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

Conman: "The formula market is a lid on price"....

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."

Since you are so prone to talking in generalizations, presenting theories, and making statements without ever having to back your position with supporting facts and examples, let's see if you are capable of actually supporting your position for once.

We will use the above statement as a starting point considering that virtually every post you have made since you graced this forum with your presence has been related to ibp/Tyson "manipulating markets".

At the risk of your crying foul and stating that you were/are being taken out of context, I'd like you to answer a few questions. This is also a test to see if you can answer a question honestly that I believe would support your bias and whether or not you even have a basic understanding of the issues we discuss here.

I have said it before and I meant it, I think you are a complete phony but I still want to believe that you can actually contribute something useful to these debates even if our opinions agree.


1. When you refer to the "formula" market, are you referring to those cattle that are sold by a "grid pricing" method that uses a weekly weighted average of the cash price the week prior to delivery as a formula to determine the base price for the "grid pricing"?

Yes or no?



2. Do you agree that "grid pricing" is a mechanism by which feeders can sell their calves to receive grade and yield premiums and discounts for their cattle as opposed to the cash market?

Yes or no?



3. You said that "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up". I am assuming by "market price" you mean the cash market for all of the major packers. Is that correct?

Yes or no?



3b. Or did you mean that ibp's "market price" (cash market) would not go up due to the cattle that they have already purchased in the "formula market"?

Yes or no?



4. Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?

yes or no?



5. If so, can you explain how Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?


6. Can you explain your statement that "the formula market is a lid on prices"? Explain how the "formula market puts a lid on prices" and the process in which Tyson uses "formula cattle to manipulate the cash markets".



I am going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt here Conman and see if you can actually support your position with something more substantial than "generalizing statements" and "theories".

So show us what you got. Bring everything you have to support your position on this issue once we have absolutely defined it with your answers to the above questions.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You call the man a childish name, do your best to degrade and discredit him, and then ask that he answer your questions? :roll:

You're a dandy.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,174
Reaction score
408
Location
Big Muddy valley
I would like to know Econs answers to these questions. Might help us understand where he is coming from. What sandhusker are you afriad of? Do you loan money with only knowing half of what you would like to?


Sandhusker are you revving the motor on your Swedish enlarger again?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
I would like to know Econs answers to these questions. Might help us understand where he is coming from. What sandhusker are you afriad of? Do you loan money with only knowing half of what you would like to?


Sandhusker are you revving the motor on your Swedish enlarger again?

Not afraid of anything, BRM. I predict Econ will answer the questions very well, and then SH will ignore facts, common sense, logic, etc.... and will misinterpret anything presented. After you see something 295 times in a row, #296 is easy to predict.

If somebody came into my bank wanting a loan and addressing me like SH has addressed Econ, I'd tell him First National is the place for him.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."

(a) Since you are so prone to talking in generalizations, presenting theories, and making statements without ever having to back your position with supporting facts and examples, let's see if you are capable of actually supporting your position for once.

(b) We will use the above statement as a starting point considering that virtually every post you have made since you graced this forum with your presence has been related to ibp/Tyson "manipulating markets".

(c) At the risk of your crying foul and stating that you were/are being taken out of context, I'd like you to answer a few questions. This is also a test to see if you can answer a question honestly that I believe would support your bias and whether or not you even have a basic understanding of the issues we discuss here.

(d) I have said it before and I meant it, I think you are a complete phony but I still want to believe that you can actually contribute something useful to these debates even if our opinions agree.


1. When you refer to the "formula" market, are you referring to those cattle that are sold by a "grid pricing" method that uses a weekly weighted average of the cash price the week prior to delivery as a formula to determine the base price for the "grid pricing"?

Yes or no?



2. Do you agree that "grid pricing" is a mechanism by which feeders can sell their calves to receive grade and yield premiums and discounts for their cattle as opposed to the cash market?

Yes or no?



3. You said that "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up". I am assuming by "market price" you mean the cash market for all of the major packers. Is that correct?

Yes or no?



3b. Or did you mean that ibp's "market price" (cash market) would not go up due to the cattle that they have already purchased in the "formula market"?

Yes or no?



4. Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?

yes or no?



5. If so, can you explain how Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?


6. Can you explain your statement that "the formula market is a lid on prices"? Explain how the "formula market puts a lid on prices" and the process in which Tyson uses "formula cattle to manipulate the cash markets".



I am going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt here Conman and see if you can actually support your position with something more substantial than "generalizing statements" and "theories".

So show us what you got. Bring everything you have to support your position on this issue once we have absolutely defined it with your answers to the above questions.



~SH~

Welcome back minion #1. I see Agman will not answer questions and has to send you out to do the packer's bidding. Lessons of management firewalls have not been lost on him. As I said before, SH, you are a lot of fun. You will have to understand that I think outside of the box. You might not like that I avoid your little boxes, but se la vie (Frenchie, is that how you spell it?).

(a) I have presented a lot of "evidence". Your characterization of "evidence" shows your bias no matter how you sugar coat it, SH. It does prove that you do know how to control yourself, however, and that is a refreshing thought.

(b) Tyson was the defendant in the Pickett case. The other packers may have had a hand in the same deal, but taking on the biggest boy in a fight for the truth and justice has not ever been a problem for me.

(c) I would love to answer a few questions, but just as you have tried to frame this discussion, you have a bias. You might not get a yes or no answer for me because many questions are so broad in their scope and too generalized to have a yes or no answer. I am sorry I think outside of the box on this for your purposes, but that is the way it is.

(d) I will withhold my verbalizing my judgement of you as well. It really does no good to get personal. Points should be discussed and debated as to the merit of the points of the discussion. If you disagree, you do not have to get personal. The truth is not held by any one person, the truth is scattered amongst us all. Everyone has their viewpoint and it comes from where they see the deal. We should all be honest with ourselves and others as to what we see. Believe me, I have no problems in that area and I respect other people who do the same, as frustrating as it may seem at times (I have a lot of practice at home, I have been yoked with my equal).

1. Yes, I suppose that definition will do. As I said before, the captive supply is the issue and that is any supply whose base price is determined by a price not indicative of the supply/demand characteristics of the week of delivery or transfer of rights of delivery. We could work on this definition a little more depending on particular circumstances and nuances of the industry or structure of the contracts. Formula is just one that fits into the definition.

2. Yes the grid does that. The cash market also does that with the judgement of the eye of the buyer on the cattle being bid upon. The quality of decisions of that "eye" is in the hands of the ones employing that buyer. Training for that "eye" for the cash market bids is the responsibility of that employer just as the responsibility of a cattelman is exercised when buying a herd bull. The good thing about the packers in this instance, is that they have full access to allowing their buyers to see how good their "eye" is as it relates to a pen of cattle by looking at the carcass after the hide comes off.

3. No, that is not what I said. I said that all supply that is taken off of a given week and bid the way you just described in the formula market can not make the prices of the cash market go up. Supplies that go into the formula market are put in at a price determined by last week's cash market, which is a cap for the pricing of those cattle. This reduces the supply left on the cash market and thins the cash market. The more thin the cash market, the easier it is to manipulate. The problem with the cash market in this instance, is that is not indicative of the average price of cattle during the week. It loses some of its relevance as to being an average market price.

For example (this is a real extreme example for illustrative purposes), if the average market price of cattle was 80 cents and the formula (and captive supply) market took 90% of the cattle off of the market at 80 cents, then the cash market would only have 10% of the cattle secured during that week. The cash market would not be an indicator of what the average price of the market was, just what the cash price was. Suppose the packer saw this was occurring and that it increased their ability to influence the cash price by decreasing their demand for cattle. They could do this simply by reducing the hours in the plant by one and do a little clean up at the plant (they could also use the excuse that regulators made them do it). Suppose that 1 hour took the demand for fat cattle down by 1% during that one week.

1% (could be an even lower number, this is just for illustration) is not a lot compared to the whole market. The packer could easily increase the working hours at the plant and take the 1% off of the regular kill the next week. To the price setting cash market, however, the 1% is really 10% of the total in the left over supply. Cash bidders could decrease their bids in the cash market to reflect this different reality. They could be "bidding lower in the cash markets because their needs (demand) had already been met. This could happen for a couple of weeks or more (after the first week, they might not have increased their slaughter the next week for whatever reason). Since the cattlemen had held their cattle over, they may be getting "current" due to the nature of time/feed on their cattle. As the packer sees that the market is becoming "current", to depress the market even more he changes the premiums paid in the formula market to lower the price paid for prime steers. In this way the "cap" on prices is lowered even more. This kind of manipulation, strategically planned, could depress the cash prices even more(hence the next week's formula base price) and make the market "current" to an even higher degree.

If other packers have the same formula pricing mechanism in their supplies, they also have a financial incentive to follow the same course of action. What they lose in opportunity costs associated with buying cattle in the cash market, they could more than make up in allowing the cash market to decrease in price and not actively bid on those cattle. They may have a lot of contracts that are based on the cash price and have an even greater reason to not actively bid on the cash market. Their leverage could be enormous and one week's cash price could make a huge difference in the total price they had to pay for cattle over a period of time. If I could do a little graphics on this forum I could show you the Nash equation that developed in the market. All other packers could have an incentive to depress the cash market along with Tyson.

To go on with the numbers in this example, let us just say that the price depression could have amounted to a decrease in price of the cash market by say 5%. That would depress the cash market by 4 cents per lb. from 80 cents to 76 cents per lb (in real life this happens more gradually). Now the cash price is depressed by 5% but the whole market is only depressed by a weighted average of the formula and the cash market. Let us look at the numbers:

Total market: (90% captive x .80) + (10% cash x .76)=

( .72 ) + (.076) = 79.6 cents per lb. average market price/wk.

Cash market: 76 cents per lb. average market price/ week.


As you can see, the cash price is not indicative of market performance. It is only 76 cents per lb. compared to an average market price of 79.6 cents per lb. The new price for the formula for the next week is lower than the market price by 3.96 cents per lb by using this method of having the cash price setting the base price for the captive supply. That ends up being a lot of money that producers lost. If the cash price was a basis price of contracts and the other packers had 90% of their supplies on long term contracts with a base price of the cash market, They would save 3.96 cents per lb. on their captive supply by discriminating against the cash market. All the packers have the same reason to discriminate against the cash market!!!


Now let us take a look at what the average cost to a different packer is under this scenario: Let us say that of the cattle market, Company X had 30% of their cattle procured through contracts procured in the cash market and the rest procured through the half (35%) in the cash and half(35%) with the formula market. The normal market would have been made all the cattle bought in the market at 80 cents. With the little manipulation scheme, let us see how they came out:

Company X cattle purchases:

Contracts: (.30 x .76 cents per lb of cash contract costs)= .228
Formula : ( .35 x .76 cents per lb of cash market costs )= .266
Cash market:(.35 x .76 cents per lb of cash market costs)= .266

Total cost per lb.: .76

Savings over real cost of cattle by discrimination: .0396 cents/lb.

So by having captive supplies themselves, the competitors save themselves a boatload of money (3.96 cents) per lb. If they bid up the price in the cash market, they pay however much it is bid up to, or the market equilibrium of 79.6 cents per lb. if captive supplies did not exist.

Now the interesting thing is that the .76 becomes the new lid on the formula price the next week. The scam continues until the packers run out of captive supplies to commit the market frauds. When does this scam work? It works when there is just a little more supply on the market than what it can clear, whether made up or actual. You asked before under what circumstances packers could do their manipulaton and get away with it. The answer is, they can do it as long as there is a high amount of captive supplies (not just from just one buyer) and when the market, for whatever reason (Jason brought up the good example of the cattle cycle, and that is the most appropriate time to march down the cattle supply curve) has a little more supply than the current market equilibrium. Since the real supply of cattle does not really decrease in the short run (cattle cycle has to play through and get rid of cattle) the amount of supply on the market remains relatively stable for the consumer. The price does go down for the consumer, but by a larger degree than what the average market prices goes down (76 cents compared to the 79.6 cents).

Remember that this huge price swing does not usually happen in real life. Usually it happens over a period of time. That way it looks as if the market is just going down on its own. It is actually getting "pushed". It is like pushing the swing. The swing will come back down and then swing the other way. The little push makes the markets swing greater than a non manipulated market would swing. The highs will be higher and the lows lower. When the highs are higher, you will get increased imports. When the lows are lower, you would expect increased exports.

What happens over time and what time period are we in now? Since the supply went down after time went by (less people will mess with cattle when the price is 76 cents than 79.6 cents per lb), and the price depression is greater than the normal market supply and demand equilibrium of 79.6 cents per lb, you have larger swings in the price and hence supply. Supply eventually contracts, but it contracts more than it would have without the manipulation. Put in the decrease in supply of the substitutes of pork and chicken at the same time and you will eventually end up with higher prices in all 3 markets. That is the time period we are in right now. Watch the chicken market. It is coming down now as the market is softening up. Supplies are not as tight.

In the time periods that this manipulation is happening, the markets will have times when the packers do not have enough captive supplies to drive the markets down. There are limitations. In these times you will see the price of the cash markets increase. The increase will not be as great as the 3.96 cents in this example. No one ever said that packers have a complete monopsony (where they are the only buyers and can dictate prices completely). At this time the markets are still oligoposonies (just a few buyers).

4. I don't know. That is for the specific evidence to show. It would be complete speculation on my part. Pickett showed that they did during the time periods in question. One would theorize that this would happen more when there are not "tight" supplies. Currently we have "tight" supplies so the prevelance of marketing agreements should be lower. I don't know what Tyson's captive supplies look like now, but they are probablydown from the Pickett times.

5. See above.

6. It thins the cash market so the cash market is not indicative of the average market price. Manipulation can occur under these circumstances but it does not have to. The companies may not want to fall into doing it because they are truely competing for those supplies. It all depends on the circumstances. The key is to look and see if they ever offer more in the formula markets than they do in the cash markets. That is the evidence Tyson would not disclose in testimony. It was the "smoking" gun. It does not mean, if they do not produce the "smoking gun" that they did not manipulate the market. Plaintiffs can still prove their case without that evidence. Not providing that evidence should be a real big red flag.

You asked, I answered. Thanks for asking, SH.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Let's start with Question #3 again.

Here it is within context:


3. You said that "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up". I am assuming by "market price" you mean the cash market for all of the major packers. Is that correct?

Yes or no?


Conman's response: "3. No, that is not what I said. I said that all supply that is taken off of a given week and bid the way you just described in the formula market can not make the prices of the cash market go up."

OK, listen up everyone, Conman just responded with "no, that is not what I said".


With that in mind, here is Conman's entire statement, WITHIN CONTEXT, including my statement he was responding to. Under the thread entitled "Swift Illegal" on Jan. 21, 2006 at 12:50 PM Conman responded to the following statement of mine:


My statement to Sandbag: "1. Why would I sell on a formula price if I knew what the cash market would be?

TO GET PAID FOR THE GRADE AND YIELD QUALITY OF MY CATTLE. If I didn't want to get paid for carcass merit, I would take the cash price."

Here is your exact response to that statement Conman:

Conman (in response to the above statement which you numbered, not me): "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."


Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT, do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Can you admit that you were wrong, or are you going to try to slither or lie or divert your way out of it?


Let's see if we can get past this single "untruth". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you actually didn't remember what you had said so I won't accuse you of lying ON THIS.


I have to ask, after you have read exactly what you wrote, did I take your statement out of context or not?

YES I DID TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT or NO I DID NOT TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU JUST FORGOT WHAT YOU WROTE?


My next question was:

4. Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?

Conman responded with:

4. I don't know. That is for the specific evidence to show. It would be complete speculation on my part. Pickett showed that they did during the time periods in question."

How many posts have you stated that Tyson is manipulating the markets, and now YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW?????? LOL!

Do you want to change your answer to:

"Pickett showed that they did during the time period addressed during the trial so Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the markets at certain times"?????

You inconsistant with your position so I'm trying to get you to committ to one position or the other. Either you believe Tyson does use formula cattle to manipulate the cash markets or you don't know. Which way is it going to be?

I'm going to give you the chance to change your answer if you'd like.

If it's going to stay, "I don't know" then this debate can end right here and everytime you state that Tyson is manipulating markets, you will be reminded of your current "I don't know" position making your latest "opinion" totally contradicting to this position.

Do you really want to take this "I don't know" position?


Next......

Conman: "For example (this is a real extreme example for illustrative purposes), if the average market price of cattle was 80 cents and the formula (and captive supply) market took 90% of the cattle off of the market at 80 cents, then the cash market would only have 10% of the cattle secured during that week."

There is no need to use examples that are not representative of the facts.

7. Has Tyson ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market? Yes, No, or I don't know?

8. Has Tyson, Excel, and Swift ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME? Yes, No, or I don't know?

If not,

9. What would be the highest level of captive supply that could be reached at any given time by Tyson, Swift, and Excel, SIMULTANEOUSLY, to give merit to your argument?

If Tyson did have 90% of their weekly cattle needs procured within a given week, that does not affect the fact that Excel, Swift, USPB and Greater Omaha are still competing for the remaining cash cattle to fill their slaughter needs that have not been secured by a captive supply arrangement.

Tyson may have dropped their cash bids based on their captive supply numbers in a given week but that doesn't mean Excel and Swift have dropped their cash bids for that same week. If Tyson drops their price, any feeder can sell to Swift or Excel if they haven't also dropped their cash bids. Obviously, if you have a high supply of cattle in the formula markets, you have a reduced supply in the cash market. Tyson dropping their cash market is not THE WHOLE CASH MARKET DROPPING. That distinction must be made.

Assuming that the cattle supply normally equals the slaughtering capacity of the major packers, an increase in "formula supply" means a decrease in the "cash" supply with the same total slaughter numbers being needed by the major packers.

The only way my argument (the two paragraphs before this one) does not have merit is if the Pickett plaintiffs or anyone that shares their views could only sell to Tyson. If that is not the case, then you are going to have to prove above 60% "captive supply" levels for AT LEAST the 3 major packers AT THE SAME TIME.

Can you do that? If not, all you have is "THEORY" again. No proof, no facts, PURE SPECULATION.

10. So is your 90% captive supply "THEORY" based on speculation or fact?


Disclaimer:

Captive Supplies, as defined by GIPSA is "those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter".

By definition, formula cattle are not captive supply because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Pickett vs. IBP wrongly defined "captive supplies" as including formula cattle. For the sake of debate we will include formula cattle within the definition of captive supply even though formula cattle are not defined as "captive supply" by GIPSA or by the Johnson Amendment that wanted to end captive supply arrangements.

I just need to clarify that I know that "formula cattle" are not captive supply by definition but for the sake of this debate and because Pickett considered formula cattle as captive supply, we will include them.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman,

3. Let's start with Question #3 again.

Here it is within context:


3. You said that "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up". I am assuming by "market price" you mean the cash market for all of the major packers. Is that correct?

Yes or no?


Conman's response: "3. No, that is not what I said. I said that all supply that is taken off of a given week and bid the way you just described in the formula market can not make the prices of the cash market go up."

OK, listen up everyone, Conman just responded with "no, that is not what I said".


With that in mind, here is Conman's entire statement, WITHIN CONTEXT, including my statement he was responding to. Under the thread entitled "Swift Illegal" on Jan. 21, 2006 at 12:50 PM Conman responded to the following statement of mine:


My statement to Sandbag: "1. Why would I sell on a formula price if I knew what the cash market would be?

TO GET PAID FOR THE GRADE AND YIELD QUALITY OF MY CATTLE. If I didn't want to get paid for carcass merit, I would take the cash price."

Here is your exact response to that statement Conman:

Conman (in response to the above statement which you numbered, not me): "1. Under this scenario, SH, the formula market is a lid on prices. None of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up. It is a lid on prices."


Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT, do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Can you admit that you were wrong, or are you going to try to slither or lie or divert your way out of it?


Let's see if we can get past this single "untruth". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you actually didn't remember what you had said so I won't accuse you of lying ON THIS.


I have to ask, after you have read exactly what you wrote, did I take your statement out of context or not?

YES I DID TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT or NO I DID NOT TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU JUST FORGOT WHAT YOU WROTE?


My next question was:

4. Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?

Conman responded with:

4. I don't know. That is for the specific evidence to show. It would be complete speculation on my part. Pickett showed that they did during the time periods in question."

How many posts have you stated that Tyson is manipulating the markets, and now YOU ADMIT YOU DON'T KNOW?????? LOL!

Do you want to change your answer to:

"Pickett showed that they did during the time period addressed during the trial so Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the markets at certain times"?????

You inconsistant with your position so I'm trying to get you to committ to one position or the other. Either you believe Tyson does use formula cattle to manipulate the cash markets or you don't know. Which way is it going to be?

I'm going to give you the chance to change your answer if you'd like.

If it's going to stay, "I don't know" then this debate can end right here and everytime you state that Tyson is manipulating markets, you will be reminded of your current "I don't know" position making your latest "opinion" totally contradicting to this position.

Do you really want to take this "I don't know" position?


Next......

Conman: "For example (this is a real extreme example for illustrative purposes), if the average market price of cattle was 80 cents and the formula (and captive supply) market took 90% of the cattle off of the market at 80 cents, then the cash market would only have 10% of the cattle secured during that week."

There is no need to use examples that are not representative of the facts.

7. Has Tyson ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market? Yes, No, or I don't know?

8. Has Tyson, Excel, and Swift ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME? Yes, No, or I don't know?

If not,

9. What would be the highest level of captive supply that could be reached at any given time by Tyson, Swift, and Excel, SIMULTANEOUSLY, to give merit to your argument?

If Tyson did have 90% of their weekly cattle needs procured within a given week, that does not affect the fact that Excel, Swift, USPB and Greater Omaha are still competing for the remaining cash cattle to fill their slaughter needs that have not been secured by a captive supply arrangement.

Tyson may have dropped their cash bids based on their captive supply numbers in a given week but that doesn't mean Excel and Swift have dropped their cash bids for that same week. If Tyson drops their price, any feeder can sell to Swift or Excel if they haven't also dropped their cash bids. Obviously, if you have a high supply of cattle in the formula markets, you have a reduced supply in the cash market. Tyson dropping their cash market is not THE WHOLE CASH MARKET DROPPING. That distinction must be made.

Assuming that the cattle supply normally equals the slaughtering capacity of the major packers, an increase in "formula supply" means a decrease in the "cash" supply with the same total slaughter numbers being needed by the major packers.

The only way my argument (the two paragraphs before this one) does not have merit is if the Pickett plaintiffs or anyone that shares their views could only sell to Tyson. If that is not the case, then you are going to have to prove above 60% "captive supply" levels for AT LEAST the 3 major packers AT THE SAME TIME.

Can you do that? If not, all you have is "THEORY" again. No proof, no facts, PURE SPECULATION.

10. So is your 90% captive supply "THEORY" based on speculation or fact?


Disclaimer:

Captive Supplies, as defined by GIPSA is "those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter".

By definition, formula cattle are not captive supply because they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

Pickett vs. IBP wrongly defined "captive supplies" as including formula cattle. For the sake of debate we will include formula cattle within the definition of captive supply even though formula cattle are not defined as "captive supply" by GIPSA or by the Johnson Amendment that wanted to end captive supply arrangements.

I just need to clarify that I know that "formula cattle" are not captive supply by definition but for the sake of this debate and because Pickett considered formula cattle as captive supply, we will include them.


~SH~

SH, you need to keep the numbering thing going if you want me to respond to the question. It helps a lot.

3. Formula pricing may or may not have the cash market as a base price. It depends on the formula and what the base price is. If the formula price is has the base price of last week's cash market, then no, any supply that is in the formula price can not make the cash price go up in the current week. It has a price that is not of the week it was procured. There are some formula pricings that do not use the cash price as a base price. They are different. It depends on the exact mechanism for the pricing.

It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in, the effect of the formula cattle is that it will not affect the cash price. It may still affect the overall market average price, but not the cash price. It is supply that is taken off of being able to affect the current cash price.

Go look at my example. The average price for the formula price was 80 cents. The cash price was 76 cents. The average market price was 79.6 cents which was a weighted average of the 80 cent formula price and the 76 cent cash market price.

What lie do you see in any of that? I could see how you could get the weighted average market price, the cash price and the formula price mixed up.

4. "Pickett showed that they did during the time period addressed during the trial so Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the markets at certain times". They might not be doing it now. It depends on the time period in question you were ambiguous in your question as to the time period you were talking about. When you have these kind of ambiguities, I like to throw a couple in myself. I like to see if you call ambiguities lies. See #3.

7. Mike posted that Tyson had captive supply of 180% of needs at one time. Count this as a "bank account" that allows them to have 90% of their needs met at many different times. The first thing they would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price. Don't ask me why people would do that--unless they did not believe that when they sold in the formula market they would get as much value as they could in the cash market for their cattle. Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market. The reason would not matter when you looked at the cash market price. Another reason taking the cream off of the cash market and putting it in the formula cattle depresses the cash price. Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price. Let us suppose this is 30% of the cash market. 30% of the cash market could be bought in the cash market and the cash market could still be not indicative of an average market price.

8. Don't know. My example was for illustrative purposes. That is what a trial is for. The trial would not have to have my exact numbers to make a case. It was just an example and I used round numbers to show what was going on.

9. Depends on the circumstances. Limits are interesting to calculate. Unfortunately the past history of the market makes this into a number that is not a constant. Suffice it to say that any amount of cattle that is put into the formula pricing under this scenario reduces the validity of the cash price as a true average of the market price. This is true when the market goes up or down. That is why the cash price should never be a base price for the market contracts when the pricing of the cash market is subject to supply and demand factors outside of the week it is procured (as formula pricing allows).

9. No, it takes a lot less than the numbers you are suggesting for captive supply to be able to be used to depress the markets. When captive supplies are used and the base price of the captive supplies is the cash market, there only has to be one week where the cash market is discriminated against to affect future weeks. The incentive for all of the other packers to do the same thing is still there. If Tyson was taken out of the market because of captive supplies, the effect on the cash market competition would be great. They need that many cattle in a week. That is why they should never be allowed to discriminate against the cash market in their procurement.

It is interesting that Tyson had all the information of grade and yield of the cattle they bought on the cash market. You could look to see if they were underpaying the average market price or were overpaying the average market price based on the combination of what they paid and how those cattle would have come out under the formula pricing. This would allow you to see what they were doing adjusted for quality. Paying different prices on the basis of quality adjustments would not be considered manipulation unless it was inconsistent. Then it might be. Depends on the circumstances.

10. It is just an example. It may have happened in a given week with those exact numbers, but it would be just a coincidence. I made them up for illustrative purposes only.

GIPSA does not have the capacity to make definitions that mean anything in regards to market power abuse. Their economists need a lot more learning. Why do you think JoAnn Waterfield flew the coup? Gary McBride is in the same position. He needs to do some answering. He is probably not the only one. Thety are still under the opinion that contracts supersede the PSA. They are still in Mickey Mouse land.

As far as the Johnson Amendment, I have not read it. I couldn't comment on it. Their definition obviously hasn't passed and it may or may not have been a good definition depending on the details. Why don't you post it if you want to discuss it? It might be informational. We could do the pros and cons.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

Let's go back to the question you diverted. You know, the one where I asked you if you could admit that you were wrong or whether you were going to slither or lie or divert your way out of it?

1. Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT ("no, that's not what I said"), do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Here's your chance to be honest Conman so answer the above question please........


2. I have to ask, after you have read exactly what you wrote, did I take your statement out of context or not?

YES I DID TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT or NO I DID NOT TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU JUST FORGOT WHAT YOU WROTE?


You diverted that question as well.

Like I said, here's your chance to be honest Conman so answer this question as well please.


Conman: "3. Formula pricing may or may not have the cash market as a base price. It depends on the formula and what the base price is."

Conman: "There are some formula pricings that do not use the cash price as a base price. They are different. It depends on the exact mechanism for the pricing."

3. Give me an example of where formula pricing does not use the cash market as a base price.


Conman: "If the formula price is has the base price of last week's cash market, then no, any supply that is in the formula price can not make the cash price go up in the current week."

4. When you suggest that "any supply that is in the formula price can not make the cash price go up in the current week", are you talking about Tyson's cash price, or the entire fat cattle cash market price?

We have to make that distinction.


Conman: "It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in, the effect of the formula cattle is that it will not affect the cash price. It may still affect the overall market average price, but not the cash price. It is supply that is taken off of being able to affect the current cash price."

Hahaha! You are so arrogant. I was the one who told you that cash cattle and formula cattle that were killed within the same week had their base price derived from seperate weeks. Now you think you need to tell me the same thing that I told you how many times? That's funny!

When you said (out of context) "......the effect of the formula cattle is that it will not affect the cash price".....

5. Again, are you talking about Tyson's cash price, or the entire fat cattle market cash price?


Conman: "I could see how you could get the weighted average market price, the cash price and the formula price mixed up."

6. I was the one who explained it to you, why would I get it mixed up?


Conman: "4. "Pickett showed that they did during the time period addressed during the trial so Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the markets at certain times". They might not be doing it now. It depends on the time period in question you were ambiguous in your question as to the time period you were talking about."

There was nothing ambiguous about my question. I asked.....

SH (previous) 4. "Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?"

That question is as straight forward as you can get. Either you believe that Tyson manipulates markets or you don't.

When I first asked you that question you responded with "I don't know" and now you changed your answer to "Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the market at certain times" which is consistant with your previous position.

At least I had the opportunity to point out to everyone how inconsistant you are.

Time for an honesty check again...............

7. Can you admit that you changed your answer to the same question?

Yes you changed your answer or no you didn't change your answer.



Conman: "7. Mike posted that Tyson had captive supply of 180% of needs at one time. Count this as a "bank account" that allows them to have 90% of their needs met at many different times. The first thing they would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price. Don't ask me why people would do that--unless they did not believe that when they sold in the formula market they would get as much value as they could in the cash market for their cattle. Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market. The reason would not matter when you looked at the cash market price. Another reason taking the cream off of the cash market and putting it in the formula cattle depresses the cash price. Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price. Let us suppose this is 30% of the cash market. 30% of the cash market could be bought in the cash market and the cash market could still be not indicative of an average market price."

Now that I posted you entire statement within context, I am going to break it down by individual sentences to respond due to all the inconsistancies. Since you numbered it as 7, I will use 7a, 7b, etc. to respond to the individual statements wtihin that paragraph.


Conman 7a: "Mike posted that Tyson had captive supply of 180% of needs at one time. Count this as a "bank account" that allows them to have 90% of their needs met at many different times."

No, you assume Tyson has 90% of their needs met AT MANY DIFFERENT TIMES. Unless you have proof of that, you don't know. You are speculating. In order to have a discussion on your "market manipulation" theories, we would need to have hard data on how often this actually occurred. I am of the belief that there is times that Tyson does buy two and 3/4 week's kill within a certain week BUT THEY HAD WILLING SELLERS. For argument's sake, we will assume that there is times when Tyson does have over 90% of their WEEKLY needs procured in the formula market. What we don't know is how often this occurs.

7a. If Tyson has that many willing sellers in the formula market at one time, what is wrong with Tyson procuring a week and 3/4 of their cattle needs within a single week if they have willing sellers?

The only solution to this would be to force everyone to sell in the cash market or put a lid on how many formula cattle Tyson can procure within a given week.

7b. Is that the road you want to go down? Yes or No?


Conman 7b.: "The first thing they would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price."

Let's make sure we are very clear on what you are stating here. By "they", I am assuming you are talking about Tyson but I can never be too sure with you.

If Tyson offers a lower price in the cash market to reflect their formula purchases, it's irrelevant unless Swift and Excel dropped their bids at the same time.

Second, the only way Tyson is going to buy cattle in the cash market at a lower price than their formula market is if they have a willing seller.

Your point is irrelevant from two standpoints.


Conman 7c.: "Don't ask me why people would do that--unless they did not believe that when they sold in the formula market they would get as much value as they could in the cash market for their cattle."

I already told you the reason. Feeders ("people") sell cattle in the formula market to assumingly collect premiums, above the average, for the carcass merit of their cattle. It's called, "selling on grade and yield" as opposed to an "average based cash market".


Conman 7d: "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market."

WHAT?????

"5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with grid pricing"

Within the context of this discussion, FORMULA MARKET IS GRID PRICING!!!!!!!!! Good grief! You don't even know what you are talking about.

Secondly, they don't know exactly what the formula base price will be because the formula base price is derived from an average of the cash market. They have a pretty good idea but they can't compare it to the cash price unless they knew each price for certain, which they don't.

Thirdly, You just got done saying that, "the first thing they (Tyson assumed) would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price". That is what you just said.

Now you say, within the same paragraph, "they could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents".

7d. How could they come out ahead in the cash market for 76 if they didn't know what the formula base price would be for sure?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are just babbling try to sound like you know what you are talking about but you are as phony as a $3 bill to someone like myself who has sold fat cattle.

Fourth, if the formula base price was $75 (which is stupid because you wouldn't know that until after the cash cattle market for the week had been established) and the cash price was $76, taking $76 in the cash price over $75 would bring the weighted average BASE PRICE of the formula cattle higher, not lower.


Conman 7e.: "Another reason taking the cream off of the cash market and putting it in the formula cattle depresses the cash price."

Tyson can't "TAKE" and they can't "PUT" unless they have willing sellers.


Conman 7f: "Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price."

Again, Tyson can't "TAKE" anything unless they have willing sellers. If they have willing sellers, it can hardly be considered market manipulation.

You contradicted yourself again, previously you stated that Pickett proved that the cash cattle were not "lower grade cattle" but actually graded better than the formula cattle. Now you changed your story again.

This entire paragraph was so typical of the bullsh*t that readers have to endure from you. You make things up, you contradict your previous position, you contradict yourself within the same paragraph, you can't keep grid pricing and the cash market seperate, and you reach false conclusions.


Next to my question:

SH (previous): 8. "Has Tyson, Excel, and Swift ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME? Yes, No, or I don't know"?

Your response:

Conman: "8. Don't know."

8. If you don't know whether Tyson, Excel, and Swift have ever procured 90% of the their fat cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME, how can you possibly claim market manipulation?

Unless all of these companies procured a high percentage of their needs in the formula markets AT THE SAME TIME, the cash market AS A WHOLE would be unaffected. So what if Tyson has 90% of their fat cattle needs procured within a given week, unless Swift and Excel also have 90% of their fat cattle needs filled in the formula market, THERE IS LESS CASH CATTLE AVAILABLE FOR SWIFT AND EXCEL TO FILL THEIR NEEDS FROM.

I could make just as valid an argument that Tyson, filling 90% of their needs in the formula market, CREATES MORE COMPETITION FOR THE REMAINING CASH CATTLE due to Swift and Excel's needs.

You are buried on this one. Tyson is "A MARKET", not "THE MARKET".


Conman: "9. Depends on the circumstances."

9. Has there ever been a time when Tyson, Excel, and Swift have had over 50% of their fat cattle needs procured in the formula market AT THE SAME TIME?

Yes, No, or I don't know!



Conman: "When captive supplies are used and the base price of the captive supplies is the cash market, there only has to be one week where the cash market is discriminated against to affect future weeks."

The only way the cash market can be discriminated against in future weeks, is if Tyson, Excel and Swift all dropped their cash bids AT THE SAME TIME to reflect the cattle they procured in the cash market. Has that ever occurred? You just said you didn't know which means your entire theory is based on speculation. Tyson is not "THE MARKET", Tyson is "A MARKET". Unless you can prove that Tyson, Swift, Excel, and USPB all dropped their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY to reflect their purchases in the formula market, YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

9a. Knowing that any cattle that are procured in the formula market drops the number of available cattle in the cash market, wouldn't the decrease in available cattle numbers force Swift and Excel to be more competitive in the cash market to procure their share of the available cattle rather than less competitive?

You see Conman, when your "theories" are held out in the light for everyone to see, they carry no weight.


Conman: "The incentive for all of the other packers to do the same thing is still there."

Impossible unless they have willing sellers. All the packers can try to do whatever they want but unless they pay up and/or have willing sellers, they buy no cattle.


Conman: "If Tyson was taken out of the market because of captive supplies, the effect on the cash market competition would be great. They need that many cattle in a week. That is why they should never be allowed to discriminate against the cash market in their procurement."

But what you fail to understand is that Tyson taking cattle out of the cash market due to their formula purchases creates LESS market ready cattle for Swift and Excel to buy.

There is only so many cattle and there is only so much packer need. SUPPLY AND DEMAND!


Conman: "It is interesting that Tyson had all the information of grade and yield of the cattle they bought on the cash market. You could look to see if they were underpaying the average market price or were overpaying the average market price based on the combination of what they paid and how those cattle would have come out under the formula pricing. This would allow you to see what they were doing adjusted for quality. Paying different prices on the basis of quality adjustments would not be considered manipulation unless it was inconsistent. Then it might be. Depends on the circumstances."

That's right. Cattle that are bought in the cash market are "AVERAGED" with some being overbought and some being under bought due to the quality of the carcasses WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT THAT CATTLE BUYERS KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE THEY ARE BUYING.

Once again, you are wrong in trying to compare formula prices and cash prices from the supply and demand factors of two seperate weeks. When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, THEY WERE PRICED IN SEPERATE WEEKS with supply and demand factors of seperate weeks. This argument of comparing cash and formula prices is null and void unless you can prove that there was no change in any supply and demand factors playing on the market from one week to the next.

Ironically, you just stated, "It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in,....." but yet you continue to argue that a difference in price between the formula market and the cash market is proof of market manipulation.


Conman: "10. It is just an example. It may have happened in a given week with those exact numbers, but it would be just a coincidence. I made them up for illustrative purposes only."

SPECULATION!

There is no sense in using hypotheticals. Either all the packers had over 75% of their slaughter needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY or they didn't.

Even if all the packers had over 75% of their slaughtering needs filled in the formula markets SIMULTANEOUSLY, they still have 25% of their slaughtering needs to fill. They either pay up or they run short of cattle.

Speculation only leads to more conspiracy theories. We need to deal in facts.


Conman: "As far as the Johnson Amendment, I have not read it. I couldn't comment on it. Their definition obviously hasn't passed and it may or may not have been a good definition depending on the details. Why don't you post it if you want to discuss it? It might be informational. We could do the pros and cons."

The Johnson Amendment is in the past and that's where it needs to stay. Take my word for it, the Johnson Amendment defined captive supplies the same way that GIPSA did and that is my only reason for mentioning it.

You have your homework cut out for you. When faced with presenting facts as opposed to theories, you're lost.

10. Can you point out anything I have stated as fact, that is not fact and support that with contradicting facts?

Yes or no?



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

I had to go back and edit a few things in case you responded too quickly.



~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
I know this has pretty much been between you and Econ, SH, but I wanted to toss in a couple thoughts.

~SH~ said:
are you talking about Tyson's cash price, or the entire fat cattle cash market price?[/b]

We have to make that distinction.

Why? Any demand reduction from the formula or contract market, whether it be one company or 10, will result in downwards pressure on the cash market. The fewer the players, the more pressure on the market should only 1 player's demand be off.

~SH~ said:
I already told you the reason. Feeders ("people") sell cattle in the formula market to assumingly collect premiums, above the average, for the carcass merit of their cattle. It's called, "selling on grade and yield" as opposed to an "average based cash market".

So why tie the formula base or grid into last week's cash market average? Why not negotiate a flat base with the packer and still allow yourself to collect the premiums? At least then downwards pressure on average cash prices would only be from increased competion from the formula market, and they wouldn't influence next weeks average market price.

~SH~ said:
But what you fail to understand is that Tyson taking cattle out of the cash market due to their formula purchases creates LESS market ready cattle for Swift and Excel to buy.

But the other packers only have so much money to spend, so the increased demand isn't going to amount to much. If Tyson's formula markets takes all but 10 animals away from Swift and Excel, they aren't going to bid to $1000/lb just to get those animals.

I handled this very comment in this thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7033

~SH~ said:
There is no sense in using hypotheticals. Either all the packers had over 75% of their slaughter needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY or they didn't.

They don't need to drop their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY to have a downwards price pressure, especially since there are still some fat cattle selling in open auctions, especially up here in Canada. All it takes is reduction in demand from one significiant buyer, and there will be downwards price pressure. And this isn't speculation, this is the way markets work.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman,

Let's go back to the question you diverted. You know, the one where I asked you if you could admit that you were wrong or whether you were going to slither or lie or divert your way out of it?

1. Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT ("no, that's not what I said"), do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???


Here's your chance to be honest Conman so answer the above question please........


2. I have to ask, after you have read exactly what you wrote, did I take your statement out of context or not?

YES I DID TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT or NO I DID NOT TAKE YOUR STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT AND YOU JUST FORGOT WHAT YOU WROTE?


You diverted that question as well.

Like I said, here's your chance to be honest Conman so answer this question as well please.


Conman: "3. Formula pricing may or may not have the cash market as a base price. It depends on the formula and what the base price is."

Conman: "There are some formula pricings that do not use the cash price as a base price. They are different. It depends on the exact mechanism for the pricing."

3. Give me an example of where formula pricing does not use the cash market as a base price.


Conman: "If the formula price is has the base price of last week's cash market, then no, any supply that is in the formula price can not make the cash price go up in the current week."

4. When you suggest that "any supply that is in the formula price can not make the cash price go up in the current week", are you talking about Tyson's cash price, or the entire fat cattle cash market price?

We have to make that distinction.


Conman: "It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in, the effect of the formula cattle is that it will not affect the cash price. It may still affect the overall market average price, but not the cash price. It is supply that is taken off of being able to affect the current cash price."

Hahaha! You are so arrogant. I was the one who told you that cash cattle and formula cattle that were killed within the same week had their base price derived from seperate weeks. Now you think you need to tell me the same thing that I told you how many times? That's funny!

When you said (out of context) "......the effect of the formula cattle is that it will not affect the cash price".....

5. Again, are you talking about Tyson's cash price, or the entire fat cattle market cash price?


Conman: "I could see how you could get the weighted average market price, the cash price and the formula price mixed up."

6. I was the one who explained it to you, why would I get it mixed up?


Conman: "4. "Pickett showed that they did during the time period addressed during the trial so Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the markets at certain times". They might not be doing it now. It depends on the time period in question you were ambiguous in your question as to the time period you were talking about."

There was nothing ambiguous about my question. I asked.....

SH (previous) 4. "Do you believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the cash market?"

That question is as straight forward as you can get. Either you believe that Tyson manipulates markets or you don't.

When I first asked you that question you responded with "I don't know" and now you changed your answer to "Yes, I do believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate the market at certain times" which is consistant with your previous position.

At least I had the opportunity to point out to everyone how inconsistant you are.

Time for an honesty check again...............

7. Can you admit that you changed your answer to the same question?

Yes you changed your answer or no you didn't change your answer.



Conman: "7. Mike posted that Tyson had captive supply of 180% of needs at one time. Count this as a "bank account" that allows them to have 90% of their needs met at many different times. The first thing they would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price. Don't ask me why people would do that--unless they did not believe that when they sold in the formula market they would get as much value as they could in the cash market for their cattle. Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market. The reason would not matter when you looked at the cash market price. Another reason taking the cream off of the cash market and putting it in the formula cattle depresses the cash price. Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price. Let us suppose this is 30% of the cash market. 30% of the cash market could be bought in the cash market and the cash market could still be not indicative of an average market price."

Now that I posted you entire statement within context, I am going to break it down by individual sentences to respond due to all the inconsistancies. Since you numbered it as 7, I will use 7a, 7b, etc. to respond to the individual statements wtihin that paragraph.


Conman 7a: "Mike posted that Tyson had captive supply of 180% of needs at one time. Count this as a "bank account" that allows them to have 90% of their needs met at many different times."

No, you assume Tyson has 90% of their needs met AT MANY DIFFERENT TIMES. Unless you have proof of that, you don't know. You are speculating. In order to have a discussion on your "market manipulation" theories, we would need to have hard data on how often this actually occurred. I am of the belief that there is times that Tyson does buy two and 3/4 week's kill within a certain week BUT THEY HAD WILLING SELLERS. For argument's sake, we will assume that there is times when Tyson does have over 90% of their WEEKLY needs procured in the formula market. What we don't know is how often this occurs.

7a. If Tyson has that many willing sellers in the formula market at one time, what is wrong with Tyson procuring a week and 3/4 of their cattle needs within a single week if they have willing sellers?

The only solution to this would be to force everyone to sell in the cash market or put a lid on how many formula cattle Tyson can procure within a given week.

7b. Is that the road you want to go down? Yes or No?


Conman 7b.: "The first thing they would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price."

Let's make sure we are very clear on what you are stating here. By "they", I am assuming you are talking about Tyson but I can never be too sure with you.

If Tyson offers a lower price in the cash market to reflect their formula purchases, it's irrelevant unless Swift and Excel dropped their bids at the same time.

Second, the only way Tyson is going to buy cattle in the cash market at a lower price than their formula market is if they have a willing seller.

Your point is irrelevant from two standpoints.


Conman 7c.: "Don't ask me why people would do that--unless they did not believe that when they sold in the formula market they would get as much value as they could in the cash market for their cattle."

I already told you the reason. Feeders ("people") sell cattle in the formula market to assumingly collect premiums, above the average, for the carcass merit of their cattle. It's called, "selling on grade and yield" as opposed to an "average based cash market".


Conman 7d: "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market."

WHAT?????

"5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with grid pricing"

Within the context of this discussion, FORMULA MARKET IS GRID PRICING!!!!!!!!! Good grief! You don't even know what you are talking about.

Secondly, they don't know exactly what the formula base price will be because the formula base price is derived from an average of the cash market. They have a pretty good idea but they can't compare it to the cash price unless they knew each price for certain, which they don't.

Thirdly, You just got done saying that, "the first thing they (Tyson assumed) would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price". That is what you just said.

Now you say, within the same paragraph, "they could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents".

7d. How could they come out ahead in the cash market for 76 if they didn't know what the formula base price would be for sure?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are just babbling try to sound like you know what you are talking about but you are as phony as a $3 bill to someone like myself who has sold fat cattle.

Fourth, if the formula base price was $75 (which is stupid because you wouldn't know that until after the cash cattle market for the week had been established) and the cash price was $76, taking $76 in the cash price over $75 would bring the weighted average BASE PRICE of the formula cattle higher, not lower.


Conman 7e.: "Another reason taking the cream off of the cash market and putting it in the formula cattle depresses the cash price."

Tyson can't "TAKE" and they can't "PUT" unless they have willing sellers.


Conman 7f: "Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price."

Again, Tyson can't "TAKE" anything unless they have willing sellers. If they have willing sellers, it can hardly be considered market manipulation.

You contradicted yourself again, previously you stated that Pickett proved that the cash cattle were not "lower grade cattle" but actually graded better than the formula cattle. Now you changed your story again.

This entire paragraph was so typical of the bullsh*t that readers have to endure from you. You make things up, you contradict your previous position, you contradict yourself within the same paragraph, you can't keep grid pricing and the cash market seperate, and you reach false conclusions.


Next to my question:

SH (previous): 8. "Has Tyson, Excel, and Swift ever procured 90% of their cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME? Yes, No, or I don't know"?

Your response:

Conman: "8. Don't know."

8. If you don't know whether Tyson, Excel, and Swift have ever procured 90% of the their fat cattle needs in the formula or captive supply market AT THE SAME TIME, how can you possibly claim market manipulation?

Unless all of these companies procured a high percentage of their needs in the formula markets AT THE SAME TIME, the cash market AS A WHOLE would be unaffected. So what if Tyson has 90% of their fat cattle needs procured within a given week, unless Swift and Excel also have 90% of their fat cattle needs filled in the formula market, THERE IS LESS CASH CATTLE AVAILABLE FOR SWIFT AND EXCEL TO FILL THEIR NEEDS FROM.

I could make just as valid an argument that Tyson, filling 90% of their needs in the formula market, CREATES MORE COMPETITION FOR THE REMAINING CASH CATTLE due to Swift and Excel's needs.

You are buried on this one. Tyson is "A MARKET", not "THE MARKET".


Conman: "9. Depends on the circumstances."

9. Has there ever been a time when Tyson, Excel, and Swift have had over 50% of their fat cattle needs procured in the formula market AT THE SAME TIME?

Yes, No, or I don't know!



Conman: "When captive supplies are used and the base price of the captive supplies is the cash market, there only has to be one week where the cash market is discriminated against to affect future weeks."

The only way the cash market can be discriminated against in future weeks, is if Tyson, Excel and Swift all dropped their cash bids AT THE SAME TIME to reflect the cattle they procured in the cash market. Has that ever occurred? You just said you didn't know which means your entire theory is based on speculation. Tyson is not "THE MARKET", Tyson is "A MARKET". Unless you can prove that Tyson, Swift, Excel, and USPB all dropped their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY to reflect their purchases in the formula market, YOU GOT NOTHING!!!

9a. Knowing that any cattle that are procured in the formula market drops the number of available cattle in the cash market, wouldn't the decrease in available cattle numbers force Swift and Excel to be more competitive in the cash market to procure their share of the available cattle rather than less competitive?

You see Conman, when your "theories" are held out in the light for everyone to see, they carry no weight.


Conman: "The incentive for all of the other packers to do the same thing is still there."

Impossible unless they have willing sellers. All the packers can try to do whatever they want but unless they pay up and/or have willing sellers, they buy no cattle.


Conman: "If Tyson was taken out of the market because of captive supplies, the effect on the cash market competition would be great. They need that many cattle in a week. That is why they should never be allowed to discriminate against the cash market in their procurement."

But what you fail to understand is that Tyson taking cattle out of the cash market due to their formula purchases creates LESS market ready cattle for Swift and Excel to buy.

There is only so many cattle and there is only so much packer need. SUPPLY AND DEMAND!


Conman: "It is interesting that Tyson had all the information of grade and yield of the cattle they bought on the cash market. You could look to see if they were underpaying the average market price or were overpaying the average market price based on the combination of what they paid and how those cattle would have come out under the formula pricing. This would allow you to see what they were doing adjusted for quality. Paying different prices on the basis of quality adjustments would not be considered manipulation unless it was inconsistent. Then it might be. Depends on the circumstances."

That's right. Cattle that are bought in the cash market are "AVERAGED" with some being overbought and some being under bought due to the quality of the carcasses WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT THAT CATTLE BUYERS KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE THEY ARE BUYING.

Once again, you are wrong in trying to compare formula prices and cash prices from the supply and demand factors of two seperate weeks. When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, THEY WERE PRICED IN SEPERATE WEEKS with supply and demand factors of seperate weeks. This argument of comparing cash and formula prices is null and void unless you can prove that there was no change in any supply and demand factors playing on the market from one week to the next.

Ironically, you just stated, "It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in,....." but yet you continue to argue that a difference in price between the formula market and the cash market is proof of market manipulation.


Conman: "10. It is just an example. It may have happened in a given week with those exact numbers, but it would be just a coincidence. I made them up for illustrative purposes only."

SPECULATION!

There is no sense in using hypotheticals. Either all the packers had over 75% of their slaughter needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY or they didn't.

Even if all the packers had over 75% of their slaughtering needs filled in the formula markets SIMULTANEOUSLY, they still have 25% of their slaughtering needs to fill. They either pay up or they run short of cattle.

Speculation only leads to more conspiracy theories. We need to deal in facts.


Conman: "As far as the Johnson Amendment, I have not read it. I couldn't comment on it. Their definition obviously hasn't passed and it may or may not have been a good definition depending on the details. Why don't you post it if you want to discuss it? It might be informational. We could do the pros and cons."

The Johnson Amendment is in the past and that's where it needs to stay. Take my word for it, the Johnson Amendment defined captive supplies the same way that GIPSA did and that is my only reason for mentioning it.

You have your homework cut out for you. When faced with presenting facts as opposed to theories, you're lost.

10. Can you point out anything I have stated as fact, that is not fact and support that with contradicting facts?

Yes or no?



~SH~

1. Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week. Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market. Didn't I answer this before, SH? If packers get their supply tied down in the formula market they can not bid as aggressively on the cash market because they already secured their supply in the captive supply market. That thins out the market and makes the cash price not a good indicator of the whole market.

2. Do you just want to argue?

3.. The formula that rkaiser uses to determine what his producers get for his program is a an example of a different formula. It is not the same formula that Tyson uses for calculating how much to pay for cattle under the Pickett scenario. Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was. Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price.

4. Could be either or both. In Pickett I believe they were talking about the entire fat cattle cash market price. Tyson is big enough to affect the entire market price with their own buying.

SH: "I was the one who told you that cash cattle and formula cattle that were killed within the same week had their base price derived from seperate weeks. Now you think you need to tell me the same thing that I told you how many times? That's funny! "

It is funny how you make my case for me with your own quotes. Now if we could just make that register between your ears.

5. Tyson could even pay more in the cash market for the cattle they procured and still manipulate the markets with the help of the other packers. Here is an example:

Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week. SH, this is just an example to illustrate the point. I don't know if this ever happened. It would depend on the evidence. It could have happened just the way I described it or not. That is why you have trials, to convince 12 people you are right or wrong. It is just an example to show you that your little "here is proof" they did not manipulate the markets, they paid more than the average cash price argument.

If they bought a small amount of cattle on the cash market and the other packers discriminated against the cash market, there could still be manipulation of the cash price. The Pickett case was about Tyson, however, and their practices. That was what was covered by the trial. You would have to ask someone else if this was a problem in selected time periods. Of course Tyson would not be liable for the other packer's actions. They would be responsible for their actions. You would have to
ask someone else if this was the case. Tyson could claim that the other packers were doing this and testify against them if this was the case. Maybe you could ask them, SH.

6. You said it in the present tense. The Pickett case was past tense. I answered for both. I do know they are manipulating the poultry markets (prices farmers recieve) at this time.

7. I said they could have. I did not say it occurred. I used an example. It was not based on actual events, although actual events could have coincided with the numbers I used. Ask Agman, he would probably know. You can manipulate the markets on far less that 90%, especially if you are the largest buyer in an oligopoly. That is why they can NEVER discriminate against the cash market. Rkaiser can, he does not have market power. They are two different cases altogether.

7a. Whether or not Tyson had willing sellers in either the cash market or the formula market does not matter. If they unjustly discriminated against the cash market is what matters. Under the PSA they are not disallowed from buying either way. They are prohibited from unjustly discriminating.

7b. You are on the yellow brick road all by yourself. Ask Agman or someone else which path you want to take.

7c. SH: "I already told you the reason. Feeders ("people") sell cattle in the formula market to assumingly collect premiums, above the average, for the carcass merit of their cattle. It's called, "selling on grade and yield" as opposed to an "average based cash market".

No, they sell on the grid to get premiums over what they think the market price for their cattle would be for their pen of cattle. They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered.

SH: "Quote:
Conman 7d: "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing. They could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents. That would take the weighted average of the cash market less than the formula market."


WHAT?????

"5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with grid pricing"

Within the context of this discussion, FORMULA MARKET IS GRID PRICING!!!!!!!!! Good grief! You don't even know what you are talking about.

Secondly, they don't know exactly what the formula base price will be because the formula base price is derived from an average of the cash market. They have a pretty good idea but they can't compare it to the cash price unless they knew each price for certain, which they don't.

Thirdly, You just got done saying that, "the first thing they (Tyson assumed) would do is to take off of the cash market all the supply they could that was lower than the formula price". That is what you just said.

Now you say, within the same paragraph, "they could then sell in the cash market for 76 cents and come out ahead of the formula market price of 75 cents".


Glad to see you are not skimming, SH. Good catch. Let me explain it for you. Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also. It is not, however, what the cattleman recieves. The grid or formula pays based on the quality/yield. If you bid the grid, you might have a base price for the grid or the formula cattle of 80 cents. Your cattle, however, were not that good of cattle and under the formula, which takes into consideration the yield and grade of the cattle, you knew you would really end up with a price of 75 cents per lb. if you bid the grid. Now suppose the buyer came up and offered you 76 cents per lb. in the cash market. Would you take it? Of course you would. The price you recieve per lb. on the grid is different than the base price of the grid.

7d. Tyson has the handle on what is happening on the cash and formula markets, the cattlemen are at a disadvantage here. Thanks for pointing that out, SH. The dichotomy of market information is huge under the current situation. (7d. was quoted twice).

SH: "You contradicted yourself again, previously you stated that Pickett proved that the cash cattle were not "lower grade cattle" but actually graded better than the formula cattle. Now you changed your story again.

This entire paragraph was so typical of the bullsh*t that readers have to endure from you. You make things up, you contradict your previous position, you contradict yourself within the same paragraph, you can't keep grid pricing and the cash market seperate, and you reach false conclusions. "

No, I just made up an example. The example may or may not have been what really happened. Pickett showed that Tyson bid less in the cash market for the cattle. They took up the lower grade cattle on the formula market because the prices they were willing to pay for these lower grade cattle came out better for cattlemen.

The market manipulation can never be put on the feeders. They have no market power. If they all got together and acted as one (which hasn't happened yet) to increase prices, it would not be against the law because the Capper Volstead Act allows them to do this. The likelihood of this happening is slim. It would even out the playing field if they did do this, however.

8. Market manipulation can happen with a lot less captive supply than 90%. I just used that as an example. It was for illustrative purposes. You keep assuming that Swift, Excel, and the others are actively competing for the cattle. It could be a wrong assumption. Pickett convinced a jury that Tyson manipulated the market with their unjust discrimination against the cash market. What the others did or did not do is really a matter for another jury to decide based on the particular circumstances of the evidence in those cases. They may have discriminated in their offers against the cash market or may not have.

When my mother would ask if I had done something wrong and I used the excuse that other people (neighborhood friends) were doing it too, she would always say, "I am not talking to your friends, I am talking to you."

I never thought of a good way to get out of that one that would fly with my mom. She is probably a lot smarter than Judge Strom when it comes to these type of questions.

9. I don't know, it doesn't matter. See number 8. If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies.

9a. You are making the assumption that they are actively bidding against each other for the cattle. Have you proven your assumption? I would say this is your "THEORY", not mine. All the packers benefit if they collude on pushing down the price. Swift and Tyson make out especially in thier substitutes with a movement down the longer term supply curve, especially if they have contracted the supply of those other substitutes.

You see SH, when your "theories" are held out in the light for everyone to see, they carry no weight.

SH: "Quote:
Conman: "The incentive for all of the other packers to do the same thing is still there."


Impossible unless they have willing sellers. All the packers can try to do whatever they want but unless they pay up and/or have willing sellers, they buy no cattle.


Quote:
Conman: "If Tyson was taken out of the market because of captive supplies, the effect on the cash market competition would be great. They need that many cattle in a week. That is why they should never be allowed to discriminate against the cash market in their procurement."


But what you fail to understand is that Tyson taking cattle out of the cash market due to their formula purchases creates LESS market ready cattle for Swift and Excel to buy.

There is only so many cattle and there is only so much packer need. SUPPLY AND DEMAND! "

So you claim that Tyson can drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met, and you make the assumption that the other packers are actively bidding for the remaining cattle. Did you "prove" that they were actively bidding on the cash market? It was a pretty big assumption on your part, SH. It was a pretty big "theory" that you did not prove. Pickett proved that the cash market was consistently lower at certain intervals of time for the cattle adjusted on a quality/yield. They jury listened, weighed the evidence, and agreed with them. Taylor calculated that the cash price was discriminated against when weighed against the market as a whole. My little example showed how this could happen.

Whether or not the sellers individually agreed and went for the bait is irrelevant. The PSA is to control the market power of the packers, not the individual sellers in the market. The individual seller's decisions may have allowed the market fraud, but the seller's actions were not ever against the law. The packer's actions were the only ones the PSA regulates. This is a moot point you continually bring up. Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA. Stop trying to blame it on the sellers (feeders).


SH: "
Quote:
Conman: "It is interesting that Tyson had all the information of grade and yield of the cattle they bought on the cash market. You could look to see if they were underpaying the average market price or were overpaying the average market price based on the combination of what they paid and how those cattle would have come out under the formula pricing. This would allow you to see what they were doing adjusted for quality. Paying different prices on the basis of quality adjustments would not be considered manipulation unless it was inconsistent. Then it might be. Depends on the circumstances."


That's right. Cattle that are bought in the cash market are "AVERAGED" with some being overbought and some being under bought due to the quality of the carcasses WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT THAT CATTLE BUYERS KNOW THE VALUE OF THE CASH CATTLE THEY ARE BUYING.

Once again, you are wrong in trying to compare formula prices and cash prices from the supply and demand factors of two seperate weeks. When formula cattle and cash cattle are slaughtered within the same week, THEY WERE PRICED IN SEPERATE WEEKS with supply and demand factors of seperate weeks. This argument of comparing cash and formula prices is null and void unless you can prove that there was no change in any supply and demand factors playing on the market from one week to the next.

Ironically, you just stated, "It is important to note that when the formula price has a cash price of a different week as its basis rather than the week it is procured in,....." but yet you continue to argue that a difference in price between the formula market and the cash market is proof of market manipulation. "

They procured the supply at the same time period. OCM already showed where the formula and cash cattle were processed at the same time. The supply/demand factors should have been the same for the cattle delivered at the same time.

10. An example is not speculation. It is for illustrative purposes only.


10. I will let you read over this post. Take as much time as you want. Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else.

Good luck!!!!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
SH, sorry I didn't answer #2. You sounded so discombobulated that I thought you needed a little more time to get things together.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

I have to give you credit for one thing, you are very good at slipping around the truth, very good at redirecting a question, and very good at totally avoiding answering direct questions with direct answers. In other words, you are very good at being dishonest. I find your antics absolutely repulsive. I loathe dishonest people like you.

Your arrogance in trying to teach me the very facts that I have taught you in the past about this industry is nothing short of amazing.

Either you really think you're cute in doing it or you are too stupid to realize it. I'm not sure which but it's pathetic either way.

Like I said before, most everyone that matters has already figured out just exactly what a phony you are. Anyone who supports you like Sandbag appreciates your dishonesty and can relate to it. Sandbag takes pride in his deception and diversion as well. You'd make a nice couple.

In contrast, I spend my time learning about the truth as opposed to wondering how to defend or divert a lie.

There is a big difference between our approaches to debate. You can lie, divert, twist, and contradict yourself and it really doesn't matter because nobody knows who Conman 101 is. In contrast, I am held accountable for everything I say because everyone knows exactly who I am which puts my posts on a totally different environment than yours.

Not once have you contradicted a single thing I have stated with facts to the contrary which is all I really needed from this to know that I am right and you are wrong.

Just in this thread alone, I have caught you in a lie ("I did not say that"), I have caught you contradicting your position (when asked if you believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets you answered with "I don't know" then changed your answer to "Yes, I do believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets at certain times") and I have pointed out how you will divert any pointed question that might expose your phoniness (not admitting to changing your story).


Conman: 1. Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week. Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market. Didn't I answer this before, SH? If packers get their supply tied down in the formula market they can not bid as aggressively on the cash market because they already secured their supply in the captive supply market. That thins out the market and makes the cash price not a good indicator of the whole market.

Hahaha! Who's question number 1 were you answering????

You're so pathetic!

The question #1 that you diverted was:

SH (previous) 1. Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT ("no, that's not what I said"), do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Answering that question was your chance to be honest but you diverted because you claimed that wasn't what you said ("none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up") and I proved it was by presenting your exact quote.

There is no sense in carrying this point any further. I proved how you lied and how you will say anything to divert admitting to it. That's all the satisfaction I need from that.


Conman: "Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week."

The formula price is tied to the weekly weighted average cash price in a different week than the week each are slaughtered. THERE IS NO DEPENDS TO IT.


Conman: "Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market."

Pickett showed that the cash market was lower than the formula market. That's all they showed but that was not proof of market manipulation. It was only proof of Tyson dropping their bids in the cash market, to reflect their purchases in the formula market.

Naturally if you are selling cattle in the cash market in a falling market, the cash price would be lower than the formula price simply based on the fact that the cash price was established second.

There is so many reasons why Pickett lost this case.


Conman: "2. Do you just want to argue?"

No, I just wanted to point out how your arrogant pride would not allow you to admit that you were wrong when clearly proven wrong. I made my point.


Conman: "3.. The formula that rkaiser uses to determine what his producers get for his program is a an example of a different formula."

That is not an example of a formula pricing method CURRENTLY IN USE that does not use the cash market as a base price.


1. Once again, give me an example of where formula pricing, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE, does not use the cash market as a base price IN THE UNITED STATES.


Conman: "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."

That statement doesn't make any sense from a number of standpoints.

1a. Did Randy Kaiser sell some fat cattle to Tyson?

1b. If Randy Kaiser did sell some fat cattle to Tyson, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? RANDY IS FROM CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.

1c. What do you know about the formula to establish the base price on Tyson's Canadian formula purchases?

You're so full of it!


Tell me this Conman,

2. Which of the following methods does Tyson use to determine the base price for their formula cattle IN THE UNITED STATES:

a) Weekly weighted average of the USDA reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery.

b) Weekly weighted average of Tysons reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery for all their plants.

c) Weekly weighted average of Tyson's individual packing plant fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery to that same plant.



You might have to do some homework here but it will do you some good.


Conman: " Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price."

3. What is the difference between the "average market price" and the "cash market price". Please differentiate between whether you are talking about the U.S. or Canada.


Conman: "Tyson is big enough to affect the entire market price with their own buying."

What cattle Tyson doesn't buy, Excel and Swift will.

Try as you will, you simply cannot explain why Tyson's manipulation and power is only used at some times and not at others.

For your theory to have any merit, you would need to explain the factors that allow market manipulation to occur at some times and not at others but you can't making you "factually void" as usual.


Conman: "It is funny how you make my case for me with your own quotes."

Oh but it was you that said that a difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation. I suppose you'll try to deny saying that now too huh? That's when I told you the prices were derived from seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors affecting those seperate markets. Now you think you need to lecture me on it? Hahaha! You're such a fool.


Conman: "5. Tyson could even pay more in the cash market for the cattle they procured and still manipulate the markets with the help of the other packers. Here is an example:

Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week. SH, this is just an example to illustrate the point. I don't know if this ever happened. It would depend on the evidence. It could have happened just the way I described it or not. That is why you have trials, to convince 12 people you are right or wrong. It is just an example to show you that your little "here is proof" they did not manipulate the markets, they paid more than the average cash price argument.

If they bought a small amount of cattle on the cash market and the other packers discriminated against the cash market, there could still be manipulation of the cash price. The Pickett case was about Tyson, however, and their practices. That was what was covered by the trial. You would have to ask someone else if this was a problem in selected time periods. Of course Tyson would not be liable for the other packer's actions. They would be responsible for their actions. You would have to
ask someone else if this was the case. Tyson could claim that the other packers were doing this and testify against them if this was the case. Maybe you could ask them, SH."

ROTFLMAO!

That is the funniest thing you have ever posted. Your conspiring mind knows no bounds does it? Whether it's just an example or not it's total foolishness.

Again, there is no use in talking about hypotheticals. I'll bet you could never find a week where Tyson only bought two pens of cattle LET ALONE PAY A PREMIUM FOR THEM TO MANIPULATE MARKETS LET ALONE WHERE THE OTHER PACKERS RESPONDED BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE CASH PRICE.

What a conspiring mind you have. Amazing!

4. Why in the world would the other packers discriminate against the cash market IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE???

I don't know why I bother to ask you questions, you'll just divert it anyway.

IF EXCEL AND SWIFT DROP THEIR PRICE COMPARED TO WHAT TYSON IS PAYING, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT ARE THEY????

DUH!


Conman: "7. I said they could have. I did not say it occurred. I used an example. It was not based on actual events, although actual events could have coincided with the numbers I used. Ask Agman, he would probably know."

More diversionary bullsh*t. You changed your answer to my question regarding whether Tyson used formula cattle to manipulate the cash market and now you are unwilling to admit it.

Never mind. I made my point here also.


Conman: "7a. Whether or not Tyson had willing sellers in either the cash market or the formula market does not matter. If they unjustly discriminated against the cash market is what matters. Under the PSA they are not disallowed from buying either way. They are prohibited from unjustly discriminating."

Tyson did not unjustly discrimate against the cash market. They simply dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is nothing more than a normal supply and demand reaction. As the number of their purchases goes up, the amount they are willing to pay for the balance of their needs is going to go down.


Conman: "No, they sell on the grid to get premiums over what they think the market price for their cattle would be for their pen of cattle."

That's what I just said you smart ass!


Conman: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."

Hahaha!

5. THE BASE PRICE OF THE FORMULA HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED so how could they possibly assume that the cash market was discriminated against in comparison to the formula market????


Conman: " Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also."

That's not what you said Conman. What you said was:

Conman (previous): "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing."

Either you weren't making sense or that statement was a typo and should have read, "in the formula market than they could in the cash market" because "grid pricing" and the "formula market" are one in the same in the confines of this discussion.

Just admit that it should have read "cash market" and it would make more sense even though it would still be wrong.


Conman: "Glad to see you are not skimming, SH. Good catch. Let me explain it for you. Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also. It is not, however, what the cattleman recieves. The grid or formula pays based on the quality/yield. If you bid the grid, you might have a base price for the grid or the formula cattle of 80 cents. Your cattle, however, were not that good of cattle and under the formula, which takes into consideration the yield and grade of the cattle, you knew you would really end up with a price of 75 cents per lb. if you bid the grid. Now suppose the buyer came up and offered you 76 cents per lb. in the cash market. Would you take it? Of course you would. The price you recieve per lb. on the grid is different than the base price of the grid."

Hahaha! Another dandy bullsh*t session from you.

I'm well aware of how grid pricing works and I am the one who told you about the option to "bid the grid".

Nobody sells on the grid unless they believe their cattle will be above the average on grade and yield so there is no way that anyone would sell on the grid if they thought their cattle would bring less than the open cash market. That is why you have sellers that utilize each method. Those who think their cattle will sell for above the average on grade and yield sell in the grid. Those who are afraid that their discounts might offset their premiums sell in the cash market. That is why you generally have higher quality cattle in the formula market than in the cash market in a normal choice/select spread situation. I suppose you'll repeat that back to me in a week or so? LOL!


Conman (previous): "Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price."

Ok, I misunderstood that statement to read that the "lower grade cattle" were in the cash market when I see now you meant that the "lower grade cattle" FROM THE CASH MARKET ended up in the formula market. You can blame it on my comprehension and I can blame it on your inability to talk plainly but that was a poorly composed sentence either way.


Conman: "Pickett showed that Tyson bid less in the cash market for the cattle. They took up the lower grade cattle on the formula market because the prices they were willing to pay for these lower grade cattle came out better for cattlemen."

They took up? If they didn't have willing sellers, they wouldn't take up anything. You act like there is only one party making this sale decision.

The formula cattle are not "lower grade cattle", there may not have been as high a percentage of choice cattle as in the cash market DURING THE PICKETT ERA because many of the cash cattle WERE OVERFED from feeders holding out for better prices.

That is what happens when the cash market falls. Feeders hold out for better prices, feed more fat on, and place more beef tonnage on the market. That is the feeder's fault for not staying current, not the packer's.

I believe that the cash cattle may have GRADED better but that doesn't make them 'higher quality cattle" in a narrow choice/select spread or when considering dressing percentage, or when considering Y4 discounts, or when considering yield grade premiums.

"Higher quality" is a relative term that needs to be defined by total dollars as opposed to being based on which group of cattle had the higher percentage of choice in their mix.


Conman: "The market manipulation can never be put on the feeders."

Maybe not based on the PSA but I can absolutely guarantee you that feeders tend to back cattle up in the yards when the prices start dropping while holding out for better prices while they feed more fat on the carcass and contribute to an increase in total beef tonnage. That is why industry leaders are practically begging feeders to stay current with their cattle.

Do you know what "current" means? It means to kill cattle when they are ready to be killed as opposed to killing them based on markets which tend to continue to fall if you hold out for a better price.


Conman: "8. Market manipulation can happen with a lot less captive supply than 90%."

You can't prove that. That is just another "opinion" unsupported by fact.


Conman: "You keep assuming that Swift, Excel, and the others are actively competing for the cattle. It could be a wrong assumption."

GOSH, NOW WHY WOULD I THINK THAT WHEN EXCEL AND SWIFT HAVE PLANTS TO KEEP RUNNING AND LABORERS TO PAY????

GEE, YA REALLY GOT ME THERE............ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Conman: "Pickett convinced a jury that Tyson manipulated the market with their unjust discrimination against the cash market. What the others did or did not do is really a matter for another jury to decide based on the particular circumstances of the evidence in those cases. They may have discriminated in their offers against the cash market or may not have."

Ibp/Tyson may have discriminated against THEIR CASH MARKET but unless a buyer can only sell to ibp/Tyson or unless Swift and Excel had their needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their price in the cash market simultaneously with Tyson, there can be no manipulation against "THE CASH MARKET".

Tyson/ibp is "A MARKET" not "THE MARKET". Get that through your thick head. If buyers have other options, Tyson/ibp can not manipulate "THE MARKET".


Conman: "9. I don't know, it doesn't matter. See number 8. If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies."

It does matter. If Tyson and Swift did not drop their cash price simultaneously, there can be no manipulation of "THE MARKET". Pickett was not about "TYSON'S MARKET" as if Tyson was the only buyer, Pickett was about "THE MARKET" which includes Tyson's competition as well.

HAHAHAHA!

6. HOW CAN THEY MANIPULATE THE CASH MARKET IF 90% OF THEIR NEEDS REMAIN UNFILLED AFTER THEIR FORMULA PURCHASES???

Too funny!

Why don't you stop while your behind.


Conman: "9a. You are making the assumption that they are actively bidding against each other for the cattle. Have you proven your assumption? I would say this is your "THEORY", not mine. All the packers benefit if they collude on pushing down the price. Swift and Tyson make out especially in thier substitutes with a movement down the longer term supply curve, especially if they have contracted the supply of those other substitutes."

Oh for crying out loud. Now I am supposed to prove that Excel and Swift don't compete for the same cattle. I really need to prove that to you?

You're absolutely hopeless!

If they collude? If they were colluding, why would they only collude at certain times and not at others.

7. What factors contribute to whether or not they will collude this week or wait until next week???

PROVE THE COLLUSION and you will have a PSA violation which is exactly why the PSA was originally written.

When you can come to the court room with proof of "PRICE FIXING" by COLLUSION, then and only then will you have a legitimate PSA violation of market manipulation and "price fixing".


Conman: "So you claim that Tyson can drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met, and you make the assumption that the other packers are actively bidding for the remaining cattle. Did you "prove" that they were actively bidding on the cash market? It was a pretty big assumption on your part, SH. It was a pretty big "theory" that you did not prove."

Excel and Swift will drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met also. What's the chances of all of them meeting their needs simultaneously considering the fact that the slaughter capacity in the U.S. generally meets the cattle numbers?

If I have to prove to you that Swift and Excel are in competition with eachother and with Tyson for the same cattle. You have left absolutely no doubt of the depths of your conspiring mind.


Conman: "Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA."

7. Where did I say the PSA prohibitions were against the individual sellers?

Where did you get that from? More bullsh*t that you pulled out of your hat.


Conman: "They procured the supply at the same time period. OCM already showed where the formula and cash cattle were processed at the same time. The supply/demand factors should have been the same for the cattle delivered at the same time."

The issue in contention is not when the cattle were procured or when they were slaughtered, the issue is WHEN THEY WERE PRICED.

The formula cattle are not priced from the same week as the cash cattle that are slaughtered within the same week. You still can't figure that out but according to all the things you are now telling me THAT I ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU, you might grasp this concept eventually too.


Conman: "Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else."

8. What question? I asked and you diverted numerous questions.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DSCC: "Why? Any demand reduction from the formula or contract market, whether it be one company or 10, will result in downwards pressure on the cash market. The fewer the players, the more pressure on the market should only 1 player's demand be off."

Rod,

Use your head here. Tyson at about 32%, Swift at about 23%, and Excel at about 23% all have a certain amount of slaughter capacity needs to fill. THEY HAVE TO KILL CATTLE or they lose money. If one of the three drops their price, that doesn't change the fact that the other two still have to fulfill their needs and have that many less cattle to pick from. Tyson dropping their price in the cash market due to their needs being filled in the formula market has no bearing on Excel and Swift's needs other than dropping the number of available cattle for them. Those two are still in competition for the remaining cattle.


DSCC: "So why tie the formula base or grid into last week's cash market average? Why not negotiate a flat base with the packer and still allow yourself to collect the premiums? At least then downwards pressure on average cash prices would only be from increased competion from the formula market, and they wouldn't influence next weeks average market price.'

If feeders think that the weekly weighted average base price is a manipulated price, they can "bid the grid" with angus gene net. They are not tied to one packer or one marketing alternative. If the feeders who sell cattle to the packer on a daily basis really believed these conspiracy theories about the formula market, they wouldn't sell in the formula market. THEY DON'T NEED YOU GUYS TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES.


DSCC: "But the other packers only have so much money to spend, so the increased demand isn't going to amount to much. If Tyson's formula markets takes all but 10 animals away from Swift and Excel, they aren't going to bid to $1000/lb just to get those animals."

Of course they only have so much money to spend but they still have to schedule their slaughter needs and if they don't pay up, NOBODY SELLS.

Tyson's formula market would never take all but 10 animals away from Swift and Excel. Quit talking in outrageous hypotheticals that would never occur.


DSCC: "They don't need to drop their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY to have a downwards price pressure, especially since there are still some fat cattle selling in open auctions, especially up here in Canada. All it takes is reduction in demand from one significiant buyer, and there will be downwards price pressure. And this isn't speculation, this is the way markets work."

Tyson dropping their price because their needs are filled takes cattle out of the equation for Swift and Excel. Those two companies still have to fill their slaughtering schedules. With the amount of equity they have invested in facilities and labor, they can't just take a break like an order buyer at the salebarn can. You are comparing two entirely different demand senerios.


Sorry Rod but you don't have a valid argument either.


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
~SH~ said:
Tyson dropping their price in the cash market due to their needs being filled in the formula market has no bearing on Excel and Swift's needs other than dropping the number of available cattle for them. Those two are still in competition for the remaining cattle.

The fewer buyers you have on the cash market, the less dollars you'll realize. This is not speculation or dreaming, this is a solid fact. With fewer players, you have more downwards price pressure. If that pressure is only enough to lower the price a cent or two over a month or even a year, its still done it.

~SH~ said:
If feeders think that the weekly weighted average base price is a manipulated price, they can "bid the grid" with angus gene net. They are not tied to one packer or one marketing alternative. If the feeders who sell cattle to the packer on a daily basis really believed these conspiracy theories about the formula market, they wouldn't sell in the formula market. THEY DON'T NEED YOU GUYS TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES.

I'm not trying to save them from themselves, I'm trying to make sure that there is still a cattle industry left for my children and grandchildren. If producers are going to sign ill-conceived cash market basis contracts, I will continue to illustrate why they are slowly but surely destroying the market, in the EXACT same way those types of contracts destroyed the grain market.

As a side note: As I've been doing my little market analysis, I've been calling a few guys who have been successfully selling fat cattle for over 40 years. I talked with them about their options and how they sold. I found it interesting that no-one mentioned cash market basis forward contracting. The reaction I got when I described how it worked was universally negative: "What kind of idiot would sign something like that?" was one comment. Geralds never been politically correct :)

I thought it was humorous. I also found it interesting that each of these guys would prefer to switch to an open bidding situation on the grid, as the grids have become less competitive, even though they could ship into the US.

~SH~ said:
Of course they only have so much money to spend but they still have to schedule their slaughter needs and if they don't pay up, NOBODY SELLS.

Tyson's formula market would never take all but 10 animals away from Swift and Excel. Quit talking in outrageous hypotheticals that would never occur.

DSCC: "They don't need to drop their cash prices SIMULTANEOUSLY to have a downwards price pressure, especially since there are still some fat cattle selling in open auctions, especially up here in Canada. All it takes is reduction in demand from one significiant buyer, and there will be downwards price pressure. And this isn't speculation, this is the way markets work."

Tyson dropping their price because their needs are filled takes cattle out of the equation for Swift and Excel. Those two companies still have to fill their slaughtering schedules. With the amount of equity they have invested in facilities and labor, they can't just take a break like an order buyer at the salebarn can. You are comparing two entirely different demand senerios.

I bunched this all together because no-one has yet been able to refute the arguement. The 10 animal scenario was simply done to impress upon you that it doesn't matter that 2 of the 3 packers are still in open bidding. They are still not going to bid sky high on the cash animals to ensure they are running at 100%. If the prices go too high, they'll lay off a shift of workers, or find some other way to utilize the equipment. They will NOT continue to bid themselves into a loss situation. Even if they do bid into a loss for awhile, they eventually have to drop their bids or go out of business.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman,

I have to give you credit for one thing, you are very good at slipping around the truth, very good at redirecting a question, and very good at totally avoiding answering direct questions with direct answers. In other words, you are very good at being dishonest. I find your antics absolutely repulsive. I loathe dishonest people like you.

Your arrogance in trying to teach me the very facts that I have taught you in the past about this industry is nothing short of amazing.

Either you really think you're cute in doing it or you are too stupid to realize it. I'm not sure which but it's pathetic either way.

Like I said before, most everyone that matters has already figured outjust exactly what a phony you are. Anyone who supports you like Sandbag appreciates your dishonesty and can relate to it. Sandbag takes pride in his deception and diversion as well. You'd make a nice couple.

In contrast, I spend my time learning about the truth as opposed to wondering how to defend or divert a lie.

There is a big difference between our approaches to debate. You can lie, divert, twist, and contradict yourself and it really doesn't matter because nobody knows who Conman 101 is. In contrast, I am held accountable for everything I say because everyone knows exactly who I am which puts my posts on a totally different environment than yours.

Not once have you contradicted a single thing I have stated with facts to the contrary which is all I really needed from this to know that I am right and you are wrong.

Just in this thread alone, I have caught you in a lie ("I did not say that"), I have caught you contradicting your position (when asked if you believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets you answered with "I don't know" then changed your answer to "Yes, I do believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets at certain times") and I have pointed out how you will divert any pointed question that might expose your phoniness (not admitting to changing your story).


Conman: 1. Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week. Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market. Didn't I answer this before, SH? If packers get their supply tied down in the formula market they can not bid as aggressively on the cash market because they already secured their supply in the captive supply market. That thins out the market and makes the cash price not a good indicator of the whole market.

Hahaha! Who's question number 1 were you answering????

You're so pathetic!

The question #1 that you diverted was:

SH (previous) 1. Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT ("no, that's not what I said"), do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Answering that question was your chance to be honest but you diverted because you claimed that wasn't what you said ("none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up") and I proved it was by presenting your exact quote.

There is no sense in carrying this point any further. I proved how you lied and how you will say anything to divert admitting to it. That's all the satisfaction I need from that.


Conman: "Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week."

The formula price is tied to the weekly weighted average cash price in a different week than the week each are slaughtered. THERE IS NO DEPENDS TO IT.


Conman: "Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market."

Pickett showed that the cash market was lower than the formula market. That's all they showed but that was not proof of market manipulation. It was only proof of Tyson dropping their bids in the cash market, to reflect their purchases in the formula market.

Naturally if you are selling cattle in the cash market in a falling market, the cash price would be lower than the formula price simply based on the fact that the cash price was established second.

There is so many reasons why Pickett lost this case.


Conman: "2. Do you just want to argue?"

No, I just wanted to point out how your arrogant pride would not allow you to admit that you were wrong when clearly proven wrong. I made my point.


Conman: "3.. The formula that rkaiser uses to determine what his producers get for his program is a an example of a different formula."

That is not an example of a formula pricing method CURRENTLY IN USE that does not use the cash market as a base price.


1. Once again, give me an example of where formula pricing, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE, does not use the cash market as a base price IN THE UNITED STATES.


Conman: "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."

That statement doesn't make any sense from a number of standpoints.

1a. Did Randy Kaiser sell some fat cattle to Tyson?

1b. If Randy Kaiser did sell some fat cattle to Tyson, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? RANDY IS FROM CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.

1c. What do you know about the formula to establish the base price on Tyson's Canadian formula purchases?

You're so full of it!


Tell me this Conman,

2. Which of the following methods does Tyson use to determine the base price for their formula cattle IN THE UNITED STATES:

a) Weekly weighted average of the USDA reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery.

b) Weekly weighted average of Tysons reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery for all their plants.

c) Weekly weighted average of Tyson's individual packing plant fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery to that same plant.



You might have to do some homework here but it will do you some good.


Conman: " Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price."

3. What is the difference between the "average market price" and the "cash market price". Please differentiate between whether you are talking about the U.S. or Canada.


Conman: "Tyson is big enough to affect the entire market price with their own buying."

What cattle Tyson doesn't buy, Excel and Swift will.

Try as you will, you simply cannot explain why Tyson's manipulation and power is only used at some times and not at others.

For your theory to have any merit, you would need to explain the factors that allow market manipulation to occur at some times and not at others but you can't making you "factually void" as usual.


Conman: "It is funny how you make my case for me with your own quotes."

Oh but it was you that said that a difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation. I suppose you'll try to deny saying that now too huh? That's when I told you the prices were derived from seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors affecting those seperate markets. Now you think you need to lecture me on it? Hahaha! You're such a fool.


Conman: "5. Tyson could even pay more in the cash market for the cattle they procured and still manipulate the markets with the help of the other packers. Here is an example:

Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week. SH, this is just an example to illustrate the point. I don't know if this ever happened. It would depend on the evidence. It could have happened just the way I described it or not. That is why you have trials, to convince 12 people you are right or wrong. It is just an example to show you that your little "here is proof" they did not manipulate the markets, they paid more than the average cash price argument.

If they bought a small amount of cattle on the cash market and the other packers discriminated against the cash market, there could still be manipulation of the cash price. The Pickett case was about Tyson, however, and their practices. That was what was covered by the trial. You would have to ask someone else if this was a problem in selected time periods. Of course Tyson would not be liable for the other packer's actions. They would be responsible for their actions. You would have to
ask someone else if this was the case. Tyson could claim that the other packers were doing this and testify against them if this was the case. Maybe you could ask them, SH."

ROTFLMAO!

That is the funniest thing you have ever posted. Your conspiring mind knows no bounds does it? Whether it's just an example or not it's total foolishness.

Again, there is no use in talking about hypotheticals. I'll bet you could never find a week where Tyson only bought two pens of cattle LET ALONE PAY A PREMIUM FOR THEM TO MANIPULATE MARKETS LET ALONE WHERE THE OTHER PACKERS RESPONDED BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE CASH PRICE.

What a conspiring mind you have. Amazing!

4. Why in the world would the other packers discriminate against the cash market IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE???

I don't know why I bother to ask you questions, you'll just divert it anyway.

IF EXCEL AND SWIFT DROP THEIR PRICE COMPARED TO WHAT TYSON IS PAYING, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT ARE THEY????

DUH!


Conman: "7. I said they could have. I did not say it occurred. I used an example. It was not based on actual events, although actual events could have coincided with the numbers I used. Ask Agman, he would probably know."

More diversionary bullsh*t. You changed your answer to my question regarding whether Tyson used formula cattle to manipulate the cash market and now you are unwilling to admit it.

Never mind. I made my point here also.


Conman: "7a. Whether or not Tyson had willing sellers in either the cash market or the formula market does not matter. If they unjustly discriminated against the cash market is what matters. Under the PSA they are not disallowed from buying either way. They are prohibited from unjustly discriminating."

Tyson did not unjustly discrimate against the cash market. They simply dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is nothing more than a normal supply and demand reaction. As the number of their purchases goes up, the amount they are willing to pay for the balance of their needs is going to go down.


Conman: "No, they sell on the grid to get premiums over what they think the market price for their cattle would be for their pen of cattle."

That's what I just said you smart ass!


Conman: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."

Hahaha!

5. THE BASE PRICE OF THE FORMULA HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED so how could they possibly assume that the cash market was discriminated against in comparison to the formula market????


Conman: " Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also."

That's not what you said Conman. What you said was:

Conman (previous): "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing."

Either you weren't making sense or that statement was a typo and should have read, "in the formula market than they could in the cash market" because "grid pricing" and the "formula market" are one in the same in the confines of this discussion.

Just admit that it should have read "cash market" and it would make more sense even though it would still be wrong.


Conman: "Glad to see you are not skimming, SH. Good catch. Let me explain it for you. Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also. It is not, however, what the cattleman recieves. The grid or formula pays based on the quality/yield. If you bid the grid, you might have a base price for the grid or the formula cattle of 80 cents. Your cattle, however, were not that good of cattle and under the formula, which takes into consideration the yield and grade of the cattle, you knew you would really end up with a price of 75 cents per lb. if you bid the grid. Now suppose the buyer came up and offered you 76 cents per lb. in the cash market. Would you take it? Of course you would. The price you recieve per lb. on the grid is different than the base price of the grid."

Hahaha! Another dandy bullsh*t session from you.

I'm well aware of how grid pricing works and I am the one who told you about the option to "bid the grid".

Nobody sells on the grid unless they believe their cattle will be above the average on grade and yield so there is no way that anyone would sell on the grid if they thought their cattle would bring less than the open cash market. That is why you have sellers that utilize each method. Those who think their cattle will sell for above the average on grade and yield sell in the grid. Those who are afraid that their discounts might offset their premiums sell in the cash market. That is why you generally have higher quality cattle in the formula market than in the cash market in a normal choice/select spread situation. I suppose you'll repeat that back to me in a week or so? LOL!


Conman (previous): "Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price."

Ok, I misunderstood that statement to read that the "lower grade cattle" were in the cash market when I see now you meant that the "lower grade cattle" FROM THE CASH MARKET ended up in the formula market. You can blame it on my comprehension and I can blame it on your inability to talk plainly but that was a poorly composed sentence either way.


Conman: "Pickett showed that Tyson bid less in the cash market for the cattle. They took up the lower grade cattle on the formula market because the prices they were willing to pay for these lower grade cattle came out better for cattlemen."

They took up? If they didn't have willing sellers, they wouldn't take up anything. You act like there is only one party making this sale decision.

The formula cattle are not "lower grade cattle", there may not have been as high a percentage of choice cattle as in the cash market DURING THE PICKETT ERA because many of the cash cattle WERE OVERFED from feeders holding out for better prices.

That is what happens when the cash market falls. Feeders hold out for better prices, feed more fat on, and place more beef tonnage on the market. That is the feeder's fault for not staying current, not the packer's.

I believe that the cash cattle may have GRADED better but that doesn't make them 'higher quality cattle" in a narrow choice/select spread or when considering dressing percentage, or when considering Y4 discounts, or when considering yield grade premiums.

"Higher quality" is a relative term that needs to be defined by total dollars as opposed to being based on which group of cattle had the higher percentage of choice in their mix.


Conman: "The market manipulation can never be put on the feeders."

Maybe not based on the PSA but I can absolutely guarantee you that feeders tend to back cattle up in the yards when the prices start dropping while holding out for better prices while they feed more fat on the carcass and contribute to an increase in total beef tonnage. That is why industry leaders are practically begging feeders to stay current with their cattle.

Do you know what "current" means? It means to kill cattle when they are ready to be killed as opposed to killing them based on markets which tend to continue to fall if you hold out for a better price.


Conman: "8. Market manipulation can happen with a lot less captive supply than 90%."

You can't prove that. That is just another "opinion" unsupported by fact.


Conman: "You keep assuming that Swift, Excel, and the others are actively competing for the cattle. It could be a wrong assumption."

GOSH, NOW WHY WOULD I THINK THAT WHEN EXCEL AND SWIFT HAVE PLANTS TO KEEP RUNNING AND LABORERS TO PAY????

GEE, YA REALLY GOT ME THERE............ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Conman: "Pickett convinced a jury that Tyson manipulated the market with their unjust discrimination against the cash market. What the others did or did not do is really a matter for another jury to decide based on the particular circumstances of the evidence in those cases. They may have discriminated in their offers against the cash market or may not have."

Ibp/Tyson may have discriminated against THEIR CASH MARKET but unless a buyer can only sell to ibp/Tyson or unless Swift and Excel had their needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their price in the cash market simultaneously with Tyson, there can be no manipulation against "THE CASH MARKET".

Tyson/ibp is "A MARKET" not "THE MARKET". Get that through your thick head. If buyers have other options, Tyson/ibp can not manipulate "THE MARKET".


Conman: "9. I don't know, it doesn't matter. See number 8. If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies."

It does matter. If Tyson and Swift did not drop their cash price simultaneously, there can be no manipulation of "THE MARKET". Pickett was not about "TYSON'S MARKET" as if Tyson was the only buyer, Pickett was about "THE MARKET" which includes Tyson's competition as well.

HAHAHAHA!

6. HOW CAN THEY MANIPULATE THE CASH MARKET IF 90% OF THEIR NEEDS REMAIN UNFILLED AFTER THEIR FORMULA PURCHASES???

Too funny!

Why don't you stop while your behind.


Conman: "9a. You are making the assumption that they are actively bidding against each other for the cattle. Have you proven your assumption? I would say this is your "THEORY", not mine. All the packers benefit if they collude on pushing down the price. Swift and Tyson make out especially in thier substitutes with a movement down the longer term supply curve, especially if they have contracted the supply of those other substitutes."

Oh for crying out loud. Now I am supposed to prove that Excel and Swift don't compete for the same cattle. I really need to prove that to you?

You're absolutely hopeless!

If they collude? If they were colluding, why would they only collude at certain times and not at others.

7. What factors contribute to whether or not they will collude this week or wait until next week???

PROVE THE COLLUSION and you will have a PSA violation which is exactly why the PSA was originally written.

When you can come to the court room with proof of "PRICE FIXING" by COLLUSION, then and only then will you have a legitimate PSA violation of market manipulation and "price fixing".


Conman: "So you claim that Tyson can drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met, and you make the assumption that the other packers are actively bidding for the remaining cattle. Did you "prove" that they were actively bidding on the cash market? It was a pretty big assumption on your part, SH. It was a pretty big "theory" that you did not prove."

Excel and Swift will drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met also. What's the chances of all of them meeting their needs simultaneously considering the fact that the slaughter capacity in the U.S. generally meets the cattle numbers?

If I have to prove to you that Swift and Excel are in competition with eachother and with Tyson for the same cattle. You have left absolutely no doubt of the depths of your conspiring mind.


Conman: "Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA."

7. Where did I say the PSA prohibitions were against the individual sellers?

Where did you get that from? More bullsh*t that you pulled out of your hat.


Conman: "They procured the supply at the same time period. OCM already showed where the formula and cash cattle were processed at the same time. The supply/demand factors should have been the same for the cattle delivered at the same time."

The issue in contention is not when the cattle were procured or when they were slaughtered, the issue is WHEN THEY WERE PRICED.

The formula cattle are not priced from the same week as the cash cattle that are slaughtered within the same week. You still can't figure that out but according to all the things you are now telling me THAT I ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU, you might grasp this concept eventually too.


Conman: "Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else."

8. What question? I asked and you diverted numerous questions.



~SH~


SH, down to the name calling I see.


Do you have any one of these points that you would like to discuss? It is getting way too long to keep replying in this form.

Maybe someone else has a question on any of the numbered points. Would you be opposed to those questions, SH?

I already posted to this once completely and something happened to the post, or the connection. I don't know which. The quotes and replies are way too long for this forum.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Conman,

I have to give you credit for one thing, you are very good at slipping around the truth, very good at redirecting a question, and very good at totally avoiding answering direct questions with direct answers. In other words, you are very good at being dishonest. I find your antics absolutely repulsive. I loathe dishonest people like you.

Your arrogance in trying to teach me the very facts that I have taught you in the past about this industry is nothing short of amazing.

Either you really think you're cute in doing it or you are too stupid to realize it. I'm not sure which but it's pathetic either way.

Like I said before, most everyone that matters has already figured outjust exactly what a phony you are. Anyone who supports you like Sandbag appreciates your dishonesty and can relate to it. Sandbag takes pride in his deception and diversion as well. You'd make a nice couple.

In contrast, I spend my time learning about the truth as opposed to wondering how to defend or divert a lie.

There is a big difference between our approaches to debate. You can lie, divert, twist, and contradict yourself and it really doesn't matter because nobody knows who Conman 101 is. In contrast, I am held accountable for everything I say because everyone knows exactly who I am which puts my posts on a totally different environment than yours.

Not once have you contradicted a single thing I have stated with facts to the contrary which is all I really needed from this to know that I am right and you are wrong.

Just in this thread alone, I have caught you in a lie ("I did not say that"), I have caught you contradicting your position (when asked if you believe Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets you answered with "I don't know" then changed your answer to "Yes, I do believe that Tyson uses formula cattle to manipulate markets at certain times") and I have pointed out how you will divert any pointed question that might expose your phoniness (not admitting to changing your story).


Conman: 1. Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week. Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market. Didn't I answer this before, SH? If packers get their supply tied down in the formula market they can not bid as aggressively on the cash market because they already secured their supply in the captive supply market. That thins out the market and makes the cash price not a good indicator of the whole market.

Hahaha! Who's question number 1 were you answering????

You're so pathetic!

The question #1 that you diverted was:

SH (previous) 1. Now, after reading your exact response WITHIN CONTEXT ("no, that's not what I said"), do you still want to suggest that you did not say "none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up", or are you willing to admit that I quoted EXACTLY what you said???

Answering that question was your chance to be honest but you diverted because you claimed that wasn't what you said ("none of the supply in the formula market can cause the market price to go up") and I proved it was by presenting your exact quote.

There is no sense in carrying this point any further. I proved how you lied and how you will say anything to divert admitting to it. That's all the satisfaction I need from that.


Conman: "Depends on if the formula price is tied to the cash price in a different week."

The formula price is tied to the weekly weighted average cash price in a different week than the week each are slaughtered. THERE IS NO DEPENDS TO IT.


Conman: "Pickett showed that it was for Tyson for the time period they alleged market manipulation. The jury agreed with them and said that it harmed the market."

Pickett showed that the cash market was lower than the formula market. That's all they showed but that was not proof of market manipulation. It was only proof of Tyson dropping their bids in the cash market, to reflect their purchases in the formula market.

Naturally if you are selling cattle in the cash market in a falling market, the cash price would be lower than the formula price simply based on the fact that the cash price was established second.

There is so many reasons why Pickett lost this case.


Conman: "2. Do you just want to argue?"

No, I just wanted to point out how your arrogant pride would not allow you to admit that you were wrong when clearly proven wrong. I made my point.


Conman: "3.. The formula that rkaiser uses to determine what his producers get for his program is a an example of a different formula."

That is not an example of a formula pricing method CURRENTLY IN USE that does not use the cash market as a base price.


1. Once again, give me an example of where formula pricing, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE, does not use the cash market as a base price IN THE UNITED STATES.


Conman: "Rkaiser's cattle were a part of the whole market for cattle and yet were not included in the calculation of the basis for next week's formula pricing for Tyson's contracts. The cash market was."

That statement doesn't make any sense from a number of standpoints.

1a. Did Randy Kaiser sell some fat cattle to Tyson?

1b. If Randy Kaiser did sell some fat cattle to Tyson, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE? RANDY IS FROM CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.

1c. What do you know about the formula to establish the base price on Tyson's Canadian formula purchases?

You're so full of it!


Tell me this Conman,

2. Which of the following methods does Tyson use to determine the base price for their formula cattle IN THE UNITED STATES:

a) Weekly weighted average of the USDA reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery.

b) Weekly weighted average of Tysons reported fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery for all their plants.

c) Weekly weighted average of Tyson's individual packing plant fat cattle cash price the week prior to delivery to that same plant.



You might have to do some homework here but it will do you some good.


Conman: " Tyson used a thin market to set the price for the cattle and not the average market price. The average market price is different than the cash market price."

3. What is the difference between the "average market price" and the "cash market price". Please differentiate between whether you are talking about the U.S. or Canada.


Conman: "Tyson is big enough to affect the entire market price with their own buying."

What cattle Tyson doesn't buy, Excel and Swift will.

Try as you will, you simply cannot explain why Tyson's manipulation and power is only used at some times and not at others.

For your theory to have any merit, you would need to explain the factors that allow market manipulation to occur at some times and not at others but you can't making you "factually void" as usual.


Conman: "It is funny how you make my case for me with your own quotes."

Oh but it was you that said that a difference between the cash price and the formula price was proof of market manipulation. I suppose you'll try to deny saying that now too huh? That's when I told you the prices were derived from seperate weeks with seperate supply and demand factors affecting those seperate markets. Now you think you need to lecture me on it? Hahaha! You're such a fool.


Conman: "5. Tyson could even pay more in the cash market for the cattle they procured and still manipulate the markets with the help of the other packers. Here is an example:

Tyson secures almost all of its supply from the captive supplies. It then buys 2 pens of cattle on the cash market. These two pens are bought at a premium to the average cash market. The other packers discriminate against the cash market. All of the cattle Tyson secured in the captive supplies are then based on this discriminated cash price, even though they bought two pens of cattle at a price higher than the average cash market price. It would reduce the price they paid for the captive supplies even though they paid more for those two pens of cattle in the cash market than the other market participants. The packers could all do a round robin on this strategy and depress the cash market even though they individually paid more for the cattle they bought in the cash market in a given week. SH, this is just an example to illustrate the point. I don't know if this ever happened. It would depend on the evidence. It could have happened just the way I described it or not. That is why you have trials, to convince 12 people you are right or wrong. It is just an example to show you that your little "here is proof" they did not manipulate the markets, they paid more than the average cash price argument.

If they bought a small amount of cattle on the cash market and the other packers discriminated against the cash market, there could still be manipulation of the cash price. The Pickett case was about Tyson, however, and their practices. That was what was covered by the trial. You would have to ask someone else if this was a problem in selected time periods. Of course Tyson would not be liable for the other packer's actions. They would be responsible for their actions. You would have to
ask someone else if this was the case. Tyson could claim that the other packers were doing this and testify against them if this was the case. Maybe you could ask them, SH."

ROTFLMAO!

That is the funniest thing you have ever posted. Your conspiring mind knows no bounds does it? Whether it's just an example or not it's total foolishness.

Again, there is no use in talking about hypotheticals. I'll bet you could never find a week where Tyson only bought two pens of cattle LET ALONE PAY A PREMIUM FOR THEM TO MANIPULATE MARKETS LET ALONE WHERE THE OTHER PACKERS RESPONDED BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE CASH PRICE.

What a conspiring mind you have. Amazing!

4. Why in the world would the other packers discriminate against the cash market IF THEY NEEDED CATTLE???

I don't know why I bother to ask you questions, you'll just divert it anyway.

IF EXCEL AND SWIFT DROP THEIR PRICE COMPARED TO WHAT TYSON IS PAYING, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT ARE THEY????

DUH!


Conman: "7. I said they could have. I did not say it occurred. I used an example. It was not based on actual events, although actual events could have coincided with the numbers I used. Ask Agman, he would probably know."

More diversionary bullsh*t. You changed your answer to my question regarding whether Tyson used formula cattle to manipulate the cash market and now you are unwilling to admit it.

Never mind. I made my point here also.


Conman: "7a. Whether or not Tyson had willing sellers in either the cash market or the formula market does not matter. If they unjustly discriminated against the cash market is what matters. Under the PSA they are not disallowed from buying either way. They are prohibited from unjustly discriminating."

Tyson did not unjustly discrimate against the cash market. They simply dropped their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is nothing more than a normal supply and demand reaction. As the number of their purchases goes up, the amount they are willing to pay for the balance of their needs is going to go down.


Conman: "No, they sell on the grid to get premiums over what they think the market price for their cattle would be for their pen of cattle."

That's what I just said you smart ass!


Conman: "They could have some sorry cattle and the grid pricing may be a better deal for them than what is offered in the cash market because it is being discriminated against. The price is relevant to their pen of cattle as opposed to the cash market prices being offered."

Hahaha!

5. THE BASE PRICE OF THE FORMULA HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED so how could they possibly assume that the cash market was discriminated against in comparison to the formula market????


Conman: " Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also."

That's not what you said Conman. What you said was:

Conman (previous): "Suppose their cattle were just not that good and they knew that they would get 5 cents less on their load in the formula market than they could with the grid pricing."

Either you weren't making sense or that statement was a typo and should have read, "in the formula market than they could in the cash market" because "grid pricing" and the "formula market" are one in the same in the confines of this discussion.

Just admit that it should have read "cash market" and it would make more sense even though it would still be wrong.


Conman: "Glad to see you are not skimming, SH. Good catch. Let me explain it for you. Let us say that the grid pricing base price was 80 cents per lb. Of course that is the formula pricing also. It is not, however, what the cattleman recieves. The grid or formula pays based on the quality/yield. If you bid the grid, you might have a base price for the grid or the formula cattle of 80 cents. Your cattle, however, were not that good of cattle and under the formula, which takes into consideration the yield and grade of the cattle, you knew you would really end up with a price of 75 cents per lb. if you bid the grid. Now suppose the buyer came up and offered you 76 cents per lb. in the cash market. Would you take it? Of course you would. The price you recieve per lb. on the grid is different than the base price of the grid."

Hahaha! Another dandy bullsh*t session from you.

I'm well aware of how grid pricing works and I am the one who told you about the option to "bid the grid".

Nobody sells on the grid unless they believe their cattle will be above the average on grade and yield so there is no way that anyone would sell on the grid if they thought their cattle would bring less than the open cash market. That is why you have sellers that utilize each method. Those who think their cattle will sell for above the average on grade and yield sell in the grid. Those who are afraid that their discounts might offset their premiums sell in the cash market. That is why you generally have higher quality cattle in the formula market than in the cash market in a normal choice/select spread situation. I suppose you'll repeat that back to me in a week or so? LOL!


Conman (previous): "Taking all of these cattle off of the cash market (lower grade cattle) at a lower price depresses next week's formula price."

Ok, I misunderstood that statement to read that the "lower grade cattle" were in the cash market when I see now you meant that the "lower grade cattle" FROM THE CASH MARKET ended up in the formula market. You can blame it on my comprehension and I can blame it on your inability to talk plainly but that was a poorly composed sentence either way.


Conman: "Pickett showed that Tyson bid less in the cash market for the cattle. They took up the lower grade cattle on the formula market because the prices they were willing to pay for these lower grade cattle came out better for cattlemen."

They took up? If they didn't have willing sellers, they wouldn't take up anything. You act like there is only one party making this sale decision.

The formula cattle are not "lower grade cattle", there may not have been as high a percentage of choice cattle as in the cash market DURING THE PICKETT ERA because many of the cash cattle WERE OVERFED from feeders holding out for better prices.

That is what happens when the cash market falls. Feeders hold out for better prices, feed more fat on, and place more beef tonnage on the market. That is the feeder's fault for not staying current, not the packer's.

I believe that the cash cattle may have GRADED better but that doesn't make them 'higher quality cattle" in a narrow choice/select spread or when considering dressing percentage, or when considering Y4 discounts, or when considering yield grade premiums.

"Higher quality" is a relative term that needs to be defined by total dollars as opposed to being based on which group of cattle had the higher percentage of choice in their mix.


Conman: "The market manipulation can never be put on the feeders."

Maybe not based on the PSA but I can absolutely guarantee you that feeders tend to back cattle up in the yards when the prices start dropping while holding out for better prices while they feed more fat on the carcass and contribute to an increase in total beef tonnage. That is why industry leaders are practically begging feeders to stay current with their cattle.

Do you know what "current" means? It means to kill cattle when they are ready to be killed as opposed to killing them based on markets which tend to continue to fall if you hold out for a better price.


Conman: "8. Market manipulation can happen with a lot less captive supply than 90%."

You can't prove that. That is just another "opinion" unsupported by fact.


Conman: "You keep assuming that Swift, Excel, and the others are actively competing for the cattle. It could be a wrong assumption."

GOSH, NOW WHY WOULD I THINK THAT WHEN EXCEL AND SWIFT HAVE PLANTS TO KEEP RUNNING AND LABORERS TO PAY????

GEE, YA REALLY GOT ME THERE............ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


Conman: "Pickett convinced a jury that Tyson manipulated the market with their unjust discrimination against the cash market. What the others did or did not do is really a matter for another jury to decide based on the particular circumstances of the evidence in those cases. They may have discriminated in their offers against the cash market or may not have."

Ibp/Tyson may have discriminated against THEIR CASH MARKET but unless a buyer can only sell to ibp/Tyson or unless Swift and Excel had their needs fulfilled in the formula market and dropped their price in the cash market simultaneously with Tyson, there can be no manipulation against "THE CASH MARKET".

Tyson/ibp is "A MARKET" not "THE MARKET". Get that through your thick head. If buyers have other options, Tyson/ibp can not manipulate "THE MARKET".


Conman: "9. I don't know, it doesn't matter. See number 8. If they were all discriminating against the cash market at the same time as Tyson was, they could have manipulated the market with less than 10% captive supplies."

It does matter. If Tyson and Swift did not drop their cash price simultaneously, there can be no manipulation of "THE MARKET". Pickett was not about "TYSON'S MARKET" as if Tyson was the only buyer, Pickett was about "THE MARKET" which includes Tyson's competition as well.

HAHAHAHA!

6. HOW CAN THEY MANIPULATE THE CASH MARKET IF 90% OF THEIR NEEDS REMAIN UNFILLED AFTER THEIR FORMULA PURCHASES???

Too funny!

Why don't you stop while your behind.


Conman: "9a. You are making the assumption that they are actively bidding against each other for the cattle. Have you proven your assumption? I would say this is your "THEORY", not mine. All the packers benefit if they collude on pushing down the price. Swift and Tyson make out especially in thier substitutes with a movement down the longer term supply curve, especially if they have contracted the supply of those other substitutes."

Oh for crying out loud. Now I am supposed to prove that Excel and Swift don't compete for the same cattle. I really need to prove that to you?

You're absolutely hopeless!

If they collude? If they were colluding, why would they only collude at certain times and not at others.

7. What factors contribute to whether or not they will collude this week or wait until next week???

PROVE THE COLLUSION and you will have a PSA violation which is exactly why the PSA was originally written.

When you can come to the court room with proof of "PRICE FIXING" by COLLUSION, then and only then will you have a legitimate PSA violation of market manipulation and "price fixing".


Conman: "So you claim that Tyson can drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met, and you make the assumption that the other packers are actively bidding for the remaining cattle. Did you "prove" that they were actively bidding on the cash market? It was a pretty big assumption on your part, SH. It was a pretty big "theory" that you did not prove."

Excel and Swift will drop their bidding pressure when their needs are met also. What's the chances of all of them meeting their needs simultaneously considering the fact that the slaughter capacity in the U.S. generally meets the cattle numbers?

If I have to prove to you that Swift and Excel are in competition with eachother and with Tyson for the same cattle. You have left absolutely no doubt of the depths of your conspiring mind.


Conman: "Read the PSA. You will see I am correct on this. The prohibitions are against the packers, never the individual sellers. This point continually shows you know little about the case or the PSA."

7. Where did I say the PSA prohibitions were against the individual sellers?

Where did you get that from? More bullsh*t that you pulled out of your hat.


Conman: "They procured the supply at the same time period. OCM already showed where the formula and cash cattle were processed at the same time. The supply/demand factors should have been the same for the cattle delivered at the same time."

The issue in contention is not when the cattle were procured or when they were slaughtered, the issue is WHEN THEY WERE PRICED.

The formula cattle are not priced from the same week as the cash cattle that are slaughtered within the same week. You still can't figure that out but according to all the things you are now telling me THAT I ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU, you might grasp this concept eventually too.


Conman: "Your homework is to answer your own question. You will be graded only on the answer to this question, nothing else."

8. What question? I asked and you diverted numerous questions.



~SH~


SH, down to the name calling I see.


Do you have any one of these points that you would like to discuss? It is getting way too long to keep replying in this form.

Maybe someone else has a question on any of the numbered points. Would you be opposed to those questions, SH?

I already posted to this once completely and something happened to the post, or the connection. I don't know which. The quotes and replies are way too long for this forum.



Modern variation on "The dog ate my homework!" now appears to be "Something happened to the post, or the connection, I don't know which, and there were too many questions, anyway". Too funny!!!!!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Any dog that ate as much crap as SH is throwing out on this thread would have a big stomach ache. Need any pepto bismol, MRJ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Any dog that ate as much crap as SH is throwing out on this thread would have a big stomach ache."

Talk is cheap!

If it wasn't for "cheap talk", you wouldn't exist.

When you can bring facts to the table, as opposed to conspiracy theories, to contradict anything I have stated, you will be taken seriously. Until then, you really are a legend in your own mind. Lecturing me on the things I taught you, how funny! You're such a joke Conman.

I respond to your nothingness when I have more time. Right now I have better things to do than waste my time with you.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I already posted to this once completely and something happened to the post, or the connection. I don't know which."

MRJ,

In fairness, Conman did respond to the whole thing! I read it and it is wierd that it's not there now. I just didn't have time to respond to it yet. A lot of it was simply copying my post to appear as a response. LOL!

Conman,

Just answer the 8 questions that are bolded.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top