Dr. Taylor draws a picture for SH and Agman

[Econ101]

Just look at the desperation in you packer blamers. You post something so elementary and so easily refuted and you think you have finally found the gold strike. LOL!

What a bunch of followers!

If I have learned one thing from these debates it's the extreme lengths that packer blamers will go to have someone or something to blame for lower cattle prices. I didn't believe it was as bad as it is. I thought most producers would want to know the truth.

The normal supply and demand factors that absolutely drive cattle prices are never even discussed in the realm of packer blaming or import blaming.

I suppose this will be puzzling scientists for years.

Quote: "Marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices down."

The very first statement in the post is false.

Does anyone want to bet me $100 that I can prove that there is just as many times where the formula/grid price is lower than the the following week's cash market?

You packer blamers are all patting yourselves on the back thinking you have found a new weapon and you didn't even get past the very first sentence. LOL!

Unless the formula/grid pricing is always higher than the cash price, the adverse would also have to be true.

For every time that marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices lower, marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices higher.

$100 ........any takers?

The bet is that I can prove where the formula/grid price was lower than the cash price the following week?

Hey, COME BACK, WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST SENTENCE!

"… an IBP cattle buyer … looked at high quality cattle we had on our show list for sale. The market was about $66/cwt in the cash market, based on live weight. (He) was very complimentary of our cattle's quality. He said his hands were tied and he could not offer more for the cattle, despite their above average quality. (He) said 'In the old days I would have been able to offer $67.50 for these cattle, but now paying more would screw up 20,000 formula cattle.' It was completely clear to me that (the buyer) was telling me paying a higher price for out cattle would influence prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, before the transaction involving our cattle occurred. We lost money in this deal because IBP would not allow its buyer to engage in competitive bidding."

I'm assuming the words "out cattle" was a typo. I am assuming that "out cattle" should have read "our cattle". I'll proceed based on that assumption. Since Randy was dealing in the cash market, he shouldn't have any "out cattle" which is a term used for those cattle that do not fit a particular grid.

This paragraph is even easier to refute than the opening statement.

Randy has no idea what he's talking about. Unlike Econ., OCM, or Sandman, I'll not just say that Randy Stevenson doesn't know what he's talking about IN THIS PARTICULAR SENTENCE, I'll prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Randy's words were "....a higher price for our cattle WOULD INFLUENCE prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occured...."

Based on Randy's "BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occure", I have to assume that Randy believes that last week's formula cattle are based on this week's cash cattle sales price. This is absolutely false.

READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY GUYS.....The formula cattle price is based on the weekly weighted average THE WEEK PRIOR, NOT THE WEEK FOLLOWING.

On the other hand, if Randy is referring to next weeks formula cattle (20,000 head), which are based on this week's cash price, WHICH I AM QUITE SURE HE'S NOT, those formula cattle are not even purchased yet so how can this weeks cash purchases SCREW THEM UP? IBP has no idea how many cattle they are going to get bought next week on the formula.

I have to assume that Randy is simply mistaken on how formula cattle are priced.

Randy is a heck of a guy when it comes to supporting our troops but he doesn't know what he's talking about on formula cattle pricing.

I'll ask anyone to refute the fact that this weeks formula cattle base price is based on the average price of the cash market the week prior.

Another problem is that this statement is made as if ibp was the only buyer out there. I don't know a single large feedlot in Nebraska that hasn't sold cattle to Swift, ibp, and Excel.

What is far more likely is that ibp already had last weeks formula cattle scheduled for slaughter for this week's delivery. If ibp goes out and buys more cattle at $67 in the cash market, they are going to have to reschedule the formula/grid cattle for slaughter. Hence "screwing their slaughter schedule up on 20,000 cattle.

That makes perfect sense!

This goes right back to suggesting that a company lowering it's price after their needs are met, is market manipulation.

Did you guys honestly believe you had a winner this time?

The fact that last weeks formula cattle were based on the weekly weighted average of the cash price THE WEEK PRIOR, the fact that next weeks formula/grid cattle are not even purchased yet, the fact that there is two other major buyers for Randy to sell to (particularly Swift in Greely, CO), and the fact that next weeks cattle could be bought on the cash market as an alternative to the formula/grid absolutely absolutely shatters Randy's speculation.

Quote: "Suppose that the base price for the 20,000 formula contract cattle was the "top-of-the-market" price. We know such contracts exist. Also suppose that another packer – maybe a very small but competitive packer – had already established the weekly top-of-the-market price at $66.00. If the Tyson buyer pays Randy an additional $1.50/cwt ($18/head) for his pen of 1,000 high quality cattle, then the "additional cost" is the extra $18,000 for Randy's cattle, plus an extra $360,000 on the 20,000 head of formula cattle. Paying Randy an extra buck fifty on 1,000 head would have cost Tyson an extra $378,000. Offering $67.50 for Randy's 1,000 high quality cattle in a market with captive supply is the equivalent of offering $117.00/cwt in a cash market without captive supply – both increase Tyson's cattle costs $378,000."

The opening line in this statement is so easily refuted.

Once again, next weeks formula price will be based on this weeks cash price. If Randy would have received $67.50 for his cattle, that would affect the formula price for next week, NOT LAST WEEK.

Go ahead, any one of you try to refute this point. You won't because you can't.

Next week's feeders have the cash market as an option to the formula market. ibp doesn't care how they get the cattle bought, just so they get enough cattle bought to fill their slaughtering schedule.

If Randy would have sold his cattle at $66 in this weeks cash price and $66 was the bid the entire week, $66 would also be the base price for next weeks formula base price. That is a fact!

With that in mind, how could next weeks formula cattle receive "top-of-the-market price"?

Another conspiracy theory absolutely shattered by the facts.

Quote: "Captive supply contracts provide packers committed cattle so they are not as hungry to increase bids to fill out their plant capacity, and also create extreme incentives to underbid, costing Randy $18,000 in this illustration and gaining Tyson $378,000."

Certainly when ibp has a large portion of their needs already filled there will be less incentive to pay the same amount for the balance of their needs. That is simple economics. Any company is more aggressive in pricing when their needs have not been fulfilled.

What's so revolutionary about that? Call another packer, perhaps they don't have their needs filled yet.

Many has been the time when I would call packer A and receive a bid then call packer B and receive a higher bid. The next time, packer A might have the higher bid. Depends on who is needing cattle the worse.

This is not rocket science and it damn sure isn't market manipulation.

If it was, every time the price dropped off at the end of a salebarn feeder calf sale as buyers met their needs, this would be considered market manipulation.

Why do you think ranchers are always upset when their cattle sell late in the sale? MARKET MANIPULATION!

Randy is totally wet on his $378,000 figure based on the simple fact that formula cattle are priced on the weekly weighted average of the week prior, not the week following.


Come on guys, is this all you got?

I challenge any one of you packer blaming followers to contradict anything I have stated in this post.

Now don't get angry just because another of your conspiracy planes was shot down in flames from the truth. You always have eachother for support. LOL!

NEXT!



~SH~

Move those shells around so no one will know where the pea is.

For every time that marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices lower, marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices higher.

This looks like the argument my broker gave me when they sold my stock not at the market, but in their own portfolio. In fact, they acted likd a bookie with their internal spread between sellers. They lost that case. It is too bad you know the games played in New York but the appellate judges do not.

Stocks (whether cattle or stock certificates) taken out of the market thin the market. With thin markets, there is more of a chance that they can be manipulated (or in this case lowered by those with market power). You can not deny that to be the case, SH. It is a fact. You have even argued so yourself.

Marketing agreements with prices not based on a negotiated amount at the time always have a chance of manipulating markets. They don't always do it, but the chance is always there. Pickett proved to the jury that the cash price was depressed because of "captive supply". Even the judges agreed to that one. Dr. Azzam also stated that there is a negative correlation between "captive supplies" and cash price-- and you quoted him, Agman.

SH, you came up with a lot of extraneous garble that said nothing. Would you like to try again? Take one point and let us argue one point at a time.

I would still like you to answer my question on Mike the perjurer, or is that just more quantity? Your crediblity is at stake.

 

[ocm]

Just look at the desperation in you packer blamers. You post something so elementary and so easily refuted and you think you have finally found the gold strike. LOL!

What a bunch of followers!

If I have learned one thing from these debates it's the extreme lengths that packer blamers will go to have someone or something to blame for lower cattle prices. I didn't believe it was as bad as it is. I thought most producers would want to know the truth.

The normal supply and demand factors that absolutely drive cattle prices are never even discussed in the realm of packer blaming or import blaming.

I suppose this will be puzzling scientists for years.

Quote: "Marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices down."

The very first statement in the post is false.

Does anyone want to bet me $100 that I can prove that there is just as many times where the formula/grid price is lower than the the following week's cash market?

You packer blamers are all patting yourselves on the back thinking you have found a new weapon and you didn't even get past the very first sentence. LOL!

Unless the formula/grid pricing is always higher than the cash price, the adverse would also have to be true.

For every time that marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices lower, marketing agreements with a base price tied to a cash market price drives prices higher.

$100 ........any takers?

The bet is that I can prove where the formula/grid price was lower than the cash price the following week?

Hey, COME BACK, WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST SENTENCE!

"… an IBP cattle buyer … looked at high quality cattle we had on our show list for sale. The market was about $66/cwt in the cash market, based on live weight. (He) was very complimentary of our cattle's quality. He said his hands were tied and he could not offer more for the cattle, despite their above average quality. (He) said 'In the old days I would have been able to offer $67.50 for these cattle, but now paying more would screw up 20,000 formula cattle.' It was completely clear to me that (the buyer) was telling me paying a higher price for out cattle would influence prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, before the transaction involving our cattle occurred. We lost money in this deal because IBP would not allow its buyer to engage in competitive bidding."

I'm assuming the words "out cattle" was a typo. I am assuming that "out cattle" should have read "our cattle". I'll proceed based on that assumption. Since Randy was dealing in the cash market, he shouldn't have any "out cattle" which is a term used for those cattle that do not fit a particular grid.

This paragraph is even easier to refute than the opening statement.

Randy has no idea what he's talking about. Unlike Econ., OCM, or Sandman, I'll not just say that Randy Stevenson doesn't know what he's talking about IN THIS PARTICULAR SENTENCE, I'll prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Randy's words were "....a higher price for our cattle WOULD INFLUENCE prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occured...."

Based on Randy's "BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occure", I have to assume that Randy believes that last week's formula cattle are based on this week's cash cattle sales price. This is absolutely false.

READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY GUYS.....The formula cattle price is based on the weekly weighted average THE WEEK PRIOR, NOT THE WEEK FOLLOWING.

On the other hand, if Randy is referring to next weeks formula cattle (20,000 head), which are based on this week's cash price, WHICH I AM QUITE SURE HE'S NOT, those formula cattle are not even purchased yet so how can this weeks cash purchases SCREW THEM UP? IBP has no idea how many cattle they are going to get bought next week on the formula.

I have to assume that Randy is simply mistaken on how formula cattle are priced.

Randy is a heck of a guy when it comes to supporting our troops but he doesn't know what he's talking about on formula cattle pricing.

I'll ask anyone to refute the fact that this weeks formula cattle base price is based on the average price of the cash market the week prior.

Another problem is that this statement is made as if ibp was the only buyer out there. I don't know a single large feedlot in Nebraska that hasn't sold cattle to Swift, ibp, and Excel.

What is far more likely is that ibp already had last weeks formula cattle scheduled for slaughter for this week's delivery. If ibp goes out and buys more cattle at $67 in the cash market, they are going to have to reschedule the formula/grid cattle for slaughter. Hence "screwing their slaughter schedule up on 20,000 cattle.

That makes perfect sense!

This goes right back to suggesting that a company lowering it's price after their needs are met, is market manipulation.

Did you guys honestly believe you had a winner this time?

The fact that last weeks formula cattle were based on the weekly weighted average of the cash price THE WEEK PRIOR, the fact that next weeks formula/grid cattle are not even purchased yet, the fact that there is two other major buyers for Randy to sell to (particularly Swift in Greely, CO), and the fact that next weeks cattle could be bought on the cash market as an alternative to the formula/grid absolutely absolutely shatters Randy's speculation.

Quote: "Suppose that the base price for the 20,000 formula contract cattle was the "top-of-the-market" price. We know such contracts exist. Also suppose that another packer – maybe a very small but competitive packer – had already established the weekly top-of-the-market price at $66.00. If the Tyson buyer pays Randy an additional $1.50/cwt ($18/head) for his pen of 1,000 high quality cattle, then the "additional cost" is the extra $18,000 for Randy's cattle, plus an extra $360,000 on the 20,000 head of formula cattle. Paying Randy an extra buck fifty on 1,000 head would have cost Tyson an extra $378,000. Offering $67.50 for Randy's 1,000 high quality cattle in a market with captive supply is the equivalent of offering $117.00/cwt in a cash market without captive supply – both increase Tyson's cattle costs $378,000."

The opening line in this statement is so easily refuted.

Once again, next weeks formula price will be based on this weeks cash price. If Randy would have received $67.50 for his cattle, that would affect the formula price for next week, NOT LAST WEEK.

Go ahead, any one of you try to refute this point. You won't because you can't.

Next week's feeders have the cash market as an option to the formula market. ibp doesn't care how they get the cattle bought, just so they get enough cattle bought to fill their slaughtering schedule.

If Randy would have sold his cattle at $66 in this weeks cash price and $66 was the bid the entire week, $66 would also be the base price for next weeks formula base price. That is a fact!

With that in mind, how could next weeks formula cattle receive "top-of-the-market price"?

Another conspiracy theory absolutely shattered by the facts.

Quote: "Captive supply contracts provide packers committed cattle so they are not as hungry to increase bids to fill out their plant capacity, and also create extreme incentives to underbid, costing Randy $18,000 in this illustration and gaining Tyson $378,000."

Certainly when ibp has a large portion of their needs already filled there will be less incentive to pay the same amount for the balance of their needs. That is simple economics. Any company is more aggressive in pricing when their needs have not been fulfilled.

What's so revolutionary about that? Call another packer, perhaps they don't have their needs filled yet.

Many has been the time when I would call packer A and receive a bid then call packer B and receive a higher bid. The next time, packer A might have the higher bid. Depends on who is needing cattle the worse.

This is not rocket science and it damn sure isn't market manipulation.

If it was, every time the price dropped off at the end of a salebarn feeder calf sale as buyers met their needs, this would be considered market manipulation.

Why do you think ranchers are always upset when their cattle sell late in the sale? MARKET MANIPULATION!

Randy is totally wet on his $378,000 figure based on the simple fact that formula cattle are priced on the weekly weighted average of the week prior, not the week following.


Come on guys, is this all you got?

I challenge any one of you packer blaming followers to contradict anything I have stated in this post.

Now don't get angry just because another of your conspiracy planes was shot down in flames from the truth. You always have eachother for support. LOL!

NEXT!



~SH~

I have talked to Randy extensively about this situation. You display a great deal of ignorance as to how the market works. Randy is a very intelligent person.

The brain surgery he had last fall has not diminshed it either.

You attribute quotes to him that were not his.

You ASSUME that it makes a difference WHICH weeks formula cattle price is getting screwed up.

The short answer is that the buyer told him that this was the reason he couldn't give more.

The make the erroneous assumption that ALL formulas are the same--they are not.

Take it this way--the buyer said, " I'm offering less because formula cattle may be tied to this purchase."

Now ask the question. Do formula contracts incentivize Tyson to pay less on the cash market?

In this case they did!!! UNARGUABLY

Randy has no idea what he's talking about. Unlike Econ., OCM, or Sandman, I'll not just say that Randy Stevenson doesn't know what he's talking about IN THIS PARTICULAR SENTENCE, I'll prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I plan on talking to him soon. Shall I convey your opinion that he is ignorant.

Oh yes, to prove how ignorant you are I will post soon the PROOF that formula and grid are not the same.

YOU STILL FLUNK THAT TEST. HOW CAN YOU KNOW ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT CATTLE MARKETING?

 

[RobertMac]

SH: "IBP has no idea how many cattle they are going to get bought next week on the formula."

Do you really believe packers have "no idea" for their procurement plans each week?

Why would packers have an open ended price contract if they couldn't see an advantage for them?

 

[Mike]

One other thing to add to the equation is the sales of live fat cattle by Tyson and other packers. One of my friends in the feedlot business assures me that packers sell "overbought" cattle regularly to other packers.

 

[Anonymous]

Go ahead guys, take anything I have stated in my post and present facts to the contrary. You won't because you can't.

If you cannot present facts to prove what I have stated is wrong, you got nothing, AS ALWAYS. This leaves you to your typical, meaningless discrediting little statements, AS ALWAYS.

Sandman: "You spend how many sentences and fragmented paragraphs trying to make an issue on which week prices would be affected, but it doesn't really matter."

It does matter.

How the base price is derived is relevant to the accuracy of Randy Stevenson's statements. What Randy stated is just flat wrong. None of you have defended Randy's statement with supporting FACTS. None of you have contradicted what I have stated with opposing facts.

Sandman: "You're just trying to divert attention from the facts and confuse the issue."

There was no facts presented.

All that was presented was an inaccurate statement and an inaccurate interpretation of that statement.

Sandman: "Here is the quote from the IBP buyer, "'In the old days I would have been able to offer $67.50 for these cattle, but now paying more would screw up 20,000 formula cattle."

Once again, when ibp already had their slaughter needs for this week filled with captive supply cattle bought last week, overpricing this week's cash cattle would disrupt the slaughtering schedule of last week's purchases and cost them money.

That isn't hard to figure out.

Randy clearly misunderstood the buyer's statement if that is how it was stated.

It's a statement subject to interpretation and intent Sandman, not A FACT!

Sandman: "Whatever week the formula cattle get screwed up doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that they do."

Sandman you are in over your head.

I have sold fat cattle on formula/grids and I am very familiar with the many marketing arrangements out there. You obviously are not.

Screwing up slaughtering schedule is irrelevant to your allegation of market manipulation.

1) Does Tyson fill a large portion of their needs thru marketing agreements that have a price tied to the cash price of cattle? Yes / No

Depends on the year.

Define "large portion of their needs".

Find out and let me know what you come up with.

2) We already agree that when they have a large portion of their needs met, they have less incentive to pay the same amount as they have paid previously. We can move on.

Whether or not they pay the same amount in a future week is determined by supply and demand factors as well as whether or not their needs are filled.

3) Let's complete the circle. They now bid less because their needs are less. They also know not to bid over the established high as that will raise the cost of the contracted cattle that are based on the spot. Now, isn't it ovbious that the tool being used to lower cash prices is the marketing agreement, which is what Pickett was claiming all along?

Hahahaha! You certainly are going in circles.

ibp has to bid against Excel, Swift, Smithfield, and National to get the cattle bought. Each on of these companies also has various marketing options available to producers.

What ibp' bid is determined by two factors:

1. THEIR SLAUGHTERING NEEDS.

2. SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS (beef demand, boxed beef prices, exports, imports, carcass weights, beef by product values, competitive meat prices, etc. etc.)

3. ANY RELIABLE DATA TO REFLECT THE POTENTIAL QUALITY OF THE CATTLE SUCH AS PRECEDING CARCASS DATA. You misrepresent the cattle and the buyer will not forget it.

ibp will not bid more than they have to AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION to fill their slaughtering schedule and how they get those cattle bought will be determined by the seller, not the buyer.

What you fail to understand is that this weeks cash market affects next weeks formula market BUT NEXT WEEK'S BUYERS HAVE THE CASH PRICE OPTION. THEY HAVE THE CHOICE! That fact absolutely positively shatters your market manipulation conspiracy theory from the formula/grid standpoint.

Now, on the issue of lower prices due to your needs being met, that is not market manipulation. If you want to claim that as market manipulation, that will have the same consequences at the sale barn level, at the seedstock purchase level, and at the feeder level.

If you want to define "lower prices in relation to your needs being filled" as market manipulation, that position will have dire consequences in other areas. Just like suggesting that having BSE in your native herd means your beef is "high risk".

Econ. 101: "SH, You still have not answered my questions about the perjury or lying charge that you made on both Mikes. Did you perjure yourself on this forum?"

You were the one who thought my quote was from Mike Callicrate when it was made by Mike on this forum. Creating an "ILLUSION" again?

When you bring the proof of market manipulation to support your case, I'll present the facts of Mike Callicrate lying under oath.

Perhaps it's time for you to read the testimony huh?

Econ. 101: "Marketing agreements with prices not based on a negotiated amount at the time always have a chance of manipulating markets. They don't always do it, but the chance is always there."

Could, might, perhaps, have a chance, don't always but, ........ GUILTY!

Hahaha!

You're such a joke!

Econ. 101: " Pickett proved to the jury that the cash price was depressed because of "captive supply"."

Pickett MAY HAVE proved that cash markets were lower due IN PART to packer needs being filled but that is not proof of market manipulation which is exactly what Judge Strom stated in his ruling.

Econ. 101: "SH, you came up with a lot of extraneous garble that said nothing. Would you like to try again? Take one point and let us argue one point at a time."

Take any statement I have made, WITHIN CONTEXT, and contradict it with opposing facts NOT STATEMENTS. When you can do that, you will have something. If you cannot do that, you have nothing, AS ALWAYS.

Ocm : "I have talked to Randy extensively about this situation. You display a great deal of ignorance as to how the market works."

Talk is cheap!

When you can prove what I have stated is wrong with opposing facts, you will have something. Until then, you have nothing, AS ALWAYS.

OCM: "You attribute quotes to him that were not his."

PROVE IT!

I took the quotes as they were presented.

OCM: "The short answer is that the buyer told him that this was the reason he couldn't give more."

Makes absolutely no sense as Randy has interpreted it because this week's cash price has no affect on marketing agreement cattle already purchased but it does have an affect on slaughtering schedule of cattle already purchased.

Next week's cash sellers have the option of selling in the cash market, rather than the grid.

You have nothing here!

OCM: "The make the erroneous assumption that ALL formulas are the same--they are not."

"RED HERRING"

The only formula at issue here is ibp's.

I am well aware of the different formulas.

OCM: "Now ask the question. Do formula contracts incentivize Tyson to pay less on the cash market?"

As any packer gets their slaughtering needs filled, this will affect the price they are willing to pay. Supply and demand, not market manipulation.


When you talk to Randy, ask him one simple question. Ask him if this week's cash price affects the price of next week's formula/grid purchases or last week's formula/grid purchases.

Ask him and let me know what he says.

RM: "Do you really believe packers have "no idea" for their procurement plans each week?"

Nice spin!

I didn't say they didn't have an idea of their needs, I said they have no idea how many they are going to get bought.

Why do you think they cut shifts or add shifts at times?

Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for the conspiring mind.

RM: "Why would packers have an open ended price contract if they couldn't see an advantage for them?"

The weekly weighted averge base price can work for or against a packer and for or against a feeder depending on which way the market is moving the following week.

I have experienced that many times.

Irrelevant anyway when producers always have the cash option to "marketing agreements".

The value of grids is that cattle receive what they are worth based on their carcass merits. Value based marketing through formulas and grids was a way for those with better quality cattle to quit carrying the poorer cattle in the "socialized" cash market.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "One of my friends in the feedlot business assures me that packers sell "overbought" cattle regularly to other packers."

What's your point?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Screwing up slaughtering schedule is irrelevant to your allegation of market manipulation."

It's not the slaughtering schedule that hurts producrs, it's the prices paid for fats.

Why are you lying about Callicrate jerjuring himself? You pump yourself up to this board as a man of great wisdom and truth, and then you lie. You follow that with diversion. Why the blatant hypocracy? Where is the glory in that?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Why are you lying about Callicrate jerjuring himself? You pump yourself up to this board as a man of great wisdom and truth, and then you lie. You follow that with diversion. Why the blatant hypocracy? Where is the glory in that?"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

HENRY LEE PICKETT, et. al.,

Plaintiffs


vs.


TYSON FRESH MEATS, Inc.,

Defendant


Civil No. 96-A-1103-N


COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

Instuction No. 6

During the testimony of Mr. Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weight it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judge of the truthfulness of the witnesses and the weight that their testimony deserves.

You are the liar here Sandman to suggest that I lied but that is par for your deceptive course considering the pathetic individual that you have always been.

I suppose you'd like to suggest that Judge Strom lied too huh?

Mike also lied in Pierre at the Governor's cattle conference when he said that ibp had contractual arrangements with other packers. Mike also lied when he said packers and retailers are making $400 per head off the backs of U.S. producers. Mike lied here when he said he would answer my questions if I revealed my identity.

Mike Callicrate has made lying into a profession.


PERJURY - The telling of a lie under oath.


If you want the details, read the court proceedings. Agman presented the details previously if you want to conduct a search.

Until you can present the evidence that prove market manipulation, don't expect me to be very cooperative with you in answering questions and I'm not going to fall for your childish challenge antics either. My record of accuracy speaks for itself.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandman: "Why are you lying about Callicrate jerjuring himself? You pump yourself up to this board as a man of great wisdom and truth, and then you lie. You follow that with diversion. Why the blatant hypocracy? Where is the glory in that?"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

HENRY LEE PICKETT, et. al.,

Plaintiffs


vs.


TYSON FRESH MEATS, Inc.,

Defendant


Civil No. 96-A-1103-N


COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY

Instuction No. 6

During the testimony of Mr. Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weight it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or in part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judge of the truthfulness of the witnesses and the weight that their testimony deserves.

You are the liar here Sandman to suggest that I lied but that is par for your deceptive course considering the pathetic individual that you have always been.

I suppose you'd like to suggest that Judge Strom lied too huh?

Mike also lied in Pierre at the Governor's cattle conference when he said that ibp had contractual arrangements with other packers. Mike also lied when he said packers and retailers are making $400 per head off the backs of U.S. producers. Mike lied here when he said he would answer my questions if I revealed my identity.

Mike Callicrate has made lying into a profession.


PERJURY - The telling of a lie under oath.


If you want the details, read the court proceedings. Agman presented the details previously if you want to conduct a search.

Until you can present the evidence that prove market manipulation, don't expect me to be very cooperative with you in answering questions and I'm not going to fall for your childish challenge antics either. My record of accuracy speaks for itself.



~SH~

The question, AGAIN, was: What did Mike lie about? The question WAS NOT: Did Judge Strom think he lied?

ANSWER THE QUESTION OR YOU WILL BE NOTED AS NON RESPONSIVE, just like IBP.

You made the allegation, now back it up or your credibility goes to ZERO.

Read the quote back you put up here while you are at it, especially the last part. You already strut around like a chicken on your posts, and you dodge and bob just like a chicken. Now you are running from your biggest threat: THE TRUTH!!! I am beginning to believe you are a chicken.

Please answer the question or do you admit to being a chicken?

 

[Sandhusker]

One thing I'll agree with you on, your record of accuracy does speak for itself. :roll: That is exactly why you scored so high on credibility. Figure it out.

I was going to set a little trap for you to make you out a fool again, but I don't have the time today so I'll just make it simple.

I've suggested it a dozen times and I've seen ocm bring it up as well - YOU NEED A COURSE ON READING COMPREHENSION! Judge Strom said Callicrate's statement WAS NOT TRUE. He did not say he LIED or PURJERED himself. A person being incorrect does NOT equate to lying.

Recently, you were completely wrong about the WTO/fur deal. What you said WAS NOT TRUE. Using the same standards you are applying to Callicrate, that makes you a LIAR.

NCBA said the Japan deal is costing all of us $175/head. Agman said that WAS NOT TRUE. In the world of SH, that makes NCBA LIARS.

Why do you apply your standards so differently, Mr. Hipocrite?

Add this to your "record of accuracy".

 

[ocm]

September 17, 2002 was a Tuesday.

By Monday the 16th any IBP suppliers who wished to sell on formula would be required to "commit" their cattle. These committed cattle would be delivered the following week. (The week of 23rd thru 27th). They would be priced according to the cash market of the week of the 16th thru the 20th, which would include Randy's cattle.

Therefore by Tuesday the 17th IBP (and their buyer) would know exactly how many formula cattle were committed for for delivery for the next week, and also how many cash cattle would be required to fill out the kill.

When Randy was negotiating with the buyer, the "20,000 head of formula cattle" that would be screwed up would be the ones already committed by the 16th, which would be deliver the week of 23rd thru 27th.

Now ~SH~ please set aside your ADD and focus on this question. Do you see anything wrong with the above explanation? :!:

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "The question, AGAIN, was: What did Mike lie about?

You made the allegation, now back it up or your credibility goes to ZERO."

Whatever!

When you present the evidence that proved that ibp manipulated the markets during the Pickett era, I'll answer your question.

I'm not playing by your rules so you can call me whatever childish name you want which speaks to your level of intellect.

Sandman: "I was going to set a little trap for you to make you out a fool again, but I don't have the time today so I'll just make it simple."

sure!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Sandman: "Judge Strom said Callicrate's statement WAS NOT TRUE. He did not say he LIED or PURJERED himself. A person being incorrect does NOT equate to lying."

Mike Callicrate is a compulsive liar. If you want to defend him, be my guest. Par for your deceptive course.

Sandman: "Recently, you were completely wrong about the WTO/fur deal. What you said WAS NOT TRUE. Using the same standards you are applying to Callicrate, that makes you a LIAR."

You still aren't done feeding on that EU fur ban deal are you? LOL!

Speaks volumes about your desperation.

How could I be a liar (intend to mislead) when I was the one who admitted to being wrong? You didn't prove me wrong, I admitted to being wrong after refreshing my memory on the issue.

Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Mike Callicrate has been caught at many lies. He knew what he was saying was not true just like he knew that he was lying when he said ibp dismissed black jurors because they were black.

Unlike a deceptive, pathetic individual like you, I am willing to admit it when I am wrong because being truthful is more important to me than being right.

You, on the other hand, will defend something as assinine as R-CULT lying about the safety of Canadian beef because you have absolutely no integrity.

I have no problems admitting when I am wrong despite knowing that desperate blamers like you will have a feeding frenzy with it. Doesn't phase me.

I have proven you wrong on so many issues I totally expect your level of desperation.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Randy's words were "....a higher price for our cattle WOULD INFLUENCE prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occured...."

September 17, 2002 was a Tuesday.

By Monday the 16th any IBP suppliers who wished to sell on formula would be required to "commit" their cattle. These committed cattle would be delivered the following week. (The week of 23rd thru 27th). They would be priced according to the cash market of the week of the 16th thru the 20th, which would include Randy's cattle.

Therefore by Tuesday the 17th IBP (and their buyer) would know exactly how many formula cattle were committed for for delivery for the next week, and also how many cash cattle would be required to fill out the kill.

When Randy was negotiating with the buyer, the "20,000 head of formula cattle" that would be screwed up would be the ones already committed by the 16th, which would be deliver the week of 23rd thru 27th.

Now ~SH~ please set aside your ADD and focus on this question. Do you see anything wrong with the above explanation?

Yes I do see something wrong with this explanation.

Most cattle trade occurs on Thursday for delivery the following week.

I am not aware of any grids/formulas that require committment on Monday for delivery the following week.

The problem you have is that ibp obviously had enough cattle bought for delivery that week so had no need to pay Randy's asking price?

SUPPLY AND DEMAND, not market manipulation!

The other problem is that Randy had many other marketing options available to him. As beefman has correctly pointed out, both Excel and Swift have plants in Colorado and both offer cash and formula/grid pricing.

Randy also could have sold his cattle on the formula/grid if they were as good as he claims. Why would Randy sell his cattle in the "socialized cash market" if they were higher quality cattle?

Randy was not locked into ibp therefore there can be no market manipulation. ibp cannot control a market with other players needing those same cattle which all present numerous marketing options.

This market manipulation is nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory.




~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH,

If you can not back up what you say, do not say it. If Judge Strom said the Mike C. lied, what did he lie about? If you are not talking about Mike C. what did the other Mike lie about? Did he tell his kids or his neighbor's kids that there was a Santa Clause?

You would be really good for dodgeball except that for all the inaccuracies you have, you are a BIG target.

I am waiting for either the TRUTH on this allegation you made or am waiting for a retraction from you. What is it?

You even go further to say that Mike C. is a professional liar. How much money has he made at it and can you prove it? You calling anyone a liar is like the pot calling the kettle black.

What did Mike C. or the other Mike lie about??? Please let us know or are you just full of it?

Here chickee, Here chickee.

 

[rancher]

How could I be a liar (intend to mislead) when I was the one who admitted to being wrong? You didn't prove me wrong, I admitted to being wrong after refreshing my memory on the issue.

hmmm, is that a spin job or a easy way out?

 

[Sandhusker]

Nice spin and divert there, SH. (Actually it wasn't real nice, as it was poorly executed and totally expected)

Mike Callicrate being a liar is your OPINION. You have offered no proof and only made cowardly accusations. In the Sandhills, calling a man a liar with nothing to back it is chickenshit. No way to sugar coat it.

You say Callicrate purjured himself - where is a statement from the court? Where did you get your information.?

SH, "Unlike a deceptive, pathetic individual like you..."

Who is being deceptive and pathetic? You're totally out of control.

 

[Econ101]

Nice spin and divert there, SH. (Actually it wasn't real nice, as it was poorly executed and totally expected)

Mike Callicrate being a liar is your OPINION. You have offered no proof and only made cowardly accusations. In the Sandhills, calling a man a liar with nothing to back it is chickenshit. No way to sugar coat it.

You say Callicrate purjured himself - where is a statement from the court? Where did you get your information.?

SH, "Unlike a deceptive, pathetic individual like you..."

Who is being deceptive and pathetic? You're totally out of control.

He sounds like a packer losing to a jury.

 

[ocm]

Randy's words were "....a higher price for our cattle WOULD INFLUENCE prices for cattle bought on a formula contract basis, off the cash market, BEFORE the transaction involving our cattle occured...."

September 17, 2002 was a Tuesday.

By Monday the 16th any IBP suppliers who wished to sell on formula would be required to "commit" their cattle. These committed cattle would be delivered the following week. (The week of 23rd thru 27th). They would be priced according to the cash market of the week of the 16th thru the 20th, which would include Randy's cattle.

Therefore by Tuesday the 17th IBP (and their buyer) would know exactly how many formula cattle were committed for for delivery for the next week, and also how many cash cattle would be required to fill out the kill.

When Randy was negotiating with the buyer, the "20,000 head of formula cattle" that would be screwed up would be the ones already committed by the 16th, which would be deliver the week of 23rd thru 27th.

Now ~SH~ please set aside your ADD and focus on this question. Do you see anything wrong with the above explanation?

Yes I do see something wrong with this explanation.

Most cattle trade occurs on Thursday for delivery the following week.

I am not aware of any grids/formulas that require committment on Monday for delivery the following week.

The problem you have is that ibp obviously had enough cattle bought for delivery that week so had no need to pay Randy's asking price?

SUPPLY AND DEMAND, not market manipulation!

The other problem is that Randy had many other marketing options available to him. As beefman has correctly pointed out, both Excel and Swift have plants in Colorado and both offer cash and formula/grid pricing.

Randy also could have sold his cattle on the formula/grid if they were as good as he claims. Why would Randy sell his cattle in the "socialized cash market" if they were higher quality cattle?

Randy was not locked into ibp therefore there can be no market manipulation. ibp cannot control a market with other players needing those same cattle which all present numerous marketing options.

This market manipulation is nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory.

~SH~

Let me show you your major shortcoming in your statements.

I am not aware of any grids/formulas that require committment on Monday for delivery the following week.

This goes to the heart of your failure to understand what is being discussed. The fact is that nearly all packers require a commitment of formula contracts on the Monday before the week of slaughter. If you are unaware of this then you have insufficient information to carry on this discussion. Your position is is based on the UNTRUE assumption that fomula cattle can be committed on Thursday the week before slaughter.

Since you continue to refuse to see the difference between grid and formula this failure to understand is inevitable. Cash grid cattle may be sold on Thursday or even Friday the week before slaughter--not so with formula cattle.

I am ready to post PROOF that formula and grid are two entirely separate things.

I am not aware of any grids/formulas that require committment on Monday for delivery the following week.

Your lack of awareness tells me several things.

1. You don't really understand the market.
2. You haven't sold any cattle on a formula yourself (someone else may have done it for you.)
3. One of the difficulties in debating is establishing common vocabulary. You are using a non-standard meaning of "formula cattle."
4. You don't have any reliable sources that have explained formula transactions nor have you done your own research (like on the web).
5. If you can't come up with an authoritative definition of "formula cattle" that agrees with what you say, or an authoritative source for the "Thursday commitment" then you lose.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "In the Sandhills, calling a man a liar with nothing to back it is chickenshit."

I guess that makes you a chickenshit since you have called me a liar before with nothing to back it.

That shoe certainly doesn't fit me since I have backed it and will back it once again.........

Mike Callicrate said ibp had contractual arrangements with other packers. That was proven to be a lie in front of hundreds of cattlemen in Pierre, SD. I have that lie on tape. Bob Peterson offered $1000 to anyone who could provide evidence to back Mike's allegation. No takers. Callicrate immediately started back peddling once caught.

Mike Callicrate said that packers and retailers were making $400 per head profits off the backs of U.S. producers. That was a lie. He now knows what the margins are in the retail beef business but he has been down the packer blaming road for so long he can't be honest with himself at this point.

Mike Callicrate was caught in a lie stating that ibp stepped out of the cash market for an extended period of time. This was proven to be a lie with ibp's actual cattle procurement records. Mike was caught red handed in that lie.

Mike Callicrate said that he would answer my questions on this forum if I revealed my identity. I did, he didn't. Another lie.

Mike Callicrate stated that ibp dismissed jurors because they were black, that was a lie.

Mike Callicrate lied under oath in Pickett.

The guy can not tell the truth but packer blamers like you hold him in high esteem because he tells you what you want to believe.

Go ahead and defend him boys, I would expect nothing less from those who lack integrity. It's not like the truth matters to those who desperately need someone or something to blame.

OCM: "The fact is that nearly all packers require a commitment of formula contracts on the Monday before the week of slaughter. If you are unaware of this then you have insufficient information to carry on this discussion. Your position is is based on the UNTRUE assumption that fomula cattle can be committed on Thursday the week before slaughter."

I have sold my own fat cattle on the Angus America grid (Excel), on the Angus Gene Net Grid (Monfort), on Excel's regular grid, and on PM BEEF group's grid.

Not once did I ever have to committ those cattle by Monday when I sold cattle on the grid about 3 - 8 years ago.

Angus Gene Net also has the option of bidding the base price rather than taking the weekly weighted average which blows the "weekly weighted average" market manipulation conspiracy theory out of the water.

Randy's point is moot when he has other marketing options available to him. He has Swift cash, Swift grid, Excel cash, Excel grid, USPB grid, and ibp grid as alternatives to ibp cash.

If he doesn't like one bid, GET ANOTHER!

If ibp is unwilling to make an acceptable offer to Randy for his cattle due to already having most of their needs filled with formula/grid cattle, GET ANOTHER BID!

How damn difficult is that to figure out?

Naturally the packer with more of it's needs fulfilled will be less agressive in the cash market which is why I have seen each packer take the lead in bidding at different times.

Regarding formula/grid being one in the same ..............

Tim Schiefelbein is the head of cattle procurement for Swift (formerly Monfort). Tim initiated one of the very first pricing grids out there, the Gelbveih Alliance grid. He has referred to this grid as both a formula and a grid. He told me personally that formula and grid is one in the same. Now who should know better than the individual that initiated one of the very first pricing grids.

I suppose you think you know more about this than Tim does? It wouldn't surprise me if you did think that.

If you want to call the means of establishing the base price "the formula" and the means to establish grade and yield premium discounts "the grid", I don't have a problem with that but that's not the way Tim Schiefelbein sees it and nobody works with grid pricing more than he does.

It's not surprising that you would use your own definitions since you have also considered formula and grid cattle as "captive supply" cattle when they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter as per the "captive supply" definition used by GIPSA and the Johnson Amendment.

OCM: "I am ready to post PROOF that formula and grid are two entirely separate things."

Go ahead but one of the originators of formula pricing, Tim Schiefelbein, told me personally that formula and grid pricing were one in the same. That's getting it from the source.

I can understand why you would want to designate the formula for arriving at a base price as "the formula" but I have always heard "formula" described as the formula to establish grade and yield premiums and discounts.


OCM,

You'll have to do a lot better than you have to discredit what I have stated. It may be that some grids now require monday comittment but that was not the case when I sold cattle on the grids during the Pickett era.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

Regarding formula/grid being one in the same ..............

Tim Schiefelbein is the head of cattle procurement for Swift (formerly Monfort). Tim initiated one of the very first pricing grids out there, the Gelbveih Alliance grid. He has referred to this grid as both a formula and a grid. He told me personally that formula and grid is one in the same. Now who should know better than the individual that initiated one of the very first pricing grids.

I suppose you think you know more about this than Tim does? It wouldn't surprise me if you did think that.

If you want to call the means of establishing the base price "the formula" and the means to establish grade and yield premium discounts "the grid", I don't have a problem with that but that's not the way Tim Schiefelbein sees it and nobody works with grid pricing more than he does.

It's not surprising that you would use your own definitions since you have also considered formula and grid cattle as "captive supply" cattle when they are not owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter as per the "captive supply" definition used by GIPSA and the Johnson Amendment.

The article below was written by some very "packer friendly" economists. You are disagreeing with them. I say:
1. Tim lied to you. (What he said to you was UNTRUE)
2. You misunderstood him.
3. You are lying.

The Tyson buyer who talked to Randy was using industry standard terminology. You are not! You obviously think a lot more of Tim than I do.

The following excerpt is located at: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-632/F-560pod.pdf

Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources • Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets are also available on our website at:
http://www.osuextra.com

Clement E. Ward
Oklahoma State University
Ted C. Schroeder
Kansas State University
Dillon M. Feuz
University of Nebraska

A companion extension facts (WF-557, Fed Cattle Pricing:Grid Pricing Basics) included an example of grid pricing and some of the implications from using price grids. The objective of this extension facts is to specifically distinguish formula pricing from grid pricing, discuss price discovery implications from using alternative base prices with premiumdiscount grids, and show how premiums and discounts have varied over time.

Formula Pricing versus Grid Pricing

Formula pricing refers to establishing a transaction price using a formula that includes some other price as a reference. Formula prices are not discovered for each transaction. Rather, some other price is used; a price discovered external to the particular formula priced transaction.

Grid pricing consists of a base price with specified premiums and discounts for carcasses above and below a base or standard set of quality specifications. Grid pricing may use a formula for establishing the base price. Interviews with feeders and packers revealed several base prices being used (Schroeder et al.):
• Average price (cost) of cattle purchased by the plant where the fed cattle were scheduled to be slaughtered for the week prior to or the week of slaughter
• Specific market reports, such as the highest reported price for a specific geographic market for the week prior to or week of slaughter
• Boxed beef cutout value
• Futures market price
• Negotiated price.

Of these methods, all involve formula pricing except where base prices are established by negotiation. Thus, grid pricing is not necessarily similar to formula pricing. Formulas have one thing in common; all are based on some external price. Therefore, all require a minimal amount of market information to establish prices across transactions under the same formula. However, important differences exist among the formulas. These differences include the source of the external price (for example, plant averages vs. USDA quoted prices) and the market level of the external price (for example, live or carcass weight cash market, futures market, or whole-sale beef market). These differences lead to important implications regarding the formula pricing method and impacts on other markets.

The final transaction price with most grid pricing methods is established after fed cattle have been slaughtered. Most grids are based on dressed or carcass weights. The intent is to assign higher prices to higher quality cattle and lower prices to lower quality cattle. Both feeders and packers indicated that premiums and discounts present in grids also varied (Schroeder et al.). Some were based on:
• Plant averages
• Wholesale price/value spreads
• Negotiated values.

Grid premiums and discounts based on plant averages are related to the quality of cattle being delivered to a specific plant. In contrast, those based on wholesale price spreads reflect wholesale supply and demand conditions for boxed beef.

To summarize, formula pricing is not necessarily grid pricing, and grid pricing does not necessarily involve formula pricing. Formula pricing usually refers to the method of finding the base price in grid pricing systems. Formula pricing relies on prices discovered for transactions external to the ones involving the formula. The base price in grid pricing may be established by a formula but may also be negotiated between feeders and packers.