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~