.

You may choose to run a business as you suggest but I can assure you and all readers that those greedy corporate types make every sector accountable; one sector does not exist to subsidize the other.

Beef was a victim of declining consumer demand for beef, down 2.44% during the third quarter. The squeeze on discretionary consumer income from high energy costs, the high cost of beef relative to the competing meats, and a peak in the Atkins's diet craze were the primary factors contributing to lower beef demand during the third quarter of 2005.

Agman, you diverted from the question I posed and assumed I made a statement. In case you have a hard time reading and need things spelled out again, I will pose my two questions to you again:

1) Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?

2) WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN (or any other) BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
the real jake said:
Econ 101, common sense would tell me that no business would purposely lose money to help another part of it's business. That is not something anyone with business experience would fall for. Are you telling me that is something you would do in your own private business? I don't think so. At least it wouldn't work in ours. It would catch up with you. I think for Tyson to remain viable, it would have to maximize on both chicken and beef products.

Actually, Jake, grocers do it all the time. They use what they call "loss leaders" to get people in the store. The idea is they will lose 50 cents on the loss leader but make a dollar on other goods that customers pick up in the store while they're getting the featured item.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sandhusker said:
the real jake said:
Econ 101, common sense would tell me that no business would purposely lose money to help another part of it's business. That is not something anyone with business experience would fall for. Are you telling me that is something you would do in your own private business? I don't think so. At least it wouldn't work in ours. It would catch up with you. I think for Tyson to remain viable, it would have to maximize on both chicken and beef products.

Actually, Jake, grocers do it all the time. They use what they call "loss leaders" to get people in the store. The idea is they will lose 50 cents on the loss leader but make a dollar on other goods that customers pick up in the store while they're getting the featured item.

Low margins in the beef processing industry are not necessarily a benefit for producers as is proclaimed time and time again on this forum. Sometimes they are a "loss leader" for more market consolidation and gain in market power. Tyson has the ability to do that with its poultry being as profitable as it is. This is a long term game with huge consequences for the meat markets. Little rules you think might apply have to be viewed in the larger context of the industry. Demand for food is very, very inelastic. When one company or a handful of companies control the gate valves get ready to learn the lessons of inelastic demand as we were just reminded of inelastic demand in the oil business and how all our pockets were picked.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Actually, Jake, grocers do it all the time. They use what they call "loss leaders" to get people in the store. The idea is they will lose 50 cents on the loss leader but make a dollar on other goods that customers pick up in the store while they're getting the featured item.

Yes, I wouldn't argue that point Sandhusker, but we are comparing beef and chicken which are both what they are in the business of selling. You maybe could argue that on a smaller item.

I think that a company would try to lose money from their main business is almost laughable. I am aware of the arguement that will be made of the low number of players in the game, but if they do not maximize profit, then another company will and they will be gone before you know it.

Hey, I didn't have a lot else to do but argue on a blustery day. :wink:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
the real jake said:
Actually, Jake, grocers do it all the time. They use what they call "loss leaders" to get people in the store. The idea is they will lose 50 cents on the loss leader but make a dollar on other goods that customers pick up in the store while they're getting the featured item.

Yes, I wouldn't argue that point Sandhusker, but we are comparing beef and chicken which are both what they are in the business of selling. You maybe could argue that on a smaller item.

I think that a company would try to lose money from their main business is almost laughable. I am aware of the arguement that will be made of the low number of players in the game, but if they do not maximize profit, then another company will and they will be gone before you know it.

Hey, I didn't have a lot else to do but argue on a blustery day. :wink:

Jake, it is not about purposefully losing money. It is the ability to run out all of the profits out of an industry to run all of the competition out. They don't do it to lose money for no reason. It is the Wal-Mart model, just down the street from Tyson in Arkansas.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Agman -
You may choose to run a business as you suggest but I can assure you and all readers that those greedy corporate types make every sector accountable; one sector does not exist to subsidize the other.

Come now Agman, you simply cannot beleive this statement can you?

This is the ultimate reason that money makes money in the good old capitalist system we live in. Not only would Tyson work one sector against the other - as in - poultry and beef. They have the major advantage of doing it with beef plants on two sides of the 49th parallel, or even within the beef sector in Canada or the USA.

Do you have any idea how much trim is stored in freezer wharehouse space in Calgary Alberta these days. Enough that whenever and wherever they want, Cargill and Tyson can pump the **** out at bargain prices to make sure their competition has to scamble constantly. Are they making money on 99cent trim Agman? I can tell you right now. NO. Are they gaining advantage by doing it? Definately.

Supply and demand - right Agman, or is it capitalism at work?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Just for curiosity, I've been keeping a tab on meat prices at the local grocery stores for the past few years. In January of 2004 (close to two years ago) round roast was $2.29/lb. Cut up fryers was .79. This week round roast is $2.49 - up 8.73% and fryers are .89 - up 12.66%.

There are many variables that moved the prices of each so you can't point your finger at one thing and say "that is the reason". It is also a whole story on how the beef money was divided among producers, feeders,and packers and their related expenses. However, as Econ has pointed out, who does Tyson have to share the higher prices of chicken with?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
You have to do a little math to come up with the amount that chicken gives to earnings. Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?


Chicken drives Tyson Q4

DJ Tyson Foods 4Q Net Jumps 48%, But Sales Fall 9.1% >TSN-2-

9:24 AM, November 14, 2005



Tyson's accounting cycle resulted in a 13-week fourth quarter, compared to a

14-week fourth quarter in fiscal 2004.



The company's fourth-quarter chicken sales fell 9.6% from a year earlier, to

$2.09 million. But operating income for its chicken business rose 40%.



Fourth-quarter beef sales dropped 6.3% to $2.95 million, while the beef

business swung to an operating loss of $13 million from an operating profit of

$40 million a year ago.



Tyson attributed the decline in its beef business to export market closures

and Canadian import issues. The company expects fiscal 2006 will present only

gradual recovery in beef sales as those markets begin to open and cattle

supplies improve, but the chicken business will remain solid, it said.



Tyson sees fiscal 2006 earnings of 95 cents to $1.25 a share, while analysts

surveyed by First Call project mean earnings of $1.33 a share. For fiscal 2005,

Tyson earned 99 cents a share, including items which hurt earnings by 2 cents a

share.



Although the company said it expects to post additional losses in the first

quarter, an estimate of the costs wasn't immediately available.



Tyson began a conference call Monday at 9:00 a.m. EST.



Source: Dow Jones Newswires

agriculture.com



Nov 14 (Reuters) -

TYSON FOODS INC. (TSN.N: Quote, Profile, Research)

Latest Forecast* No. of Yr ago



analysts qtr

EPS (diluted, $/shr) 0.28 -- -- 0.19

Net ($ million) 98.0 -- -- 66.0

Sales ($ million) 6,495.0 7,026.8 8 7,149.0



*Source: Reuters Estimates



--The largest U.S. meat company said its fourth-quarter earnings included a non-recurring income tax net benefit of $15 million and $8 million of pre-tax losses related to Hurricane Katrina. The net impact of the two items was a gain of 3 cents a share.



--The company said its pre-tax earnings for the year-ago quarter included costs of $46 million, or 8 cents a share, related to fixed asset write-downs and intangible asset impairments.



--For the latest quarter, eight analysts on average had expected the company to earn 31 cents a share, excluding exceptional items, according to Reuters Estimates. (Reporting by Dhanya Ann Thoppil in Bangalore)



today.reuters.com



Tyson Misses, Guides Lower

By TSC Staff

The Street

11/14/2005



Tyson Foods' (TSN:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) fourth-quarter earnings missed Wall Street estimates and the company, which is grappling with a difficult market for beef at home and abroad, guided 2006 lower.



The husbandry farmer earned $98 million, or 28 cents a share, in the latest quarter, including one-time items that boosted EPS by 3 cents. Analysts were forecasting earnings of 30 cents a share in the quarter. A year ago, Tyson earned $66 million, or 19 cents a share.



Sales fell to $6.5 billion in the latest fourth quarter, which had 13 weeks, from $7.1 billion in the year-ago quarter, which had 14 weeks. Analysts were forecasting sales of $7.03 billion in the most recent quarter.



By segment, chicken sales totaled $2.09 billion in the latest quarter compared with $2.31 billion a year ago; beef sales were $2.95 billion compared with $3.15 billion; and pork sales were $763 million compared with $889 million.



For 2006, Tyson expects to earn 95 cents to $1.25 a share. Analysts were forecasting $1.33 a share.



"We are encouraged by recent developments in export market access, but fiscal 2006 will present only gradual recovery in beef as those markets begin to open and cattle supplies improve," Tyson said. "As domestic hog supplies continue to improve, the pork segment should generate more normal returns. We expect our chicken business to remain solid, and our Prepared Foods' segment market share to improve."



The stock last traded at $18.50, or 14.8 times the high end of next year's guidance.



thestreet.com

You seem to have overlooked a key point which brings into serious doubt your question regarding Tyson's operation. If you looked at all the data you would realize that Tyson LOST market share for beef as they were losing money in the beef segment. They did not operate at a loss as you imply to gain market share and put competitors out of business.

You may choose to run a business as you suggest but I can assure you and all readers that those greedy corporate types make every sector accountable; one sector does not exist to subsidize the other.

Beef was a victim of declining consumer demand for beef, down 2.44% during the third quarter. The squeeze on discretionary consumer income from high energy costs, the high cost of beef relative to the competing meats, and a peak in the Atkins's diet craze were the primary factors contributing to lower beef demand during the third quarter of 2005.

Agman, you diverted from the question I posed and assumed I made a statement. In case you have a hard time reading and need things spelled out again, I will pose my two questions to you again:

1) Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?

2) WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN (or any other) BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?

1) I did not divert from your question I just got to the point of your question. Who is kidding who? You fool no one.

2) Since you have claimed that imports are negative I will give you the opportunity to prove your point. I do realize that your very limited knowledge of business and economic analysis leaves in doubt the possibility of any answer from you. All you have done to date is make senseless accusations which you have been unable to support; not even once. I expect you will fill a page with another of your meaningless dissertations that in the end only show your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and how transparent your positions really are.

Regarding your previous and ludicrous claim of back room meetings in the Pickett case why have you not answered my very simple and direct question? Who was involved, where and when did the meetings occur? You made the statement. Without evidence it is just another of your unending baseless accusations or worse yet your comment was just a plain old lie.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Just for curiosity, I've been keeping a tab on meat prices at the local grocery stores for the past few years. In January of 2004 (close to two years ago) round roast was $2.29/lb. Cut up fryers was .79. This week round roast is $2.49 - up 8.73% and fryers are .89 - up 12.66%.

There are many variables that moved the prices of each so you can't point your finger at one thing and say "that is the reason". It is also a whole story on how the beef money was divided among producers, feeders,and packers and their related expenses. However, as Econ has pointed out, who does Tyson have to share the higher prices of chicken with?

For starters, do you believe your local grocery store is representative of the national market - just curious?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
You seem to have overlooked a key point which brings into serious doubt your question regarding Tyson's operation. If you looked at all the data you would realize that Tyson LOST market share for beef as they were losing money in the beef segment. They did not operate at a loss as you imply to gain market share and put competitors out of business.

You may choose to run a business as you suggest but I can assure you and all readers that those greedy corporate types make every sector accountable; one sector does not exist to subsidize the other.

Beef was a victim of declining consumer demand for beef, down 2.44% during the third quarter. The squeeze on discretionary consumer income from high energy costs, the high cost of beef relative to the competing meats, and a peak in the Atkins's diet craze were the primary factors contributing to lower beef demand during the third quarter of 2005.

Agman, you diverted from the question I posed and assumed I made a statement. In case you have a hard time reading and need things spelled out again, I will pose my two questions to you again:

1) Can Tyson operate below cost in beef and run other plants out of business that compete with it in beef thereby gaining market share and increased market power?

2) WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN (or any other) BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?

1) I did not divert from your question I just got to the point of your question. Who is kidding who? You fool no one.

2) Since you have claimed that imports are negative I will give you the opportunity to prove your point. I do realize that your very limited knowledge of business and economic analysis leaves in doubt the possibility of any answer from you. All you have done to date is make senseless accusations which you have been unable to support; not even once. I expect you will fill a page with another of your meaningless dissertations that in the end only show your lack of knowledge of the beef industry and how transparent your positions really are.

Regarding your previous and ludicrous claim of back room meetings in the Pickett case why have you not answered my very simple and direct question? Who was involved, where and when did the meetings occur? You made the statement. Without evidence it is just another of your unending baseless accusations or worse yet your comment was just a plain old lie.

Agman, you made the assertion that importing meat had a positive impact, not I. You have diverted again. I do realize that you only want to give one sided answers. Whether something has a positive impact or not does not go to the question as to whether or not the impact's net effect is positive and to whom. I think your inability to answer these two questions straightforward puts you ahead of me in meaningless dissertations and assertions.


The fact is that 2) the value of imports of beef is negative for the producer, positive for the importer, and positive for consumers. So much for the packers doing what is in the best interest of producers. Who caused there to be a need for imports? Partly low prices for long periods which decreased the domestic supply of cattle. The packers just want to capitalize on their market manipulation at the expense of the producer. On question 1) the answer is an obvious yes.

Since you are so close to the packers, Agman, why are their margins tilting to the negative in beef and why is Tyson making all of its money in poultry, just I stated? I think rkaiser has already answered that one which also lends support to my answers.


On your question of back room meetings, you never answered my RPA question. You can do all the little analysis on the data you want, but if you get the basics wrong, your numbers don't mean a whole lot. Spin this group if you want, give a little tease of insider knowledge, but don't ever claim to be a real economist. That is just too insulting. You can not even answer two easy questions without diverting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary Economics: "It is the ability to run out all of the profits out of an industry to run all of the competition out."

HAHAHAHAHA!

I would love to hear the explanation for that absolutely ridiculous statement. How can Tyson run out the competition if they are not competitive in the market place? How can Tyson be exerting market power while running the profit out to run the competition out? LOL!

You don't have a clue what you are talking about and you just proved it again. This is a classic example of just how damn ignorant you really are and how deeply you have bathed yourself in nothing but baseless packer blaming conspiracy theories.

On one hand you say Tyson is manipulating markets to add to their profits which you claim as anticompetitive. On the other hand, you say they are running all the profits out to run out the competition.

AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION!

You can't have it both ways. Either Tyson is manipulating the markets to profit or they are reducing their profits to run out the competition. It can't be both.

PICK A CONSPIRACY AND STICK WITH IT!!!!!!!! LOL!

How can you run out the competition by being anti competitive?

You are so bathed in packer conspiracy theories that your conspiracy theories have contradicted eachother. You are such a joke! I'm glad some of the reasonable posters on here like Jake are seeing through this total bullsh*t.

NEXT!



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Elementary Economics: "The fact is that 2) the value of imports of beef is negative for the producer, positive for the importer, and positive for consumers. So much for the packers doing what is in the best interest of producers."

In the case of imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim TO ADD VALUE TO IT, you are absolutely wrong. Nobody is going to buy a 50% fat hamburger. Without the lean beef to blend with 50/50 trim, the 50/50 trim becomes worthless. I've already explained this fact to you yet you continue to display your ignorance on this issue. How can anyone be so wrong on so many issues. I'm actually starting to feel sympathy for you. I can't imagine being that ignorant on so many issues involving the beef/cattle industry.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH:
On one hand you say Tyson is manipulating markets to add to their profits which you claim as anticompetitive. On the other hand, you say they are running all the profits out to run out the competition.

AN ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION!

You can't have it both ways. Either Tyson is manipulating the markets to profit or they are reducing their profits to run out the competition. It can't be both.

SH, I have always said that you can turn earnings into money investors take home or reinvest and buy competitors. It is a whole lot cheaper to buy competitors who will not go with your game when you drive the profits down low in the industry. You get real bargains that way. The slide down the supply curve allowed them to do just that, and I did post the "proof" of that on this forum. You are the one who has continually equated market manipulation with higher profits, not I. There are lots of ways to turn market manipulation into gain. The obvious is a little harder to get away with with the regulators. I am appalled that someone who "knows" so much about this industry does not see what is happening to it--- or admitting to it.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Elementary Economics: "The fact is that 2) the value of imports of beef is negative for the producer, positive for the importer, and positive for consumers. So much for the packers doing what is in the best interest of producers."

In the case of imported lean trimmings from Australia and New Zealand that are blended with our SURPLUS 50/50 trim TO ADD VALUE TO IT, you are absolutely wrong. Nobody is going to buy a 50% fat hamburger. Without the lean beef to blend with 50/50 trim, the 50/50 trim becomes worthless. I've already explained this fact to you yet you continue to display your ignorance on this issue. How can anyone be so wrong on so many issues. I'm actually starting to feel sympathy for you. I can't imagine being that ignorant on so many issues involving the beef/cattle industry.



~SH~

SH, do you need the reading comprehension course that Sandhusker mentioned for Agman? None of you above post answered the question. Here it is again:


2) WHO DOES THE NET VALUE OF IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN (or any other) BEEF TO BE MIXED WITH A TUB OF TRIM GO TO, AGMAN?

DOES IT GO TO THE DOMESTIC PRODUCERS?

Does Agman need you to get him out of a fix all the time? Let him stand on his own.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Just for curiosity, I've been keeping a tab on meat prices at the local grocery stores for the past few years. In January of 2004 (close to two years ago) round roast was $2.29/lb. Cut up fryers was .79. This week round roast is $2.49 - up 8.73% and fryers are .89 - up 12.66%.

There are many variables that moved the prices of each so you can't point your finger at one thing and say "that is the reason". It is also a whole story on how the beef money was divided among producers, feeders,and packers and their related expenses. However, as Econ has pointed out, who does Tyson have to share the higher prices of chicken with?

For starters, do you believe your local grocery store is representative of the national market - just curious?

Yes, I do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Your arguments are conflicting Elementary.

Either you are paying more money to get the cattle bought to undercut the competition or you are manipulating markets in order to lower the price you have to pay for cattle. You can't have it both ways. Your arguments are absolutely baseless and conflicting.

I am not responding for Agman on your false claim regarding the value of imports, I'm simply responding to this ignorance by stating the fact that imported lean trimmings add value to our surplus 50/50 trim. You were wrong again. Another of the many facts I have presented to you that you will not refute with anything OF SUBSTANCE to the contrary.

Why do you subject yourself to such humiliation? Why don't you stick to a topic you know something about? You're obviously in way over your head again.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top