If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Reply to thread

Message

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~

<blockquote data-quote="Anonymous" data-source="post: 85641">Your &quot;shareholder reports&quot; also reported operating margins.&nbsp; Operating margins before interest and taxes is what is reported to GIPSA.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; We both know how it went down.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; You exposed your ignorance of the retail beef industry like most packer blamers do then you come up with some cheesy excuse about &quot;gross profit&quot; 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.&nbsp; You think because I didn&#039;t mention enough deductions to come up with with a profit that was closed to $20 or less, THAT IT DOESN&#039;T EXIST????Typical illusion.&nbsp; Perhaps that should convince you to invest in the retail beef industry.&nbsp; Put your money where your mouth is.&nbsp;You sound like Conman now.&nbsp; When you can&#039;t back your position, create the &quot;ILLUSION&quot; that you can. This just proves to me without a doubt how lost you really are.&nbsp; The smaller less efficient packer needs a $40 per head margin to remain in business because they can&#039;t compete with the larger packing companies that keep their doors open at a $17 per head margin.&nbsp; 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???&nbsp; THE CONSUMER OR THE PRODUCER????&nbsp; The packers would be &quot;FORCED TO ATTEMPT&quot;????&nbsp; How do you &quot;FORCE TO ATTEMPT&quot; 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.&nbsp; Naturally, producers will sell to the highest bidder.&nbsp; So much for the little guy.Future Beef tried to do exactly what you described.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;OMAHA STEAKS&quot; delivered to your door.&nbsp; Then consumers will pay enough more to compensate for the differences in slaughtering costs due to the added value of the product.&nbsp; Then and only then can smaller less efficient companies compete with larger more efficient companies.Harris Ranches is another prime example.&nbsp; Harris owns the restraunts that sell their beef so they too can sacrifice efficiency for added value somehow. I&#039;m simply amazed at this mentality that &quot;CONCENTRATION&quot; is somehow unique to the cattle industry.&nbsp; All around you there is ranchers and businesses getting bigger to compete while you cuss concentration in the packing industry.&nbsp; Typical blamer who can&#039;t see the forrest for the trees.~SH~</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Anonymous, post: 85641"] 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~ [/QUOTE]

Verification: What animal is usually the product of a ranch?