Sandbag: "Did you miss this from a week or so back, SH, "Tyson Foods Inc., the world's largest meat producer, said Friday it plans to spend up to $650 million on capital expenditures and look into overseas acquisitions, despite a slip in earnings"
So what? We are not discussing Tyson's investments as a company, we are discussing the profitability in their beef sector, beef sector expansions, and the reason why two beef processing plants were closed.
Nice diversion, as usual!
The issue here is WHY DID THEY CLOSE THOSE BEEF PLANTS? Tyson claims lack of profitability. If you don't believe them, what can you provide to the contrary OTHER THAN YOUR NORMAL "THEORY" AND "SPECULATION"? Not a damn thing I'm betting, as usual!
Tyson originally bought ibp as an investment. The fact remains Tyson is not going to subsidize their beef losses with poultry and pork profits OVER THE LONG TERM. They didn't buy ibp to lose money.
I am not trying to suggest that Tyson's beef plants never make money, of course they do or they wouldn't be in business. I'm simply pointing out the fact that they don't make as much money as you packer blamers have been led to believe but that's not what you want to believe so you're not going to believe it.
If it wasn't for these debates, you'd probably still believe packers and retailers were making $400 per head off the backs of producers as Callicrate has been preaching. Wait a minute, that's assuming you actually learned something. Sorry, lapse of judgement there.
You don't have the integrity to admit that packer profits, as revealed by Pickett, were not what you thought they'd be. None of you blamers have any integrity. You keep searching for anything that creates an "ILLUSION" of supporting your packer blaming bias.
You ignore Tyson's actual profit and loss statements to favor some dumb assed conspiracy theory about how Tyson is hiding profits behind expansions and investments THAT YOU CAN'T BACK WITH FACTS. You'll sink your teeth into anything to protect your need to blame.
Sandbag: "Want to bet another $100 that I can't find a million shares of unprofitable companies that were traded TODAY?"
Yes, potential investors are looking to "buy low and sell high" ON THE SALE OF OLD SHARES. I understand that. I'm talking about whether or not the shares that are selling are making money for EXISTING shareholders.
The issue here is why Tyson closed those plants and whether or not they intentionally hide profits from their EXISTING shareholders.
None of you can explain why they would claim losses if they were actually making profits. That is nothing more than another baseless conspiracy theory that cannot be supported with SPECIFIC EXAMPLES (facts).
Rod: "A company will issue X numbers of shares at an initial share offering price. The theory behind this is that X times the initial share offering will be somewhat close to the net worth of the company, including income for the year that the stocks are initially offered. Once the company sells those shares, THEY DO NOT EVER TOUCH THEM AGAIN UNLESS THEY BUY THEM BACK."
I understand that Rod. I have bought shares in companies before.
The issue here is whether or not those shares are making money for the EXISTING shareholders. That's the only issue.
Rod: "As company does business, it releases earnings and shareholder reports. It may or may not pay dividends on the shares that they've released. And yes, old shares may be sold. BUT THEY ARE NOT SOLD BY THE COMPANY."
That's correct, old shares are not sold by the company, they are sold by the shareholders. New shares are sold by the company. I understand that. You're diverting the issue here. The issue is whether or not Tyson was profitable when they sold those plants.
What can you bring to the table to support your contention that Tyson may be profitable when they are showing losses and what can you bring to the table to support your contention that Tyson closed those two plants for efficiency reasons only?
Not a damn thing, that's what you'll bring!
Rod: "Tyson has EXPANDED in the last few years, as such, their earnings are going to be showing a loss against them in the form of amortized costs. This is REQUIRED BY LAW! THEY HAVE TO SHOW LOSSES! What business unit they decide to show the losses against is completely up to them."
I am not going to discuss Tyson's expansions as a company, I'm only interested in Tyson's expansions in their beef sector.
Tyson showed losses in their beef sector.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THESE LOSSES WERE DUE TO EXPANSION???
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THEIR "BEEF INDUSTRY" EXPANSION WILL OFFSET THE SLAUGHTER CAPACITY REDUCTION FROM THE CLOSING OF TWO OF THEIR BEEF PROCESSING PLANTS?
That's the only issue on the table here.
The fact remains Rod, you don't have anything to back your assumption that Tyson's reported losses in their BEEF DIVISION is due to expansion, do you??
You might as well come clean and answer the question because I'm not going to follow you into unrelated topics.
Rod: "Of course I can argue it both ways. Thats why Tyson is into beef, chicken AND pork. When one goes low, they subsidize it with profits from the others. And this removes SOME of that companies competitiveness. Starving companies are innovators."
Tyson did not invest in beef processing to carry that industry with their poultry and pork divisions. Each industry has to be profitable on it's own or it was a poor investment.
DID TYSON CLOSE THOSE TWO PLANTS DUE TO A LACK OF PROFITABILITY?
YES OR NO?
IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
Rod: " Profitable plants WILL close if their production can be easily relocated to another MORE profitable plant. Tyson hasn't even showed losses. They've shown losses to profits. Totally different animal. And Tyson's reps only said the industry was getting tighter, not that those TWO PLANTS WERE LOSING MONEY."
Nowhere did Tyson say that their expansion in one plant would offset the slaughter capacity lost from the closing of two plants. MERE SPECULATION on your part.
Where is your proof of Tyson's beef processing profits?
NOT TYSON AS A COMPANY, THEIR BEEF DIVISION ONLY????
Before you get sidetracked again, here's the questions you need to answer Rod:
1. Why would Tyson "intentionally" show losses in their beef division if they were not occuring?
2. What proof do you have that Tyson showed losses when they were actually profitable?
3. What proof do you have that Tyson's reported losses IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION were due to expansion?
4. What proof do you have that Tyson closed these two beef processing plants for efficiency reasons and not due to a lack of profitability?
5. What proof do you have that Tyson's proposed expansion in one of their beef units will be equal to the slaughter capacity lost in the closing of the two plants?
6. Why would Tyson continue to carry beef losses with their poulty and pork divisions?
7. Where is your proof that Tyson's beef processing expansion is coming from profits in the beef sector they are not revealing?
If you answer these questions honestly, it will reveal just how little of your opinion is based on facts.
As usual, the debate has gotten sidetracked. The above questions will put it back on track.
~SH~
