Robert Mac has found someone who told him what he wants to believe so he sinks his teeth into it like a rabid dog thinking he's really got something. HAHAHA! Just like a baited hook, HERE COMES ROBERT MAC with the new "flavor of the month" conspiracy theory. LOL!
Watch closely Robert........
Rod: "So, short term, the company appears to be suffering to the stock market, NOT POTENTIAL INVESTORS since they are NOT MAKING NEW SHARE OFFERINGS. It is not uncommon for a corporation to take a brief hit to their share prices while expanding into a new market."
Absolutely ridiculous!
Your thinking is so backwards on this Rod that I can't believe that anyone would give it a second thought.
For starters, Tyson is not going to INTENTIONALLY show losses. What reason would they possibly have to show losses? Fear of criticisms coming from packer blamers??? LOL! GET REAL! I suppose you also have a conspiracy for why they would show periodic profits too huh? LOL!
THOSE SHARES CAN BE SOLD. When those shares are sold, if the company is not profitable, WHO IS GOING TO BUY THEM????
Second, Tyson's expansions have nothing to do with their profits and losses. Their profits and losses are figured as a return on their investment.
Third, expansion does not take place in periods of losses, EXPANSION TAKES PLACE IN PERIODS OF PROFITABILITY. So what if Tyson is expanding one plant, THEY ARE CLOSING TWO OTHERS.
Fourth, Tyson may invest profits from one area into another BUT THEY WILL NOT SUBSIDIZE LOSSES IN ONE AREA WITH PROFITS FROM ANOTHER. For example, if you raise wheat and cattle and you always make money on cattle but never on wheat, HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP RAISING WHEAT????
Same stupid argument.
Tyson may have invested profits from their poultry and pork sectors into the beef sector but they are not going to continue to carry losses in the beef sector.
You prove to me that their expansion will equal the capacity of the two plants they are closing then you'll have something.
Why would it be beneficial for them to show losses at some times and profits at others????
You can't explain it without some far out conspiracy theory.
Where did the money come from when Tyson initially bought ibp??? Did it come from beef profits?? Of course not because Tyson wasn't in the beef industry at the time were they? Obviously Tyson invested money in the beef industry that came from somewhere else which supports the argument that Tyson invests money into the beef industry that came from other places BUT TOTALLY DEFEATS YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THE MONEY FOR EXPANSION CAME FROM THEIR BEEF SECTOR PROFITS THAT THEY WERE NOT REVEALING.
You can't argue this both ways Rod. You can't say on one hand that Tyson is investing money from their poultry profits into their beef sector and then turn around and suggest that Tyson's beef industry expansion is coming from profits within their beef sector that they are hiding behind investments. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE CONFLICTING.
I'm sorry Rod, I know you didn't want to be categorized as a packer blamer but when you pull wild conspiracy theories out of the air like this and your arguments are conflicting, it's obvious that you are among conspiracy driven packer blamers who do not base their opinions on facts and that is the same mentality shared by guys like Tommy, OT, and Robert Mac that sink their teeth into anything that supports their bias.
Rod: " Ok, so where did the money come from? Since they are so badly bent and busted, how are they coming up with money for new overseas purchases, new trucking divisions, and new plant expansions? All this spending comes out of the profits of their divisions. Its not breaking the law to report poorer earnings due to spending."
Nobody said Tyson was never profitable but the money could have come from anywhere. Where did the money come from when Tyson originally purchase ibp???? OBVIOUSLY IT DIDN'T COME FROM THEIR BEEF SECTOR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE.
USE YOUR HEAD ROD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tyson is not "intentionally showing losses" just because they don't want to deal with the thumbsucking packer blamers that are blaming them for being profitable.
Rod: "Show me that the two plants that closed were LOSING money."
It's so obvious Rod.
1. Profitable plants do not close, THEY EXPAND.
2. Tyson has showed losses which negated the plant closures.
3. Tyson's representative stated the plants were losing money.
What do you have to prove otherwise???
NOT A DAMN THING BUT THE TYPICAL PACKER BLAMING CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
Rod: "SH, you need to learn how the stock market works. If Tyson hasn't issued NEW shares to the market, the price of their shares is IRRELEVANT! If Tyson operates on secured capital from banks, they only need to worry about large drops in their share value that can downgrade their credit rating. The share price drops from lower than expected earnings are minimal, ESPECIALLY since they can show company expansion. In other words, they take a short-term hit to their share value, but long-term it boosts the share value due to potential added earnings and added assets. This is normal business functioning, not illegal at all, but you certainly can seem to see it. Virtually every company who expands reports lower than average earnings during the expansion phases."
Once again, you are wrong from so many standpoints.
First, OLD SHARES CAN BE SOLD. Tyson does not need to offer NEW SHARES in order to have investors.
Second, the price of the shares is very relevant. What happens when the value of shares starts dropping? PEOPLE START SELLING!
Third, their expansion does not equal the plants that they are closing.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANY PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY TO INTENTIONALLY SHOW LOSSES!
Rod: "My money say you can't, because the losses in the beef division are simply amortized expenditures from company expansion. If there weren't gross profits to begin with, they could have NEVER secured the financing for the expansion, nor would the board of directors authorize them to dip into capital savings, since these funds could not be used for expansion without reporting their use to the IRS and having to be taxed on them, at least in the short-term."
Expansion does not affect the profits and losses that are reported to GIPSA as a return on their investment.
Money that is invested in expansion can come from anywhere. Expansion is not proof of profits in the beef industry. Tyson could own oil stocks or any other source of income and invest it in beef company expansion.
Your argument is absolutely ridiculous Rod.
In this situation, Tyson's expansion was not equal to the two plants that closed down.
RM: "This packer reported profit figure is the biggest lie that you try to perpetuate on us."
You're the liar for calling it a lie. Where is your proof to the contrary? Where is your proof to prove Agman's statistic incorrect? Where is your proof to disprove IBP'S SUBPOENOED PROFIT INFORMATION IN PICKETT???
You just don't want to believe it like most other whiny packer blamers.
Tyson can be closing plants, Future Beef can go broke, USPB can report their patronage divivends, Tyson can report their profits and losses and none of it matters to you BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT PACKER BLAMERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
What do you have to prove otherwise?
NOT A DAMN THING!
Robert Mac: "Rod did a great job of showing that there are profits over direct cost, profits over direct cost plus fixed(overhead) cost, profits over direct cost plus fixed cost plus reinvestment cost(some legally tax deductible). Those of us that have been in business for any length of time and worked with accountants know this. Tyson has accountants to tract their cash flow to maximize asset utilization and minimize taxable income. That's where the $3.88/head profit figure comes from."
BULLCRAP!
You don't have a clue where the $3.88 per head came from. It's not what you want to believe so you sink your teeth into the first explanation that comes along THAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
Packer profitability or losses is reported to GIPSA as a return on their investment.
Only a complete fool would believe that Tyson would have any reason to show losses TO POTENTIAL INVESTORS.
This just proves to me how brainwashed you guys really are. It's almost hard to believe at some times because you can't even reason it out.
Your own examples don't tell you a thing about how profitable packers are or whether they are sustaining losses. You don't know what they are paying for cattle, you don't know what they are getting for beef and beef by products, and you don't know what their processing costs are. In short, you don't know a damn thing about their profits or losses.
You keep using the argument, HOW DO THEY REGAIN THE SURPLUS, BY REDUCING THEIR INPUT COSTS.
How does Tyson reduce their input costs if the supply of available cattle is less than the total slaughter capacity available AND EXCEL, SWIFT, AND USPB ARE PAYING MORE?????
That's what you guys can't get through your thick packer blaming skulls. Tyson is "A MARKET", Tyson is not "THE MARKET". Tyson can lower the price they are willing to pay all they want but if Excel and Swift pay more, WHO'S GOING TO SELL TO TYSON IF THEY SELL AT ALL????
I can't believe I find myself three years later still addressing the same baseless conspiracy theories.
You guys got nothing here, just like usual.
~SH~
