A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "It's not a simple as you're trying to make it out to be."
Another unsupported statement!
If it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it, explain how it is more complex or divert because you can't.
~SH~
Sandman: "It's not a simple as you're trying to make it out to be."
~SH~ said:Sandman: "It's not a simple as you're trying to make it out to be."
Another unsupported statement!
If it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it, explain how it is more complex or divert because you can't.
~SH~
They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices.
Jason said:They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices.
So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?
Sandman: "They're not just lowering prices as they fill their book. They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices. I don't expect you to get it because you don't want to. My reply was for the benefit of others."
Jason: "So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?"
Kindergarten (in response): "They try. It depends on their supply of captive cattle controlled. This is where transparency is important and missing all too often. This involves inventory levels, captive supply levels, boxed beef big sales, etc.... Many of these factors are totally controlled and known only by the packers. No public info."
~SH~ said:Sandman: "They're not just lowering prices as they fill their book. They are using last week's contracts to put a lid on this week's prices. I don't expect you to get it because you don't want to. My reply was for the benefit of others."
HOW THE HELL CAN THEY PUT A LID ON PRICES IF THEY ARE GOING TO GET ANY CATTLE BOUGHT AGAINST THEIR COMPETITION?????
You can't explain that nor can you answer Jason's question regarding rising markets. You guys just keep throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what will stick. Your reply is for the benefit of yourself because you are the only one who thinks it makes sense.
Jason: "So what happens when this week's price is higher than last week's? Why didn't they use last week's price to keep a lid on this week's?"
Kindergarten (in response): "They try. It depends on their supply of captive cattle controlled. This is where transparency is important and missing all too often. This involves inventory levels, captive supply levels, boxed beef big sales, etc.... Many of these factors are totally controlled and known only by the packers. No public info."
THEY TRY????? You are so full of it! Again you don't know what you are talking about. Captive supply levels are reported to GIPSA. Boxed beef prices are reported by USDA. Live cattle prices are reported by USDA. This industry could not be any more transparent.
The captive supply level remains stable as supply and demand factors raise and lower boxed beef prices which in turn raises and lowers live cattle prices.
You don't have an explanation for the times when the cash price is higher than the "non negotiated" formula price. Nothing changes about the level of captive supply.
You absolutely don't have a clue what you are talking about.
~SH~
You don't have an explanation for the times when the cash price is higher than the "non negotiated" formula price. Nothing changes about the level of captive supply.
Kindergarten: "SH, the crux of the case came down to whether or not the packers were discrimnating against the cash market."
Kindergarten: "The packers conveniently declined to produce the pricing structure of the captive supply when questioned by the plaintiffs so that it could be compared to the cash market purchases. Mike posted that info on Ranchers.net and it was not disputed."
Kindergarten: "The captive supply numbers/ inventory show exactly how much buying power the packers have at a given time. If the captive supply is biased so much that the packers have over the amount needed to operate the plant for a given amount of time, it totally blows your "if they reduce prices paid in the cash market as needs are met it is not manipulation" B.S."
Kindergarten: "There are a lot of different games and circumstances that you have no knowledge about regarding the strategies of manipulation that can be employed with these tools."
Elementary economics: "Sorry you don't agree SH, but discriminating against the cash market in favor of the formula cattle for the similar product IS market manipulation."
Elemenatary economics: "Appellate court proved they did not know economics the law was based on and so have you."
Elementary economics: "Why don't you get Agman to answer the RPA questions on the other thread? What is the problem, you two don't know enough about economics? The PSA is an ECONOMIC LAW."
If dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being filled in the "non-negotiated" formula market was truly market manipulation it would have consequences in every segment of this industry. An order buyer dropping his price in the sale barn because most of his needs were met on the video auction would also be considered market manipulation.
Elementary economics: "If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market."
Elementary economics: "Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period."
~SH~ said:Elementary economics: "If Tyson is getting cattle at a higher price in the formula captive supplies instead of what they could get in the cash market for the same quality, then they are discriminating against the cash market."
QUALITY IN THE CASH MARKET IS NOT DETERMINED UNTIL THE HIDE COMES OFF. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT!!!!!
THE FORMULA MARKET IS A WEEK APART FROM THE CASH MARKET SO THE TWO PRICES WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME.
ALL FEEDERS HAVE OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS WHICH TOTALLY DEFEATS THE MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORY.
You are flag wrong about this, PERIOD!
Elementary economics: "Since next week's captive supply is based off of that number then they are manipulating the markets. Period."
You are wrong, PERIOD!
~SH~
Elementary: "What was the other market option that Mike C. had? Was it the same as the other market options in value?"
Elementary: "Hide behind the hide in the quality considerations. From what I hear, that was well addressed at trial, was it not? Your excuse didn't fly with the jury. There was no evidence to the contrary presented at the trial or if there was, the jury did not buy it."
Elementary: "If the cash and formula were a week apart, and you have already conceded that the cattle from that week apart could have been killed at the same time, were they really a week apart?"
Elementary: "The mechanisms of the feed industry were not the problem until they were abused."
~SH~ said:Elementary: "The mechanisms of the feed industry were not the problem until they were abused."
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THERE EVER WAS A PROBLEM. ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR UNSUPPORTED "OPINIONS" AND "THEORIES".
You are factually void to support this view.
These pricing mechanisms are still not a problem because they weren't abused.
Why are more producers concerned about it than feeders who actually deal with these pricing mechanisms?
~SH~
~SH~ said:Diverticuli!
Why are more producers concerned about feeder pricing mechanisms than the feeders who use them?
Answer the question.
~SH~
Kindergarten: "Because when feeders get paid less, cattlemen who sell to them get less. Don't you use your own reasoning?"