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

Hackney commentary

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Fed Cattle Commentary
01/06 12:55
Hackney Cattle Company / 402.680.4739
Hackney's comments from Friday, January 6, 2006.

*************************************************************************** The views expressed here are those of Walt Hackney and are not necessarily those of DTN, its management or employees. ***************************************************************************

FED CATTLE

Packers continue to act like a fat rich kid in a candy store, with a pocket full of money. They have all the cattle they need, like Thursday's 127,000 head kill, and with the high percentage of give-a-ways or formulas, as they are called on their books, they have very little incentive to step up to the cash plate and take a swing at the true value of cattle.

Some sales in the north were reported at $93-$94 and $149 on Thursday and $94-$94.50 in the south, but from the numbers reported Thursday, we will have the majority of this week's sales locked down by Friday evening.

It has become more evident each passing day, that the grade and yield programs are increasingly holding sway over cash sales, especially in the north, and this of course allows for packer independence to run amuck.

To make the grade and yield and formula programs really click for packer economics, the sales crew only needs to sell enough cheap beef to get it quoted, like Thursday's $2.07 lower quote on choice, and this sets the stage for next weeks averages and pricing formula programs.

FYI: Walt Hackney's practical insight into the livestock markets, also dictates that he spend much time in the production areas, buying/selling cattle, and periodically he cannot do his daily commentaries in a timely manner.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
Fed Cattle Commentary
01/06 12:55
Hackney Cattle Company / 402.680.4739
Hackney's comments from Friday, January 6, 2006.

*************************************************************************** The views expressed here are those of Walt Hackney and are not necessarily those of DTN, its management or employees. ***************************************************************************

FED CATTLE

Packers continue to act like a fat rich kid in a candy store, with a pocket full of money. They have all the cattle they need, like Thursday's 127,000 head kill, and with the high percentage of give-a-ways or formulas, as they are called on their books, they have very little incentive to step up to the cash plate and take a swing at the true value of cattle.

Some sales in the north were reported at $93-$94 and $149 on Thursday and $94-$94.50 in the south, but from the numbers reported Thursday, we will have the majority of this week's sales locked down by Friday evening.

It has become more evident each passing day, that the grade and yield programs are increasingly holding sway over cash sales, especially in the north, and this of course allows for packer independence to run amuck.

To make the grade and yield and formula programs really click for packer economics, the sales crew only needs to sell enough cheap beef to get it quoted, like Thursday's $2.07 lower quote on choice, and this sets the stage for next weeks averages and pricing formula programs.

FYI: Walt Hackney's practical insight into the livestock markets, also dictates that he spend much time in the production areas, buying/selling cattle, and periodically he cannot do his daily commentaries in a timely manner.

Sorry, but Hackney does not have a clue of what goes on in the beef market. His so called claim and impact of formula pricing of beef is simply wrong. Most of that product is priced on Tuesday in a normal five day week. Most of the time that price is higher, not lower. This week, due to the holiday the formula pricing took place on Wednesday. Check for yourself and you will see that prices were higher, not lower on Wednesday.

The lower price action he alludes to on Thursday was the result of other items which had been offered at lower price levels for several days encountering buyer resistance resulting in lack of sales of those items. All product items do not trade equally everyday. Case in point, if middle meats are in demand they may trade higher while end meats are offered lower but there is no interest so they do not trade or trade in very limited quantities insufficient to offset the higher priced middle meats which are in demand and are traded. Thus, the cutout would be quoted higher although the weighted average price of all product offered is actually lower.

Hackney's comment is a clear example of drawing the wrong conclusion from knowing only partial information and on that basis he was wrong. As I stated the formula pricing on the beef cutout took place on Wednesday of this week, not Thursday as he suggests. I wonder what he has to say about the sharp advance in beef cutout values prior to this normal seasonal price correction. Did that price advance hold sway over the cash market too?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Fed Cattle Commentary
01/06 12:55
Hackney Cattle Company / 402.680.4739
Hackney's comments from Friday, January 6, 2006.

*************************************************************************** The views expressed here are those of Walt Hackney and are not necessarily those of DTN, its management or employees. ***************************************************************************

FED CATTLE

Packers continue to act like a fat rich kid in a candy store, with a pocket full of money. They have all the cattle they need, like Thursday's 127,000 head kill, and with the high percentage of give-a-ways or formulas, as they are called on their books, they have very little incentive to step up to the cash plate and take a swing at the true value of cattle.

Some sales in the north were reported at $93-$94 and $149 on Thursday and $94-$94.50 in the south, but from the numbers reported Thursday, we will have the majority of this week's sales locked down by Friday evening.

It has become more evident each passing day, that the grade and yield programs are increasingly holding sway over cash sales, especially in the north, and this of course allows for packer independence to run amuck.

To make the grade and yield and formula programs really click for packer economics, the sales crew only needs to sell enough cheap beef to get it quoted, like Thursday's $2.07 lower quote on choice, and this sets the stage for next weeks averages and pricing formula programs.

FYI: Walt Hackney's practical insight into the livestock markets, also dictates that he spend much time in the production areas, buying/selling cattle, and periodically he cannot do his daily commentaries in a timely manner.

Sorry, but Hackney does not have a clue of what goes on in the beef market. His so called claim and impact of formula pricing of beef is simply wrong. Most of that product is priced on Tuesday in a normal five day week. Most of the time that price is higher, not lower. This week, due to the holiday the formula pricing took place on Wednesday. Check for yourself and you will see that prices were higher, not lower on Wednesday.

The lower price action he alludes to on Thursday was the result of other items which had been offered at lower price levels for several days encountering buyer resistance resulting in lack of sales of those items. All product items do not trade equally everyday. Case in point, if middle meats are in demand they may trade higher while end meats are offered lower but there is no interest so they do not trade or trade in very limited quantities insufficient to offset the higher priced middle meats which are in demand and are traded. Thus, the cutout would be quoted higher although the weighted average price of all product offered is actually lower.

Hackney's comment is a clear example of drawing the wrong conclusion from knowing only partial information and on that basis he was wrong. As I stated the formula pricing on the beef cutout took place on Wednesday of this week, not Thursday as he suggests. I wonder what he has to say about the sharp advance in beef cutout values prior to this normal seasonal price correction. Did that price advance hold sway over the cash market too?

Even taking your comments into consideration, Agman, it does point to the fact that the cash price is becoming more and more irrelevant as to what the market as a whole is doing. Taylor's numbers were just calculations of the value of those differences.

About Taylor, you are right. He should not be the detrminant of fact. The jury should be the determinant of fact. Not Hauseman, not the judge, and not you. The jury. You still have not provided any evidence to show where the jury's verdict should be overturned and neither did the 11th circuit. I will grant you that Taylor's numbers were the calculations of the damage to the market, not necessarily the plaintiffs in the long run. In the short run, yes, but not the long run.

If you have any relevant evidence to change this view, bring it forth.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
conman said:
About Taylor, you are right. He should not be the detrminant of fact. The jury should be the determinant of fact. Not Hauseman, not the judge, and not you. The jury. You still have not provided any evidence to show where the jury's verdict should be overturned and neither did the 11th circuit. I will grant you that Taylor's numbers were the calculations of the damage to the market, not necessarily the plaintiffs in the long run. In the short run, yes, but not the long run.

If you have any relevant evidence to change this view, bring it forth.

You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
conman said:
About Taylor, you are right. He should not be the detrminant of fact. The jury should be the determinant of fact. Not Hauseman, not the judge, and not you. The jury. You still have not provided any evidence to show where the jury's verdict should be overturned and neither did the 11th circuit. I will grant you that Taylor's numbers were the calculations of the damage to the market, not necessarily the plaintiffs in the long run. In the short run, yes, but not the long run.

If you have any relevant evidence to change this view, bring it forth.

You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.

Jason- Most jurors have no experience or insight into Murder either- but they figure it out- and then make life and death decisions about the guilty...
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Murder is usually a crime of passion or a by-product of another crime. Human emotions are the factors involved and jurors have those.

Apples to oranges.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jason said:
Murder is usually a crime of passion or a by-product of another crime. Human emotions are the factors involved and jurors have those.

Apples to oranges.

Human emotions and everyday experience is what jurors are supposed to use to decide the credibility of witness's and evidence in all trials---Thats why the jury system was set up like it was- for both criminal and civil cases....I don't know where you will find any true Mr. Spocks or Vulcans :wink: ...

The Pickett case is a step backwards for the Justice System..
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
conman said:
About Taylor, you are right. He should not be the detrminant of fact. The jury should be the determinant of fact. Not Hauseman, not the judge, and not you. The jury. You still have not provided any evidence to show where the jury's verdict should be overturned and neither did the 11th circuit. I will grant you that Taylor's numbers were the calculations of the damage to the market, not necessarily the plaintiffs in the long run. In the short run, yes, but not the long run.

If you have any relevant evidence to change this view, bring it forth.

You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.

Gay Jason on the downlow,

Who should we trust "truth" to? Those who want it to be viewed the way they want it viewed? Down here in the United States, judgements of fact are for juries. It has been the best system in the world, although not perfect. Now judges think they know better than juries and that they know better than legislators. The 11th circuit proved they don't know anything about economics with their Robinson Patman example. They proved that they can not tell the difference between "or" and "and".
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
When a jury gets it so wrong as in Pickett it would be unjust to allow it to stand.

The jury obviously had a anti-corporate mentality. They couldn't get an award that even resembled the facts.

IF Tyson/IBP manipulated the cash market and their profits could only be boosted to $26 per head, they didn't do a very good job.

IF Tyson/IBP was losing money before this period, as per Sandhuskers phony example, how would they have the market power?

We are suppose to believe a company that can't even make a profit is going to be able to exert market power?

The truth of issues needs to be left to people who understand the big picture. Not phony conmen or shisters that have vested interests seeing a biased decision.

When more than 1 ag economist with a good record says the trial was flawed, I believe them more than 1 so called economist with no record saying it was good.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
When a jury gets it so wrong as in Pickett it would be unjust to allow it to stand.

The jury obviously had a anti-corporate mentality. They couldn't get an award that even resembled the facts.

IF Tyson/IBP manipulated the cash market and their profits could only be boosted to $26 per head, they didn't do a very good job.

IF Tyson/IBP was losing money before this period, as per Sandhuskers phony example, how would they have the market power?

We are suppose to believe a company that can't even make a profit is going to be able to exert market power?

The truth of issues needs to be left to people who understand the big picture. Not phony conmen or shisters that have vested interests seeing a biased decision.

When more than 1 ag economist with a good record says the trial was flawed, I believe them more than 1 so called economist with no record saying it was good.

Jason, the jury did not get the decision wrong. That is just your opinion. You have demonstrated that you know little about economics or the economic law, the Packers and Stockyards Act or 1921, that was in question. Although I do not expect you to know these things without having any training or education in this regard, it strikes me as odd that you would automatically side with the packers and not the cattlemen. As I said before, Cargill school is one sided.

Jason:
IF Tyson/IBP manipulated the cash market and their profits could only be boosted to $26 per head, they didn't do a very good job.

Part of their payoff was in the resulting lower supply by moving down the supply curve and contracting supply in the substitutes at the same time. $26.00 per head is a 670% increase over the $3.88 average per head posted on this board as a long term average. They had a 38% increase in price as I have previously shown in poultry. These numbers are not comparative to each other in this form. I would be glad to explain that if you were interested. One is a per head profit and the other is an increase in price.

As I have posted before, the actions of market power always create a deadweight loss to society. By definition, their highest possible gain would be less than the damage inflicted. Their sharing the gain in their "robin hood" act of arguing consumer surplus arguments does not mean that they did not steal from the market in the first place. It just means that they covered their tracks well enough to get away with it from judges who don't know a thing about economics or the economic tennants incorporated into the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

Jason:
IF Tyson/IBP was losing money before this period, as per Sandhuskers phony example, how would they have the market power?

Whether they are successful at making money using market power or not is irrelevant as to whether or not they have or use market power. Your local utility company has market power. They are probably a co-op or a public utility or severely regulated so they do not have the profit motive to use that market power. That does not mean that it does not exist. The use of their market power is restricted by these main methods. Packers are restricted by the Packers and Stockyards Act and the enumerated prohibitions of Section 202.

Jason:
We are suppose to believe a company that can't even make a profit is going to be able to exert market power?

The truth of issues needs to be left to people who understand the big picture. Not phony conmen or shisters that have vested interests seeing a biased decision.

When more than 1 ag economist with a good record says the trial was flawed, I believe them more than 1 so called economist with no record saying it was good.

Juries are to decide facts after being presented evidence, not ag. economists, and not judges. This part of the American system seems to elude you.

As for the vested interest I have, it is different than what you think. I have an interest in market efficiency, not just packer efficiency or producer efficiency. You may not understand the difference, but that is what the law is to protect.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
You just shot your own theory down conman.

You claim an increase of profit from $3.88 to$26.

Then explain how the damages could exceed the entire profits of Tyson/IBP if they only made that increase?

Lies are so easy to expose. You can use all the BS deadweight loss crap, facts are facts. A profit is a profit. If Tyson should have made $3.88 during that time, the most they could have been liable for is is $22.12.

However if you would pay attention, the $26 time frame would be included in the long term $3.88 profit margin. To pick on particularly profitable period and call it manipulation shows your gross bias.

Get over it your side lost. Try again if you have real proof.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
You just shot your own theory down conman.

You claim an increase of profit from $3.88 to$26.

Then explain how the damages could exceed the entire profits of Tyson/IBP if they only made that increase?

Lies are so easy to expose. You can use all the BS deadweight loss crap, facts are facts. A profit is a profit. If Tyson should have made $3.88 during that time, the most they could have been liable for is is $22.12.

However if you would pay attention, the $26 time frame would be included in the long term $3.88 profit margin. To pick on particularly profitable period and call it manipulation shows your gross bias.

Get over it your side lost. Try again if you have real proof.

Once again you have proven your ignorance, Jason. Keep posting for all to see.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
From the responses you are the one who has been exposed.

You are a classic, "need attention want to be respected but it's always someone else's fault", nutcase.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jason said:
From the responses you are the one who has been exposed.

You are a classic, "need attention want to be respected but it's always someone else's fault", nutcase.

Business failure or unprofitabilty is not always the fault of abuse of market power. When I see it, however, I call it. You don't even know how to look for it.

I hope you get your operation reversed but it seems that as time passes, your chances at success are getting slimmer and slimmer.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason, "The jury obviously had a anti-corporate mentality. They couldn't get an award that even resembled the facts."

Did the jury in the Enron proceedings also have an obvious anti-corporate mentality? What about Tyco, World Com? How do you know they couldn't get an award that resembled the facts? Because SH told you that? :roll:

Jason, "IF Tyson/IBP manipulated the cash market and their profits could only be boosted to $26 per head, they didn't do a very good job."

They did a great job if they were only going to make $13/head without playing games.

Jason, "IF Tyson/IBP was losing money before this period, as per Sandhuskers phony example, how would they have the market power?"

You know that Tyson buys nearly a third of the entire fat cattle market, and you have to ask how they would have market power? Thats funny. :lol: :lol:
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
Jason said:
conman said:
About Taylor, you are right. He should not be the detrminant of fact. The jury should be the determinant of fact. Not Hauseman, not the judge, and not you. The jury. You still have not provided any evidence to show where the jury's verdict should be overturned and neither did the 11th circuit. I will grant you that Taylor's numbers were the calculations of the damage to the market, not necessarily the plaintiffs in the long run. In the short run, yes, but not the long run.

If you have any relevant evidence to change this view, bring it forth.

You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.

Jason- Most jurors have no experience or insight into Murder either- but they figure it out- and then make life and death decisions about the guilty...

A criminal trail is different from the case against Tyson. You should know the difference. Does the law allow a judge to void a verdict such as in the Pickett case and what are those conditions? As a former judge I expect you know the answer. If not you should not be commenting on this case. The real question is whether or not you have the integrity to post the correct answer for all readers to see.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
Jason said:
You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.

Jason- Most jurors have no experience or insight into Murder either- but they figure it out- and then make life and death decisions about the guilty...

A criminal trail is different from the case against Tyson. You should know the difference. Does the law allow a judge to void a verdict such as in the Pickett case and what are those conditions? As a former judge I expect you know the answer. If not you should not be commenting on this case. The real question is whether or not you have the integrity to post the correct answer for all readers to see.

Agman, a judge can do a lot of things. That does not make them right. There has been a lot of movement against judges who "take the law into their own hands". Manditory sentencing, for example. Three strikes out laws, etc.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
Jason said:
You claim to be an economics prof, yet you can't understand it, 12 jurors that have even less insight into the beef industry than you (if that is possible) are supposed to figure it out?

Pretty lame. But what else would we expect.

Jason- Most jurors have no experience or insight into Murder either- but they figure it out- and then make life and death decisions about the guilty...

A criminal trail is different from the case against Tyson. You should know the difference. Does the law allow a judge to void a verdict such as in the Pickett case and what are those conditions? As a former judge I expect you know the answer. If not you should not be commenting on this case. The real question is whether or not you have the integrity to post the correct answer for all readers to see.

I am not a former judge- I still sit on cases....

Yes I know the difference between criminal and civil.. The law does allow the judge to void a verdict- what conditions allow it vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and between criminal and civil--- But it is highly unusual and is seldom done once a case is submitted to the jury... The only time I have personally seen it happen was when new solid evidence was found after the trial to bring into question the evidence presented- and in those cases they were submitted for retrial.....


The Judge has the decision on what a jury should or should not see or hear-he usually makes those decisions prior to their introduction- then after all evidence is introduced he has the right to allow it to go to the jury or not/ or if he feels the evidence is not there he will issue a ruling from the bench...But once a Judge allows it to go to the jury it is quite unusual to completely overturn and reverse a juries decision....

Apparently this judge is very incompetent in running his court and trials if he has to turn around and void jury verdicts made in it.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
OT, "Apparently this judge is very incompetent in running his court and trials if he has to turn around and void jury verdicts made in it......."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: KA - BOOM!!!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Sandhusker said:
OT, "Apparently this judge is very incompetent in running his court and trials if he has to turn around and void jury verdicts made in it......."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: KA - BOOM!!!

The appellate oversight was worse.
 

Latest posts

Top