Dr. Taylor on captive supply

[Econ101]

The COMMUNIST captive supply reform act you support will do just that, LIMIT MY FAT CATTLE MARKETING OPTIONS.

Who do you think you are fooling this time?


~SH~

How many fat cattle do you sell, SH? How many have you sold in the past 3 years? 5 years? Is it going to make a difference of price determination in the cattle markets?

For packers with market power it might. Taylor calculated 5 % for selected periods of time. It came out to be over 2 billion dollars.

How many fat cattle do you sell, SH?

 

[Anonymous]

How many fat cattle I sell or have sold is none of your damn business.

What's your name Conman?

Who do you work for?

How much money do you make in a year?

KMA!


Which way is it Conman, do producers like me have the right to choose how we market cattle or are you going to tell us how it's going to be done through the Communist Captive Supply Reform Act.

You can't have it both ways you damn phony!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The COMMUNIST captive supply reform act you support will do just that, LIMIT MY FAT CATTLE MARKETING OPTIONS.

Who do you think you are fooling this time?


~SH~

Strange, the insiders and large position holders trading at the NYSE who's selling options are limited and highly regulated don't view those rules as communist.

Then again, they didn't get their positions by not being educated and knowledgable about the real world of business......

 

[Econ101]

The COMMUNIST captive supply reform act you support will do just that, LIMIT MY FAT CATTLE MARKETING OPTIONS.

Who do you think you are fooling this time?


~SH~

Strange, the insiders and large position holders trading at the NYSE who's selling options are limited and highly regulated don't view those rules as communist.

Then again, they didn't get their positions by not being educated and knowledgable about the real world of business......

They are probably not calling coyotes and gophers either.

 

[ocm]

How many fat cattle I sell or have sold is none of your damn business.

What's your name Conman?

Who do you work for?

How much money do you make in a year?

KMA!


Which way is it Conman, do producers like me have the right to choose how we market cattle or are you going to tell us how it's going to be done through the Communist Captive Supply Reform Act.

You can't have it both ways you damn phony!


~SH~

Market and sell them any way you want. We'll just prevent the market power guys from buying them in ways that bring the integrity of the market into question. You can always sell to a little guy.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Strange, the insiders and large position holders trading at the NYSE who's selling options are limited and highly regulated don't view those rules as communist."

This is another of your typical "apples to oranges" comparisons. NYSE rules may be justified. There is no justification for the communist captive supply reform act.

Conman: "They are probably not calling coyotes and gophers either."

If they were all corrupt conmen like you, I'm sure the regulations at the NYSE would be justified.

OCM: "Market and sell them any way you want."

I can't market them the way I want because arrogant packer blamers like you want to determine how I can sell them.

Quit lying by suggesting that I can market them any way I want when you support a communist law to prevent just that.

OCM: "We'll just prevent the market power guys from buying them in ways that bring the integrity of the market into question. You can always sell to a little guy."

You won't prevent anything.

Your communist captive supply reform act will be shot down in flames. WRITE IT DOWN!

The free enterprise system will not be compromised by a bunch of thumbsucking packer blamers who can't win a court case.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "This is another of your typical "apples to oranges" comparisons. NYSE rules may be justified. There is no justification for the communist captive supply reform act."

It is not apples to oranges and the NYSE rules ARE justified. Both are markets joining buyers and sellers of a particular commodity. Both have participants who hold market power over others because of size or information others don't have access to. One is serious about maintaining an efficient and fair marketplace.

 

[Andy]

The COMMUNIST captive supply reform act you support will do just that, LIMIT MY FAT CATTLE MARKETING OPTIONS.

Who do you think you are fooling this time?


~SH~

Strange, the insiders and large position holders trading at the NYSE who's selling options are limited and highly regulated don't view those rules as communist.

Then again, they didn't get their positions by not being educated and knowledgable about the real world of business......

Sandhusker is that how you come up with your position?
Have you ever sat down with a packer and talked to them about how and why they do things? How about a retailer? A chef? If you have you either didn't listen or they fed you a line of BS.

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

 

[Econ101]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

Every fraud that one can think of has also been tried on the NYSE. That is the reason for many of their rules and regs. It makes the markets work more efficiently.

I think I am going to wear my bull and bear tie tomorrow.

 

[agman]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

 

[Econ101]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

The biggest of the things you mention, Agman, is the difference in value between different animals and their resultant value. That is a judgement decision and as much a part of the case as anything. Was it not covered well in the trial? Market manipulation is due to strategic buying, ie not buying based on quality characteristics but for a greater prize.

There are many analogies to the stock market and some of the frauds that have been perpetrated there. I have given one example already that is pertinent.

The treasury market is pretty thin also, but it is efficient. If there were some of the problems in it as there are in the cattle markets, it would not be traded as it is.

 

[Sandhusker]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

 

[Econ101]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

Packers are "special", Sandhusker. Laws are not meant for them to follow even if they work for other industries. Heck, they feed the world, you can't do without them. :roll:

 

[agman]

I'm just saying that there is a very highly respected and efficient market out there called the New York Stock Exchange that realizes size and position creates advantages that need to be addressed in order to have a fair and functioning marketplace.

The NYSE is a model for many other markets - I'm not aware of anybody looking to the US cattle markets for ideas on equity.

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

I don't think I have missed the point. You are trying to compare two very different market structures. Are you saying (" Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000") it is legal for some packer who buys 1000 head of cattle at a specified price while the same act by Tyson is illegal because they may by 10,000 head at that same price for the same cattle type and value? Why should that be so?

The justice department does not consider 33% of the market share as having control. In fact per the 11th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court 50% market share does not necessarily provide market power. Are we supposed to accept your definition of market power just as we were to accept your definition of "low risk" in the R-Calf vs USDA case heard by Cebull? Do you recall how quickly the judges in the 9th Circuit put the plaintiff's attorney in a box on that specific issue? The plaintiff's attorney looked really foolish Sandhusker.

 

[ocm]

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

I don't think I have missed the point. You are trying to compare two very different market structures. Are you saying (" Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000") it is legal for some packer who buys 1000 head of cattle at a specified price while the same act by Tyson is illegal because they may by 10,000 head at that same price for the same cattle type and value? Why should that be so?

The justice department does not consider 33% of the market share as having control. In fact per the 11th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court 50% market share does not necessarily provide market power. Are we supposed to accept your definition of market power just as we were to accept your definition of "low risk" in the R-Calf vs USDA case heard by Cebull? Do you recall how quickly the judges in the 9th Circuit put the plaintiff's attorney in a box on that specific issue? The plaintiff's attorney looked really foolish Sandhusker.

The major differences are in details, not in the approach to the market. The NYSE is totally transparent, while the cattle market is not. The NYSE is highly regulated as to what can happen depending on the size of the transaction, while the cattle market is not. There is no such thing as "proprietary" market transaction on the NYSE. Not so in the cattle market. Market power has to do with a lot more than market share.

I think you know better than ~SH~ to call some of these things "communist". He has posted before (quite some time ago) that he doesn't really know much about the stock market. The active part the feds play in making the NYSE open and honest is totally missing in the cattle market. Ask Joann Waterfield!!

 

[agman]

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

I don't think I have missed the point. You are trying to compare two very different market structures. Are you saying (" Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000") it is legal for some packer who buys 1000 head of cattle at a specified price while the same act by Tyson is illegal because they may by 10,000 head at that same price for the same cattle type and value? Why should that be so?

The justice department does not consider 33% of the market share as having control. In fact per the 11th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court 50% market share does not necessarily provide market power. Are we supposed to accept your definition of market power just as we were to accept your definition of "low risk" in the R-Calf vs USDA case heard by Cebull? Do you recall how quickly the judges in the 9th Circuit put the plaintiff's attorney in a box on that specific issue? The plaintiff's attorney looked really foolish Sandhusker.

The major differences are in details, not in the approach to the market. The NYSE is totally transparent, while the cattle market is not. The NYSE is highly regulated as to what can happen depending on the size of the transaction, while the cattle market is not. There is no such thing as "proprietary" market transaction on the NYSE. Not so in the cattle market. Market power has to do with a lot more than market share.

I think you know better than ~SH~ to call some of these things "communist". He has posted before (quite some time ago) that he doesn't really know much about the stock market. The active part the feds play in making the NYSE open and honest is totally missing in the cattle market. Ask Joann Waterfield!!

Would asking Joan be like asking you? Manipulation claims like conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen and a product of ignorance of the market. Market power is alot more involved than just market share thus the stream of convictions for stock manipulation and lack of convictions for cattle price manipulation. You just did not like the outcome since it did not support your unending bias against packers. How transparent are those stock transactions?

Do you know the inital and basic claim brought forth that resluted in the Pickett case? Do you care to post for readers the facts presented at trial? It wasn't pretty for the plaintiff's claim. Make the post from the testimony; a paraphrase will do just fine.

 

[Sandhusker]

There are more things dissimilar than similar in the example you cite. You are dealing with a static stock, not differential values such as in cattle. You also have a very narrow market, market makers who serve as buyer and seller, for individual stocks making them much more prone to market manipulation as confirmed by the numerous successful prosecution of such cases.

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

I don't think I have missed the point. You are trying to compare two very different market structures. Are you saying (" Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000") it is legal for some packer who buys 1000 head of cattle at a specified price while the same act by Tyson is illegal because they may by 10,000 head at that same price for the same cattle type and value? Why should that be so?

The justice department does not consider 33% of the market share as having control. In fact per the 11th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court 50% market share does not necessarily provide market power. Are we supposed to accept your definition of market power just as we were to accept your definition of "low risk" in the R-Calf vs USDA case heard by Cebull? Do you recall how quickly the judges in the 9th Circuit put the plaintiff's attorney in a box on that specific issue? The plaintiff's attorney looked really foolish Sandhusker.

Lets compare Tyson's dealing in the fats market and Warren Buffet with Coke stock. Buffett owns something like 6% of Coke. Because of his large position in the company, he can't just buy and sell that stock per his whims. He has to register his intent prior so that everybody interested will know. Why? Because the board of the NYSE knows that his position will effect the stock's movement, even if he doesn't intend to do so. They know transparancy is needed so nobody gets ran over. Buffett knows these regulations are necessary to maintain order in the markets that he desires order in.

Now look at Tyson. They have over 30% of the market. They're the fat kid on the teeter-totter. They, too, can not help but move the market no matter what they do whatever their intentions. Yet, there is no transparancy and no restrictions of any kind. If they don't buy on Thursday or Friday, the cash fat markets are effected negetively. The NYSE seeks to minimize the effects on the market of a single entity while there is nothing of the same on the cattle market. 30% isn't large enough for the cattle market, but one of the largest, most trusted, most efficient markets in the world says 6% is.

We have morons saying it is no business of anybody else what their cattle sell for and there should be no restrictions of any kind on the cattle marketplace. Yet, those who are subject to the restrictions on the NYSE support them. I can't believe the willfull and vocal ignorance being displayed....

Heck, lets look at the Merc. Why can't you only buy so many contracts in the front month? Perhaps they are recognizing the power large players would have and they are placing (gasp) restrictions on them? How dare they employ communist tactics and block free enterprise!

 

[ocm]

You're missing and confusing the point, Agman. What is being traded is not important for what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that there are different rules for different players and the rules and restrictions are greater for the bigger participants. Do you deny that, thru these regs., thy NYSE has recognized potential abuses of power and/or position and has taken steps to head them off? Do I need to explain restricted stock to you?

The rules for somebody buying or selling a million shares are much different than for somebody trading 100 shares. Market power is being recognized. Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000. That wouldn't come close to flying at the NYSE.

I don't think I have missed the point. You are trying to compare two very different market structures. Are you saying (" Look at the Cattle markets - Tyson buys 1/3 of all the fats and their rules are the same as somebody buying 1000") it is legal for some packer who buys 1000 head of cattle at a specified price while the same act by Tyson is illegal because they may by 10,000 head at that same price for the same cattle type and value? Why should that be so?

The justice department does not consider 33% of the market share as having control. In fact per the 11th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court 50% market share does not necessarily provide market power. Are we supposed to accept your definition of market power just as we were to accept your definition of "low risk" in the R-Calf vs USDA case heard by Cebull? Do you recall how quickly the judges in the 9th Circuit put the plaintiff's attorney in a box on that specific issue? The plaintiff's attorney looked really foolish Sandhusker.

Lets compare Tyson's dealing in the fats market and Warren Buffet with Coke stock. Buffett owns something like 6% of Coke. Because of his large position in the company, he can't just buy and sell that stock per his whims. He has to register his intent prior so that everybody interested will know. Why? Because the board of the NYSE knows that his position will effect the stock's movement, even if he doesn't intend to do so. They know transparancy is needed so nobody gets ran over. Buffett knows these regulations are necessary to maintain order in the markets that he desires order in.

Now look at Tyson. They have over 30% of the market. They're the fat kid on the teeter-totter. They, too, can not help but move the market no matter what they do whatever their intentions. Yet, there is no transparancy and no restrictions of any kind. If they don't buy on Thursday or Friday, the cash fat markets are effected negetively. The NYSE seeks to minimize the effects on the market of a single entity while there is nothing of the same on the cattle market. 30% isn't large enough for the cattle market, but one of the largest, most trusted, most efficient markets in the world says 6% is.

We have morons saying it is no business of anybody else what their cattle sell for and there should be no restrictions of any kind on the cattle marketplace. Yet, those who are subject to the restrictions on the NYSE support them. I can't believe the willfull and vocal ignorance being displayed....

Heck, lets look at the Merc. Why can't you only buy so many contracts in the front month? Perhaps they are recognizing the power large players would have and they are placing (gasp) restrictions on them? How dare they employ communist tactics and block free enterprise!

Well said!

 

[Jason]

So because Buffet has to declare his intentions about buying ands selling stocks, Tyson has to declare their intentions.

Sheesh I always though even R-calfers could understand the intent of owning a packing company is to buy animals, process them and sell the product.

Let's have a law that says Tyson intends to buy cattle and sell beef and by-products. They also intend to buy chickens and sell chicken and by-products. Pigs will be bought and turned into pork and by-products.

Guess Sandhusker just solved all the industry woes with that one.