How do you packer blamers explain this? Part II

[Econ101]

Tam your anger about the things that set up the salmon run should be re-examined. The people who profited from it at the expense of the producers should be taken into account. Why don't you do that instead of finding a scapegoat? Do you really want to look into what caused the problem or are you interested in assigning blame in the tactics? If so, the problem could be repeated.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod: "Since this is getting rediculous, I'm only going to say this once more and then back out. The books I posted links to were NOT GIPSA OPERATING MARGINS."

You're right, it is ridiculous because the "books" (financial report) you presented contained the exact same operating margins that are reported to GIPSA. Use whichever one you want they are both the same.

Rod: "Where in the those books did it say a word about GIPSA? Nowhere. Not one single area."

Red Herring!

It doesn't have to mention GIPSA in Tyson's books for Tyson to report their "operating margins" to GIPSA.

The point is, you criticized GIPSA's packer profit margins and GIPSA's packer profit margins are based on the same "operating margin data" that was posted in the Tyson financial report THAT YOU POSTED.

Rod: "Those were net operating margins, NOT GIPSA OPERATING MARGINS."

Now you are being deceitful. I never said they were "GIPSA's operating margins", I said that Tyson's operating margins were reported to GIPSA. That is where GIPSA's per head profit margins were derived. THE SAME PROFIT MARGINS YOU WERE CRITICAL OF WHICH WERE THE SAME OPERATING MARGINS YOU POSTED.

Rod: "Margins that BY LAW required interest and capital depreciation to be removed before being reported to the shareholders. If GIPSA takes operating margins BEFORE interest and capital expenditures, these weren't the numbers they'd take."

"Operating margins" are reported before taxes and interest.

Rod: "I'm embarassed for you SH. All you have is bluster and monumental lack of comprehension of how books and business work."

Keep telling yourself that Rod. You have failed to prove me wrong on anything here yet. All you did is twist and spin from your original position. You questioned GIPSA's reported per head profits THEN YOU POST THE SAME INFORMATION THAT GIPSA RECEIVES as if that made some point??? LOL!

Rod: "Expenditures in 2005 won't be written off until 2006. Expenditures in past years would written off against the 2005 books. Hell a new machine bought in 2000 would still show on the 2005 books as a write off. SH, please quit arguing books and bookeeping. Its obvious you have no practical knowledge and you are only embarassing yourself and further weakening your position."

FINE, THEN TELL ME WHAT EXPANSIONS TYSON MADE IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION IN 2004 THAT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN 2005 TO SHOW REDUCED PROFITS TO BACK YOUR ALLEGATION?????

Now can you back your allegation (Tyson hiding profits behind expansions) with an actual example or do you want to continue to divert, discredit, deceive, and deny like a typical blamer that can't back his position????

Rod: "So you can use concentration in the retail business electronics sector as a valid comparison, yet utilizing the grain industry which is more closely related to livestock is wrong? Oie."

We are not talking about grain we are talking about livestock. Grain is a diversion from livestock. Grain does not duplicate livestock. Grain creates an "ILLUSION" of what could happen in livestock but proves nothing.

Rod: "I'm out. SH, when you are willing to debate matters in a logical fashion with sound business knowledge, and without bluster and insults, I'll do so."

That's what they all say when they can't back their position.

In summary, you said Tyson hides their profits behind expansions. Did you prove that allegation??? HELL NO! Surprise, surprise!


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

You're right, it is ridiculous because the "books" (financial report) you presented contained the exact same operating margins that are reported to GIPSA. Use whichever one you want they are both the same.

Then 1 of 3 things has happened:
1) You are in error when you say that GIPSA doesn't look at margins BEFORE interest and captial deductions

or

2) Tyson's giving the wrong numbers to GIPSA

or

3) You are incorrect when you say those numbers were the exact same ones privided to GIPSA. Please provide me with a link that those numbers were provided to GIPSA.

Here, I'm going to cut and paste a couple notations from the condensed income and condensed cash flow statements, which, by the way, were used when calculating the operating margin:

From the condensed income report:

Three Months Ended 12 Months Ended
(Unaudited) (Unaudited) (Unaudited)
October 1, October 2, October 1, October 2,
2005 2004 2005 2004

Other Expenses:
Interest 55 67 227 275

Hmmmm, $227 million dollars in interest knocked off the income. BEFORE TAX and BEFORE OPERATING MARGINS WERE CALCULATED.

From the condensed cash flow:

Three Months Ended 12 Months Ended
(Unaudited) (Unaudited) (Unaudited)
October 1, October 2, October 1, October 2,
2005 2004 2005 2004
Depreciation and
amortization 124 131 501 490

Now you are being deceitful. I never said they were "GIPSA's operating margins", I said that Tyson's operating margins were reported to GIPSA.

You just got done saying that the margins I posted were the ones reported to GIPSA. And I'm saying that if GIPSA wants margin BEFORE interest, then those weren't the margins reported to GIPSA.

FINE, THEN TELL ME WHAT EXPANSIONS TYSON MADE IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION IN 2004 THAT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN 2005 TO SHOW REDUCED PROFITS TO BACK YOUR ALLEGATION?????

Do you honestly believe that 100% of a capital expense can be full written off in one year? I posted a few messages back that the write offs on the 2005 books would be from expansion in previous years. Hell, the IBP purchase will still be showing on the books 5 years from now because they can't write off 100% of a capital expense in the first year.

Rod

 

[Tam]

Tam your anger about the things that set up the salmon run should be re-examined. The people who profited from it at the expense of the producers should be taken into account. Why don't you do that instead of finding a scapegoat? Do you really want to look into what caused the problem or are you interested in assigning blame in the tactics? If so, the problem could be repeated.

Why don't you stick to the topics you can prove. Oh I forgot you can't prove a thing can you. If you could then maybe just maybe you would have some credibility and wouldn't have to resort to namecalling, and games to discredit people. The investigations done found no evidence against the packers. So they were taking advantage of the situation that the markets handed them. The Salmon run as you call it would not have lasted as long as it did if it wasn't for R-CALF lies prolonging the border closure. So maybe we should learn something from that Econ and that is if you don't like what is happening DON"T PROLONG IT. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face. All R-CALFers bitch about is market concentration but what cause even more concentration Econ THE PROLONGED BORDER CLOSURE BECAUSE OF R-CALF'S INJUNCTION LEARN FROM THAT.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH to Rod, "Now can you back your allegation (Tyson hiding profits behind expansions) with an actual example or do you want to continue to divert, discredit, deceive, and deny like a typical blamer that can't back his position???? "

Congratulations, Rod! You graduated from being a common blamer to a diverter, discreditor, deceiver and in denial all in one week! :lol: What a student you are! You're definitely on the fast track to being a R-CALF clone! It took me a year to get where you got in a month or two! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lead and I will follow!

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Congratulations, Rod! You graduated from being a common blamer to a diverter, discreditor, deceiver and in denial all in one week! :lol:

:lol: I R quick lurner

You're definitely on the fast track to being a R-CALF clone!

Hey now, I thought we were trying to be nice to one another :lol: :wink:

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Tam your anger about the things that set up the salmon run should be re-examined. The people who profited from it at the expense of the producers should be taken into account. Why don't you do that instead of finding a scapegoat? Do you really want to look into what caused the problem or are you interested in assigning blame in the tactics? If so, the problem could be repeated.

Why don't you stick to the topics you can prove. Oh I forgot you can't prove a thing can you. If you could then maybe just maybe you would have some credibility and wouldn't have to resort to namecalling, and games to discredit people. The investigations done found no evidence against the packers. So they were taking advantage of the situation that the markets handed them. The Salmon run as you call it would not have lasted as long as it did if it wasn't for R-CALF lies prolonging the border closure. So maybe we should learn something from that Econ and that is if you don't like what is happening DON"T PROLONG IT. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face. All R-CALFers bitch about is market concentration but what cause even more concentration Econ THE PROLONGED BORDER CLOSURE BECAUSE OF R-CALF'S INJUNCTION LEARN FROM THAT.

Whatever, Tam.