Hard Data...

[pknoeber]

OK, so I've been reading a little on here every once in a while & all I've ever really seen are wild accusations & name calling.
Can one side, or hopefully both sides, of the packer ownership or Canadian border issue provide ANY hard numbers or impartial studies to support their arguments?
So far everything has been a person's preference for how they think the market should work and what the marketing channels should be. Very rarely have they ever been backed up by any numbers. And the few times numbers have been involved it's just been a shouting/pi$$ing contest. So, can anybody provide hard evidence one way or the other on any issue? Please, no partisan replies unless there are numbers to back it up. I don't have them, but then again I haven't made very many accusations either.
Phil

Edit: I understand that a fair amount of the ribbing is generally good-natured but sometimes it seems like the gloves have really come off.

 

[Jason]

There are a couple or three posters here that really will just bait and dodge any real numbers. You can probably seperate the chaff from the grain if you keep reading.

Agman has nailed the market many times proving his numbers. The data is available to check him out. The first time he made a prediction I was a little skeptical, until 6 months later the fat market hit his prediction...nearly on the week he said it would.

SH has a passion for exposing inconsistancies R-calf perpetrates, and I just add what I can when I see a flaw in someone's reasoning.

Why do we argue? It has a little entertainment value, but to leave erroneous ideas unchallenged hurts this business. Knowledge is power and if we are educated from birth to beef we have a better chance of surviving changes that are going to occur no matter what anyone says.

 

[Econ101]

There are a couple or three posters here that really will just bait and dodge any real numbers. You can probably seperate the chaff from the grain if you keep reading.

Agman has nailed the market many times proving his numbers. The data is available to check him out. The first time he made a prediction I was a little skeptical, until 6 months later the fat market hit his prediction...nearly on the week he said it would.

SH has a passion for exposing inconsistancies R-calf perpetrates, and I just add what I can when I see a flaw in someone's reasoning.

Why do we argue? It has a little entertainment value, but to leave erroneous ideas unchallenged hurts this business. Knowledge is power and if we are educated from birth to beef we have a better chance of surviving changes that are going to occur no matter what anyone says.

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

 

[Jason]

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

Agman has proven his numbers can you?

 

[Sandhusker]

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

Agman has proven his numbers can you?

Agman doesn't have a crystal ball, nobody in his profession does. They can give you historicals and what SHOULD happen, but there are so many unseen variables (weather, disease, etc..) that even they won't bet their fortunes on their predictions.

Agman may have been right on the prediction that you reference and I applaud that as it is no easy feat, but he sure balanced that out with his corn call from last spring.

 

[Econ101]

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

Agman has proven his numbers can you?

Agman doesn't have a crystal ball, nobody in his profession does. They can give you historicals and what SHOULD happen, but there are so many unseen variables (weather, disease, etc..) that even they won't bet their fortunes on their predictions.

Agman may have been right on the prediction that you reference and I applaud that as it is no easy feat, but he sure balanced that out with his corn call from last spring.

Maybe you should trade futures with this information, Jason.

 

[Anonymous]

pknoeber: "Can one side, or hopefully both sides, of the packer ownership or Canadian border issue provide ANY hard numbers or impartial studies to support their arguments?"

What specific arguments are you referring to?

You want hard data on the border opening? It was a fact that R-CULT predicted a falling cattle market if the Canadian border opened to live cattle. You are looking at the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded and the Canadian border is opened to live cattle.

What more obvious proof do you need that R-CULT's positions are based on lies and misinformation?

As far as packer ownership, what do you want to know? The burden of proof is on the packer blamers to prove the damage that packer ownership of cattle causes to this industry. They can't prove it because it's nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. To the contrary, packers owning cattle puts buying power into the feeder cattle markets. Have you ever seen a producer stand up in the sale barn and declare that no packer was to bid on his cattle?



~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Sorry pknoeber, you're **** out of luck. Agman and Jason will be retired from the game by the time I write this due to their economic genius. I am surprised that they have stayed with us peasants this long. Predicting markets with the kind of intelligence that they obvoiusly have has made them muti millions. SH ----, well SH just loves to trap gophers and battle the pions. Not sure why he hasn't invested in Agman/Jason Inc. and become a billionare like them by now, but hey people are people.

You're going to have to put your own numbers in the equation pknoeber.
Prior to May 20 2003, a fat steer sold in Canada to the packers brought anywhere from 10 to maybe 60 dollars less than it could be sold for in the USA. BSE closed the border and Jason tells us that the Canadian packers slowed thier lines to a crawl. The border opened to boxed beef and the lines moved ahead consitantly as the spread between a Canadian fat steer and an American fat steer reached well into the $200.00 range. (But the packers in Canada had to remove SRM's )Tyson collected a cheque from the Canadian Taxpayer for over 30 million for all of their woes, and Cargill close to 10 million. Any other numbers that you need for your evaluation can come from Agman in his new office in the Caman Islands.

SH dug and dug and could never and will never prove that Cargill and Tyson lost more than they gained DUE to the border closure. And I can't prove that they gained more than they lost. Does that make me the uninformed packer blamer?..... It's up to you to decide.

Sure is a nice day up here in Southern Alberta. Might even see a gopher(or a gopher trapper) pop his head up this afternoon. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You want hard data on the border opening? It was a fact that R-CULT predicted a falling cattle market if the Canadian border opened to live cattle. You are looking at the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded and the Canadian border is opened to live cattle. "

It's a fact that you predicted Japan would open their borders 6 months after the election. How many rocks do you want to throw?

 

[gberry]

OK, so I've been reading a little on here every once in a while & all I've ever really seen are wild accusations & name calling.
Can one side, or hopefully both sides, of the packer ownership or Canadian border issue provide ANY hard numbers or impartial studies to support their arguments?
So far everything has been a person's preference for how they think the market should work and what the marketing channels should be. Very rarely have they ever been backed up by any numbers. And the few times numbers have been involved it's just been a shouting/pi$$ing contest. So, can anybody provide hard evidence one way or the other on any issue? Please, no partisan replies unless there are numbers to back it up. I don't have them, but then again I haven't made very many accusations either.
Phil

Edit: I understand that a fair amount of the ribbing is generally good-natured but sometimes it seems like the gloves have really come off.

Phil,
It seems the answer to your question is no. No one that answers questions on a regular basis seems to be able to go more than one or two posts without name calling, etc. Makes it difficult to take any of them seriously. It's a shame as most of these folks obviously have some expertise in the cattle industry and a novice such as myself could learn a lot here.

 

[fedup2]

Pknoeber writes: "Can one side, or hopefully both sides, of the packer ownership or Canadian border issue provide ANY hard numbers or impartial studies to support their arguments?"

Gberry writes: "Phil,
It seems the answer to your question is no. No one that answers questions on a regular basis seems to be able to go more than one or two posts without name calling, etc. Makes it difficult to take any of them seriously. It's a shame as most of these folks obviously have some expertise in the cattle industry and a novice such as myself could learn a lot here."

I agree with your thoughts on this but I do take exception to one thing.
I have posted a government site research project on this forum two or three times. There has not been one word of discussion on it regarding 'captive supply'. The problem is that no one wants to take the time to read these things and decide for themselves. They want someone else to do this and bundle thoughts on it into a nice little nut shell! It becomes like the story about the blind men & the elephant. Each believes in whatever small part they find of the whole picture!

I have a ton of information that would make for an excellent discussion but as you have seen, it just becomes buried in the battle of ego's! I will sort out some of my notes and point you to some reading where you can make up your own minds if you are interested.
Here is the site that I have pointed out several times. http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/pubs/captive_supply/app_b.pdf
There are many different studies and as many different findings. You will see what you are up against as far as finding any hard cold facts. I look forward to your discussions on this.

 

[Murgen]

A consistent negative relationship was also found
for marketing agreement cattle. As the percentage delivery
from the inventory of marketing agreement cattle increased
one percent, cash market transaction prices declined by
$0.10-$0.41/cwt.

Would this be the amount of negative pressure the GIPSA study would cite?

I would suggest anybody that would like to learn more about any marketing topic, check out:

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-232

Then go to marketing and outlook, a lot of good info. here and un biased.

 

[agman]

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

Agman has proven his numbers can you?

Agman doesn't have a crystal ball, nobody in his profession does. They can give you historicals and what SHOULD happen, but there are so many unseen variables (weather, disease, etc..) that even they won't bet their fortunes on their predictions.

Agman may have been right on the prediction that you reference and I applaud that as it is no easy feat, but he sure balanced that out with his corn call from last spring.

What was my corn call last spring? Exactly what did I say that you think was off target. The stage is yours.

 

[agman]

A consistent negative relationship was also found
for marketing agreement cattle. As the percentage delivery
from the inventory of marketing agreement cattle increased
one percent, cash market transaction prices declined by
$0.10-$0.41/cwt.

Would this be the amount of negative pressure the GIPSA study would cite?

I would suggest anybody that would like to learn more about any marketing topic, check out:

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-232

Then go to marketing and outlook, a lot of good info. here and un biased.

Murgen, it would be wrong to dispute that a particular study does or does not show some pressure either positive or negative. The problem with studies that have been conducted is that they only look for negative correlation at the producer price but fail to consider the positive impacts that can more then offset any detectable negative impact. I believe the best study conducted was by Dr Azzam from the University of Nebraska. His data did show a minor negative correlation. However, he very clearly states that he did not look for or measure the positive impacts from marketing agreements that could lead to higher prices. He was at least honest and made full discloser of the strengths and weakness of his findings.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, 'What was my corn call last spring? Exactly what did I say that you think was off target. The stage is yours."



You stated that the harvest would not be close to projections. Your reasoning was that much of the acreage planted was substandard and would not produce the kind of yields necessary to meeting projections.

 

[agman]

There are a couple or three posters here that really will just bait and dodge any real numbers. You can probably seperate the chaff from the grain if you keep reading.

Agman has nailed the market many times proving his numbers. The data is available to check him out. The first time he made a prediction I was a little skeptical, until 6 months later the fat market hit his prediction...nearly on the week he said it would.

SH has a passion for exposing inconsistancies R-calf perpetrates, and I just add what I can when I see a flaw in someone's reasoning.

Why do we argue? It has a little entertainment value, but to leave erroneous ideas unchallenged hurts this business. Knowledge is power and if we are educated from birth to beef we have a better chance of surviving changes that are going to occur no matter what anyone says.

If Agman can hit numbers 6 months ahead, why can't packers get it right in the same week? (captive supply vs. cash market)

I guess you just blew your own packer manipulation theories right of the saddle. If they actually could manipulate their own price why would they be wrong? Trapped yourself again, you are just too easy.

 

[Murgen]

Murgen, it would be wrong to dispute that a particular study does or does not show some pressure either positive or negative. The problem with studies that have been conducted is that they only look for negative correlation at the producer price but fail to consider the positive impacts that can more then offset any detectable negative impact. I believe the best study conducted was by Dr Azzam from the University of Nebraska. His data did show a minor negative correlation. However, he very clearly states that he did not look for or measure the positive impacts from marketing agreements that could lead to higher prices. He was at least honest and made full discloser of the strengths and weakness of his findings.

I guess my question would be? If these numbers are any where near correct and taking the higher of the range. Would the cash market take away from price paid to the producer in any other way, in comparison to the effect of marketing agreements? Commission?

 

[fedup2]

That looks like an excellent site Murgen. Its on my 'to read list'. Thank you for posting it.

 

[agman]

Agman, 'What was my corn call last spring? Exactly what did I say that you think was off target. The stage is yours."



You stated that the harvest would not be close to projections. Your reasoning was that much of the acreage planted was substandard and would not produce the kind of yields necessary to meeting projections.

That is correct and when was that date? It was long before we had ideal growing conditions that produced a crop that was 1.7 billion greater than the previous record. In fact, if I recall it was before the crop was ever planted. As conditions suggested a record crop was in the making so did my forecast change to reflect that condition.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, 'What was my corn call last spring? Exactly what did I say that you think was off target. The stage is yours."



You stated that the harvest would not be close to projections. Your reasoning was that much of the acreage planted was substandard and would not produce the kind of yields necessary to meeting projections.

That is correct and when was that date? It was long before we had ideal growing conditions that produced a crop that was 1.7 billion greater than the previous record. In fact, if I recall it was before the crop was ever planted. As conditions suggested a record crop was in the making so did my forecast change to reflect that condition.

You statement was made after the crop was planted and had emerged in this country. If you're really good, you wouldn't have to change your forecast, would you? Anybody can do that. You could state the prices of the commodities on certain dates within a week months in advance, and Jason could take large positions and reap huge rewards. I generally adjust my rain predictions when a dark cloud approaches from the West, and have found I have a high degree of accuracy.

It kind of goes with my original statement that there are many unforseen variables that make it impossible for ANYBODY to have a high degree of accuracy. I don't fault you or anybody for not being totally accurate, or even right most of the time - that's just the way it is. However, when I hear of somebody bragging of their record, a big red flag comes up. Warren Buffet says the minute you think you know what the market is going to do is the minute right before you lose your shirt. Buffets record of accurcy speaks for itself.