Sandhusker
Well-known member
Rod, you ever get the idea you're talking to a post? :lol: :lol:
How do you packer blamers explain this? Part II
- Thread starter RobertMac
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
SH: "None of your arguments carry any water here because I am not arguing with you about Tyson's entire operation, I am only discussing their BEEF INDUSTRY PROFITS AND LOSSES."
Jason already tried this one, SH. It didn't fly.
Jason already tried this one, SH. It didn't fly.
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
1, 2, 3) Heres a link to Tyson's 2005 breakdown by division. They are showing a loss of $12 million in the beef division. Bear in mind, this is NET profit.
http://ir.tysonfoodsinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65476&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=782290&highlight=
Now, in 2005, they had a 4 billion dollar debt load FROM BEEF EXPANSION (read the links I provided you. Don't bluster, read.). Even calculated at prime lending rate, thats $20 million dollars in interest, WHICH COMES OFF THEIR PROFITS. If they hadn't bought IBP in 2001, expanded 7 lines of beef, and purchased other smaller plants, their debt load would not have even hit 1 billion dollars (again, please read the documents I provided you). 4/5 of $20 million is still $16 million. So before INTEREST, that leaves a $4 MILLION profit. This doesn't even take into account any deductions for capital expenditures or for depreciation of those purchased assets.
I've just provided you with enough proof to choke a mule. Now I want you to provide me with proof that Tyson's losses are due purely to market conditions. I want you to work their own numbers, that I've provided you, and show how they would have lost money in 2005 even WITHOUT interest and depreciation of capital and assets. Show me where my numbers are wrong.
Heck, even if only half of the debt load was from beef, which it wasn't by Tyson's own documents, we've still got a $10 million interest charge alone, based on prime lending rate. That doesn't even include depreciation of any of the new assets.
4) SH, you are the one who swears those two plants weren't profitable. The burden of proof is on YOUR SHOULDERS. Now please bring some proof to the table.
Rod
A
Anonymous
Guest
Rod,
Here is your exact statements:
How could you possibly know where the Tyson funds originated that funded a chicken division and a pork division???
Once again you are speculating. Your guessing and presenting theories.
You claim Tyson purchased ibp in 2001 and were not in the beef industry prior to that, so tell me what proof you have that Tyson funded their chicken and pork divisions with beef profits???
You don't have any proof. You just made it up because it sounded good at the time.
Where's your proof to back that statement?
Which is why they closed the two plants. They don't expand in times of losses.
Profits, as reported by Tyson to GIPSA, are figured as an operating margin. Basically that is profit after expenses. They pay so much for cattle, it costs them so much to process, and they get so much for their boxed beef and beef by products. What's left is their operating margin BEFORE TAXES AND INTEREST. Expansion and interest is not figured into THAT equation. That's where you are wrong.
When Tyson is showing a $12 million dollar loss in their beef division, this is based on what they had to pay for cattle, what it cost them to process those cattle, and what they got for boxed beef and beef by products BEFORE TAXES AND INTEREST. Losses reported to GIPSA are not as a result of expansion. They are figured as operating margin.
I just showed you where your PROFIT numbers are wrong.
Rod, it was your contention that Tyson did not close those plants due to a lack of profitability against Tyson's own statements. It's not my position to prove Tyson right, it's your position to prove them wrong. If you are going to allege that they are not being forthright with their statements, it's up to you to prove it. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
~SH~
Here is your exact statements:
How could you possibly know where the Tyson funds originated that funded a chicken division and a pork division???
Once again you are speculating. Your guessing and presenting theories.
You claim Tyson purchased ibp in 2001 and were not in the beef industry prior to that, so tell me what proof you have that Tyson funded their chicken and pork divisions with beef profits???
You don't have any proof. You just made it up because it sounded good at the time.
Where's your proof to back that statement?
Which is why they closed the two plants. They don't expand in times of losses.
Profits, as reported by Tyson to GIPSA, are figured as an operating margin. Basically that is profit after expenses. They pay so much for cattle, it costs them so much to process, and they get so much for their boxed beef and beef by products. What's left is their operating margin BEFORE TAXES AND INTEREST. Expansion and interest is not figured into THAT equation. That's where you are wrong.
When Tyson is showing a $12 million dollar loss in their beef division, this is based on what they had to pay for cattle, what it cost them to process those cattle, and what they got for boxed beef and beef by products BEFORE TAXES AND INTEREST. Losses reported to GIPSA are not as a result of expansion. They are figured as operating margin.
I just showed you where your PROFIT numbers are wrong.
Rod, it was your contention that Tyson did not close those plants due to a lack of profitability against Tyson's own statements. It's not my position to prove Tyson right, it's your position to prove them wrong. If you are going to allege that they are not being forthright with their statements, it's up to you to prove it. The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
~SH~
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
So why then are they spending 650 million dollars on expansion THIS YEAR? This is straight from Tyson press releases.
~SH~ said:
I don't care about the GIPSA reported stuff. What I linked in was their shareholder reports, which BY LAW, have interest and depreciation already knocked off. The 12 million loss was NOT in GIPSA numbers, but in the share holder reports. If those are the same numbers they're reporting to GIPSA, then they appear to be violating the rules for reporting to GIPSA.
My numbers are spot on, and now you're speculating.
Rod
A
Anonymous
Guest
Nice job diverting my questions Rod! You're learning great diversion tactics from the slipperiest in the industry (Conman and Sandbag). I knew you couldn't back your assertions with tangible examples from Tyson's BEEF INDUSTRY.
You speculated here just like you speculated about retail profits.
Where did Tyson say they were spending 650 million dollars on BEEF EXPANSION????
Why do you insist on confusing the issue by combing all of Tyson's meat entities in your statements???
I don't care about Tyson's other divisions, I only care about their beef division. If you want to confuse the issue by talking about the entire Tyson company, you can debate someone else.
What they are reporting to GIPSA is their operating margin. From there it's a simple matter of factoring in their slaughter numbers to figure a per head profit margin.
You say their profit margins are misleading because they do not factor in expansions, you are dead wrong about that. Operating margins do not factor in losses due to expansion. The operating margins are reported in your links.
You are simply wrong to suggest that Tyson is showing losses in their operating margins due to expansion. You are misinterpreting the numbers here just like you were misinterpreting the numbers when you assigned a retail value to the entire carcass without considering bone, fat, shrink, lower grade product, discarded product, featured prices to move product, transportation costs, etc. etc. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. A typical packer blamer!
You're numbers may be right but you are not interpreting them correctly because losses are not reported as a result of expansion in their reported operating margins.
Another question for you regarding a previous topic of debate. Let's say you have two examples of packing industry competition.
Example #1. You have 5 large efficient packing companies, of which 3 own about 23% of the industy each, that utilize 100% of the animal for sale that are operating on a $17 per head profit margin competing with eachother for the same cattle.
Example #2. You have 25 smaller less efficient packing companies with an equal market share, that utilize most of the animal but not all of the edible and inedible ofal products that the larger packers do in example #1 that need a $40 per head profit margin competing with eachother for the same cattle.
Which example will result in higher cattle prices for producers?
Which example will result in more competition?
Does "more competition" mean more money or more bidders?
~SH~
You speculated here just like you speculated about retail profits.
Where did Tyson say they were spending 650 million dollars on BEEF EXPANSION????
Why do you insist on confusing the issue by combing all of Tyson's meat entities in your statements???
I don't care about Tyson's other divisions, I only care about their beef division. If you want to confuse the issue by talking about the entire Tyson company, you can debate someone else.
What they are reporting to GIPSA is their operating margin. From there it's a simple matter of factoring in their slaughter numbers to figure a per head profit margin.
You say their profit margins are misleading because they do not factor in expansions, you are dead wrong about that. Operating margins do not factor in losses due to expansion. The operating margins are reported in your links.
You are simply wrong to suggest that Tyson is showing losses in their operating margins due to expansion. You are misinterpreting the numbers here just like you were misinterpreting the numbers when you assigned a retail value to the entire carcass without considering bone, fat, shrink, lower grade product, discarded product, featured prices to move product, transportation costs, etc. etc. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. A typical packer blamer!
You're numbers may be right but you are not interpreting them correctly because losses are not reported as a result of expansion in their reported operating margins.
Another question for you regarding a previous topic of debate. Let's say you have two examples of packing industry competition.
Example #1. You have 5 large efficient packing companies, of which 3 own about 23% of the industy each, that utilize 100% of the animal for sale that are operating on a $17 per head profit margin competing with eachother for the same cattle.
Example #2. You have 25 smaller less efficient packing companies with an equal market share, that utilize most of the animal but not all of the edible and inedible ofal products that the larger packers do in example #1 that need a $40 per head profit margin competing with eachother for the same cattle.
Which example will result in higher cattle prices for producers?
Which example will result in more competition?
Does "more competition" mean more money or more bidders?
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "You don't know what the hell you're talking about. A typical packer blamer!"
I'M A PROPHET! Didn't I tell Rod that soon he would be a "packer blamer"? How long did it take, maybe two months? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dang, I wish I had a bet on that!
My next prediction is....I can see it now.... SH will tell Rod he is a R-CALF clone...... :wink:
The Great Lying, Slimy, Deceiving, Twisting, Diverting, Pathetic &%^&%$%, Sandbag Sandini has spoken...
I'M A PROPHET! Didn't I tell Rod that soon he would be a "packer blamer"? How long did it take, maybe two months? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dang, I wish I had a bet on that!
My next prediction is....I can see it now.... SH will tell Rod he is a R-CALF clone...... :wink:
The Great Lying, Slimy, Deceiving, Twisting, Diverting, Pathetic &%^&%$%, Sandbag Sandini has spoken...
RobertMac
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:SH, "You don't know what the hell you're talking about. A typical packer blamer!"
I'M A PROPHET! Didn't I tell Rod that soon he would be a "packer blamer"? How long did it take, maybe two months? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Dang, I wish I had a bet on that!
My next prediction is....I can see it now.... SH will tell Rod he is a R-CALF clone...... :wink:
The Great Lying, Slimy, Deceiving, Twisting, Diverting, Pathetic &%^&%$%, Sandbag Sandini has spoken...
You have learned well, Grasshopper! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Rod has shown his true packer blaming colors by speculating on packer's hiding their profits behind expansions with nothing to support his allegations other than a need to blame.
He now joins the ranks of such notable packer blamers as the "Great Sandbeenie - master illusionist", OT, Conman the liar, Tommy, Robert Mac, and yes even Mike although Mike's just coming out of the closet. LOL!
~SH~
He now joins the ranks of such notable packer blamers as the "Great Sandbeenie - master illusionist", OT, Conman the liar, Tommy, Robert Mac, and yes even Mike although Mike's just coming out of the closet. LOL!
~SH~
~SH~ said:
So the definition of "liar" is anyone who disagrees with SH? I guess that would make you one too, SH, since I have posted your changing positions that can not be reconciled. Maybe you have have split personalities and both support the packers with opposite reasoning depending on the argument at hand. You are such and enigma--or circus chicken.
A
Anonymous
Guest
~SH~ said:
Thank you SH---Proud to be included in this list....These are some of who I feel that actually look for an answer- not just repeating what they have been told by their handlers.......
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hahaha! Listen to you OT! Nobody has caved to the peer pressure of the whiskey drinking good ol boys club more than you have.
You don't have answers to anything. You just repeat what R-CULT tells you meanwhile they have yet to win a court case and you are supposed to be some kind of former law dog? HAHAHA! What a joke!
Give that turbin another wrap and tell us how great Conman is when he says that Taylor tested his theories when Taylor himself admitted under oath that he didn't test his theories. Conman knows more about Taylor's theories than Taylor. Hahaha! Yup someone who believes that prices can't go up unless the supplies come down is someone I want to hitch my wagon to. Hahaha! You betcha! Yup that Conman is a real mentor. You just follow old Conman, he'll lead you somewhere. LOL!
Sandbag can teach you the twist and divert.
OT, You don't post anything that I haven't already read from R-CULT's propoganda and you want to lecture on independent thinking??? Hahaha! I doubt you packer blamers have ever come up with an original thought on these issues. You just repeat what you hear. In contrast, I have opposed NCBA when I disagreed with them. You, on the other hand, even agree with R-CULT's direct contradictions. LOL!
I'd love to hear you debate Lynn Cornwell on these issues. While your drinking whiskey and blaming packers, USDA, NCBA, and imports at the pub with your fellow blamers, he's busy feeding cattle.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
SH-- I only get 1/2 a page of rant- I feel left out :wink: :lol: And if only you knew about all of your NCBA heroes- what they really feel and do :???: ......
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
You'd best re-read SH. Those are shareholder reports, not GIPSA margin reports. Pure profit/loss stuff with capital expenditures and interest netted off the profit.
~SH~ said:
SH, I love how you use this example, because it shows you are unable to comprehend simple profit/loss calculations. My example, before expenses, was GROSS PROFIT. I didn't come out and say it, because everyone understood that. When I asked you to come up with the appropriate deductions, you were unable to come up enough to bring the profits down to an operating margin that you were quoting, even though I had shaved more meat off the carcass and said ALL of the carcass was used for hamburger.
Please, keep using that example. It only helps to prove my point.
~SH~ said:
If both of these conditions were in the same time frame, given equal supply and consumer demand, #2 would easily amount to higher prices for producers. Since supply would be tight, the packers would be forced to attempt to extract higher prices from the consumer side, which they could do. The packers will simply not sell to the Safeways of the world at a constant loss. If they are unable to drop supply side prices, they HAVE to raise their prices. Since we're talking about 5 cents a lb price differential, consumer demand isn't going to be all that affected.
I know exactly what you're going to say now. Example #2 was from 20 years ago and prices back then were lower than they are now. It doesn't wash SH, because consumer demand was MUCH lower back then, supply was higher, and overseas markets weren't even beginning to open up.
Rod
A
Anonymous
Guest
Your "shareholder reports" also reported operating margins. Operating margins before interest and taxes is what is reported to GIPSA. Operating margins do not list losses due to expansion.
Once again you are wrong.
That was your excuse (spin job) once your ignorance was exposed. We both know how it went down.
WHY DID I NEED TO TELL YOU THE APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS IF YOU SUPPOSEDLY KNEW WHAT THE RETAIL PROFITS WERE????????
You did the typical blamer thing of taking a retail beef price and attributing it to the entire carcass without factoring in bone, fat, shrink, trim, etc. etc. You exposed your ignorance of the retail beef industry like most packer blamers do then you come up with some cheesy excuse about "gross profit" hoping nobody would notice.
Had you knew what you were talking about, you would have known the deductions yourself instead of relying on someone else to educate you. You think because I didn't mention enough deductions to come up with with a profit that was closed to $20 or less, THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST????
Typical illusion. Perhaps that should convince you to invest in the retail beef industry. Put your money where your mouth is.
You sound like Conman now. When you can't back your position, create the "ILLUSION" that you can.
This just proves to me without a doubt how lost you really are. The smaller less efficient packer needs a $40 per head margin to remain in business because they can't compete with the larger packing companies that keep their doors open at a $17 per head margin. Where does the additional $23 come from that is the difference between the per head slaughtering cost of the larger more efficient packing company and the smaller less efficient packing company??? THE CONSUMER OR THE PRODUCER???? The packers would be "FORCED TO ATTEMPT"???? How do you "FORCE TO ATTEMPT" consumers to do anything when they have other protein choices????
What the smaller less efficient packing company would do is lower prices to producers to compensate for that $23 per head. Naturally, producers will sell to the highest bidder. So much for the little guy.
Future Beef tried to do exactly what you described. They stepped out and led the yearling market in the U.S. and CONSUMERS WOULD NOT PAY MORE for the beef because they had other protein choices. Future Beef closed their doors.
MORE PACKERS DOES NOT MEAN MORE MONEY FOR PRODUCERS!
WRONG AGAIN ROD!
The only exception is when smaller less efficient packing companies can add value in niche markets like "OMAHA STEAKS" delivered to your door. Then consumers will pay enough more to compensate for the differences in slaughtering costs due to the added value of the product. Then and only then can smaller less efficient companies compete with larger more efficient companies.
Harris Ranches is another prime example. Harris owns the restraunts that sell their beef so they too can sacrifice efficiency for added value somehow.
I'm simply amazed at this mentality that "CONCENTRATION" is somehow unique to the cattle industry. All around you there is ranchers and businesses getting bigger to compete while you cuss concentration in the packing industry. Typical blamer who can't see the forrest for the trees.
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
Tyson to Expand in Ponca City!
AGREEMENT HELPS TYSON EXPAND WORKFORCE
New facility to house worker orientation, training
Ponca City, Oklahoma - September 2, 2004
An agreement reached today between Tyson Foods and the Ponca City Development Authority (PCDA) will support the addition of at least 100 jobs at the company's Ponca City plant.
Company officials and PCDA staff have been working for several months on plans to establish a "Team Member Development and Wellness Center" near the Tyson facility in the Airport Industrial Park. The Center will be used for new team member orientation, as well as safety and ergonomics training. It will help Tyson support an expansion of the local workforce and will also enhance the plant's worker retention efforts.
Under the agreement signed by Tyson and unanimously approved today by the PCDA Board of Trustees, the PCDA has committed $150,000 to convert two vacant buildings at the Pioneer Technology Center into the new Center. The facility, which will provide 2,500 square feet of space, is expected to be ready for use this fall.
In return, Tyson has agreed to add and maintain at least 100 jobs through early 2007. The plant has already added the positions over the past few months, bringing total employment to approximately 600 people. The plant has hired the additional workers and installed more production lines to accommodate the transfer of excess business to Ponca City from other Tyson plants, as well as the creation of new business.
Jim Leach, PCDA Trustee, hailed the agreement and praised the company for its decision. "This is a great day for the community and for the people who have secured new jobs with Tyson," he said. "Tyson has been a great corporate citizen of Ponca City and this expansion is truly evidence of that."
"We're thankful for the community's support in our efforts to expand operations," said Dave Corsair, manager of Tyson's Ponca City plant. "This cooperative venture will help ensure the plant continues to be a vibrant part of the local economy."
Once completed, the new Development and Wellness Center will house the Tyson's Training and Safety Departments, as well as Health Services. "We're very excited about the prospect of having a facility of this nature available to us," according to Robert Howard, Tyson Human Resources Manager. "The new Center will give us more space for our team member training and safety programs as well as our Health Services Department."
Tyson's Ponca City plant, which first opened in 1995, produces a variety of deli-style luncheon meats, such as bologna loaf, pickle loaf and salami. The luncheon meats are sold under such brand names as Tyson, Russer, Wilson and Thorn Apple Valley.
The Ponca City Development Authority is funded by a one half cent sales tax authorized by Ponca City voters to provide economic development assistance to new and existing companies in the Ponca City area.
Contact:
Robert Howard, Tyson - 580-762-6400
David Myers, PCDA - 580-765-7070
AGREEMENT HELPS TYSON EXPAND WORKFORCE
New facility to house worker orientation, training
Ponca City, Oklahoma - September 2, 2004
An agreement reached today between Tyson Foods and the Ponca City Development Authority (PCDA) will support the addition of at least 100 jobs at the company's Ponca City plant.
Company officials and PCDA staff have been working for several months on plans to establish a "Team Member Development and Wellness Center" near the Tyson facility in the Airport Industrial Park. The Center will be used for new team member orientation, as well as safety and ergonomics training. It will help Tyson support an expansion of the local workforce and will also enhance the plant's worker retention efforts.
Under the agreement signed by Tyson and unanimously approved today by the PCDA Board of Trustees, the PCDA has committed $150,000 to convert two vacant buildings at the Pioneer Technology Center into the new Center. The facility, which will provide 2,500 square feet of space, is expected to be ready for use this fall.
In return, Tyson has agreed to add and maintain at least 100 jobs through early 2007. The plant has already added the positions over the past few months, bringing total employment to approximately 600 people. The plant has hired the additional workers and installed more production lines to accommodate the transfer of excess business to Ponca City from other Tyson plants, as well as the creation of new business.
Jim Leach, PCDA Trustee, hailed the agreement and praised the company for its decision. "This is a great day for the community and for the people who have secured new jobs with Tyson," he said. "Tyson has been a great corporate citizen of Ponca City and this expansion is truly evidence of that."
"We're thankful for the community's support in our efforts to expand operations," said Dave Corsair, manager of Tyson's Ponca City plant. "This cooperative venture will help ensure the plant continues to be a vibrant part of the local economy."
Once completed, the new Development and Wellness Center will house the Tyson's Training and Safety Departments, as well as Health Services. "We're very excited about the prospect of having a facility of this nature available to us," according to Robert Howard, Tyson Human Resources Manager. "The new Center will give us more space for our team member training and safety programs as well as our Health Services Department."
Tyson's Ponca City plant, which first opened in 1995, produces a variety of deli-style luncheon meats, such as bologna loaf, pickle loaf and salami. The luncheon meats are sold under such brand names as Tyson, Russer, Wilson and Thorn Apple Valley.
The Ponca City Development Authority is funded by a one half cent sales tax authorized by Ponca City voters to provide economic development assistance to new and existing companies in the Ponca City area.
Contact:
Robert Howard, Tyson - 580-762-6400
David Myers, PCDA - 580-765-7070
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mike,
Is this a beef plant, pork plant, or poultry plant?
If it's not a beef plant and if it doesn't compensate for the capacity of the two beef plants that closed, it proves nothing to support Rod's contention that Tyson is hiding profits behind their "BEEF" expansions. Another baseless unsupported conspiracy theory.
~SH~
Is this a beef plant, pork plant, or poultry plant?
If it's not a beef plant and if it doesn't compensate for the capacity of the two beef plants that closed, it proves nothing to support Rod's contention that Tyson is hiding profits behind their "BEEF" expansions. Another baseless unsupported conspiracy theory.
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
Doesn't matter to me. The point of the article is that Tyson is getting economic incentives from local guvments to move processing facilities.
They got $10 MILLION to move to the Oscar Meyer plant in Texas.
How many small packers get these incentives? None.
That in itself makes it hard for small packers to compete.
