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

More proof of "alleged" market manipulation.......

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
A feeder from Iowa had 2000 steers to purchase for his feedlot to be delivered in November of 2005. 10 pens of 200 head. He knew what his expenses were, he knew what his corn was worth, and he knew what he could pay to lock in a small profit on part of his fat cattle for May delivery. He was concerned about what the price of feeder cattle might be that fall in the sale barns.

One day in September, he started crunching the numbers and he happened to be watching the Superior Livestock Auction at the same time. He liked the type of cattle that were being sold so he got on the phone and he ended up buying 10 triple axle pot loads of black steers weighing in at 575 pounds for November delivery from Superior Livestock sales. He got those steers bought for $2/cwt higher than what he was wanting to buy them but he felt he could save some money on trucking to offset some of the difference in price because these calves weren't very far away. He also felt that if he could just get part of his needs met now through Superior Livestock, he would have that many less cattle to buy in the barns this fall and he could adjust his price on the balance of his needs.

That fall in the salebarn, he put out a number of orders to different buyers to buy the same type of calves for $3 - $4 per cwt less than he paid for his video calves. The futures market and corn price had changed very little since his September video purchase. He finally got the last 1000 head bought and they averaged $3.00 /cwt less than the video calves did.

Since his sale barn cash price was lower than his forward contract video sale price, is that market manipulation?

As his video calf supply price went up, the cash market price in the sale barn that he was willing to pay went down.

The video sale producers benefitted at the expense of the sale barn producers.

Could this be grounds for a video auction blamer's lawsuit?

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE PACKER DROPPING HIS PRICE IN THE CASH MARKET TO REFLECT HIS PURCHASES IN THE FORMULA MARKET?????


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
SH, not being familiar with Superior Livestock Auction, was it an open bid? If so, it uses the exact same pricing mechanism as a sale barn, and as such, wouldn't skew market prices. In effect, it was operating as a sale barn.

The cash market basis formula on the other hand creates an artificial price suppression.

What was that term you used in the other thread? Apples and Watermelons? Thats what we done got ourselves here :)

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Your "open bid" argument is a "red herring". The issue here is clearly how purchasing cattle by one method of procurement affects another method of procurement. That is the issue and from that standpoint, there is no difference. It's the exact same thing. The packer blamers simply want to set a standard for the packing industry that they are unwilling to live by themselves.


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Its not a red herring, because the open bid price in one of those markets wasn't based on the bidding price of the other. In effect, you had two sale barns operating, nothing more.

Rod
 

Angus Breeder

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
SH, Everything does not have to be a conspiracy. Superior is an open market, anyone who want's to participate can. If buyers want to reward produces for the program more power to them. If a breeder was sending the same group of calves to the barn and selling for $3 less than on video, said breeder should be more proactive and look at the video or look at a straight sale off the farm.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Angus Breeder, you just made the point SH was showing. The video was a forward contract. The cash sale day was lower. There was no manipulation or any conspiracy, just different prices.

This is the exact same scenario packer blamers say occurs so Tyson and others can screw the producer.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
A feeder from Iowa had 2000 steers to purchase for his feedlot to be delivered in November of 2005. 10 pens of 200 head. He knew what his expenses were, he knew what his corn was worth, and he knew what he could pay to lock in a small profit on part of his fat cattle for May delivery. He was concerned about what the price of feeder cattle might be that fall in the sale barns.

One day in September, he started crunching the numbers and he happened to be watching the Superior Livestock Auction at the same time. He liked the type of cattle that were being sold so he got on the phone and he ended up buying 10 triple axle pot loads of black steers weighing in at 575 pounds for November delivery from Superior Livestock sales. He got those steers bought for $2/cwt higher than what he was wanting to buy them but he felt he could save some money on trucking to offset some of the difference in price because these calves weren't very far away. He also felt that if he could just get part of his needs met now through Superior Livestock, he would have that many less cattle to buy in the barns this fall and he could adjust his price on the balance of his needs.

That fall in the salebarn, he put out a number of orders to different buyers to buy the same type of calves for $3 - $4 per cwt less than he paid for his video calves. The futures market and corn price had changed very little since his September video purchase. He finally got the last 1000 head bought and they averaged $3.00 /cwt less than the video calves did.

Since his sale barn cash price was lower than his forward contract video sale price, is that market manipulation?

As his video calf supply price went up, the cash market price in the sale barn that he was willing to pay went down.

The video sale producers benefitted at the expense of the sale barn producers.

Could this be grounds for a video auction blamer's lawsuit?

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE PACKER DROPPING HIS PRICE IN THE CASH MARKET TO REFLECT HIS PURCHASES IN THE FORMULA MARKET?????


~SH~

SH, buyers should be expected to continue to try to get the "best deal". There are always transaction costs and movement ranges in that range are normal market phenomena. What would be abnormal is for a buyer to be able to get a better deal in one marketing arrangement and then to not use that marketing arrangement because, not because it was a better deal, but because it affected a him strategically. One perfect example is the packer avoiding the cash market so he can depress it and get a lower forumula price next week because the formula base price was not based off of the whole market but just on the cash market.

I have to admit I did not read your whole post. I have been skipping over a lot of the garbage you write so I don't waste as much time. My kids sometimes want to use the computer. They are telling me my time is up now for that reason.

They like this neopets internet thing. It fits in your education level, SH. Maybe you should try it. I don't have time.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Jason said:
Angus Breeder, you just made the point SH was showing. The video was a forward contract. The cash sale day was lower. There was no manipulation or any conspiracy, just different prices.

This is the exact same scenario packer blamers say occurs so Tyson and others can screw the producer.

You're missing the obvious, Jason. In SH's scenario, there are two different entities; one offering cash prices and one a contracted price. With Pickett, Tyson was the only entity.

Also, neither of SH's examples have the size to turn the market. When you control 1/3 of a market, you can't help but move it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "One perfect example is the packer avoiding the cash market so he can depress it and get a lower forumula price next week because the formula base price was not based off of the whole market but just on the cash market."

Yet again, you reveal your ignorance to the world. Packers can't avoid the cash market because THEY NEED CATTLE. They aren't going to get formula cattle next week UNLESS THEY HAVE WILLING SELLERS.

You don't know anything do you?

That was another of Callicrate's phony arguments that was ate alive by actual procurement records.

I have no idea why you think you are even remotely qualified to have a discussion on cattle markets. Nobody has been corrected more times and caught lying on this site more times than you have.


Conman: "I have to admit I did not read your whole post."

Then why would you even bother to respond you idiot?


Conman: "I have to admit I did not read your whole post. I have been skipping over a lot of the garbage you write so I don't waste as much time."

Yeh, yeh, more cheap talk from the lying phony!

You haven't corrected a single statement I have made since you graced this forum with your pathetic lies and deception. All you have is cheap talk which is representative of the phony you are.


Sandbag: "You're missing the obvious, Jason. In SH's scenario, there are two different entities; one offering cash prices and one a contracted price. With Pickett, Tyson was the only entity."

What a classic spin job!

What's at issue here is two seperate markets, not two seperate entities. With Pickett, every feeder had Swift and Excel to sell to as alternatives to Tyson with multiple marketing options with each of those packers.

You can't spin out of this Sandbag. If dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is market manipulation, then dropping your price at the sale barn to reflect the cattle you purchased on the video is market manipulation as well. IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING but master illusionists like you will try to claim a difference that's why it took the courts to set things straight and they did.


Sandbag: "Also, neither of SH's examples have the size to turn the market. When you control 1/3 of a market, you can't help but move it."

Yet another unsupported allegation.

You guys got nothing again!



Angus Breeder: "SH, Everything does not have to be a conspiracy."

I agree! Tell that to the packer blamers that think when ibp drops their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market that it's market manipulation. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in their arguments.


Angus Breeder: "Superior is an open market, anyone who want's to participate can. If buyers want to reward produces for the program more power to them. "

Agreed!


Angus Breeder: "If a breeder was sending the same group of calves to the barn and selling for $3 less than on video, said breeder should be more proactive and look at the video or look at a straight sale off the farm."

I agree totally!

You missed the point. The point is if the packer blamers are going to consider ibp dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market as market manipulation, the same principle would have to apply to someone who drops their price in the sale barn due to purchases they made at Superior Livestock.

To clarify my position, NEITHER IS MARKET MANIPULATION. Both are part of free market system.

These packer blamers want to regulate how feeders can sell cattle based on their phony market manipulation conspiracies that they can't prove in a court of law.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Quote:
Sandbag: "Also, neither of SH's examples have the size to turn the market. When you control 1/3 of a market, you can't help but move it."


SH, "Yet another unsupported allegation. You guys got nothing again!"

In order to understand that, you would need a little common sense. Go someplace else, SH.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You need to go someplace else Sandbag.

You blamers should start a blamers website where you can tell eachother how bad you have it. POOR YOU!


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Angus breeder: "SH, I misunderstood. We are in total agreement!"

Great!

Do whatever you can to keep the packer blamers from allowing the federal government to determine who can own cattle and how those cattle can be marketed as compared to the free enterprise sytem.

FWIW, I think Superior Livestock does an awesome job of marketing cattle but I know some guys haven't felt like the cattle that walked out of the truck were representative of the cattle they saw on their TV screen.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "One perfect example is the packer avoiding the cash market so he can depress it and get a lower forumula price next week because the formula base price was not based off of the whole market but just on the cash market."

Yet again, you reveal your ignorance to the world. Packers can't avoid the cash market because THEY NEED CATTLE. They aren't going to get formula cattle next week UNLESS THEY HAVE WILLING SELLERS.

You don't know anything do you?

That was another of Callicrate's phony arguments that was ate alive by actual procurement records.

I have no idea why you think you are even remotely qualified to have a discussion on cattle markets. Nobody has been corrected more times and caught lying on this site more times than you have.


Conman: "I have to admit I did not read your whole post."

Then why would you even bother to respond you idiot?


Conman: "I have to admit I did not read your whole post. I have been skipping over a lot of the garbage you write so I don't waste as much time."

Yeh, yeh, more cheap talk from the lying phony!

You haven't corrected a single statement I have made since you graced this forum with your pathetic lies and deception. All you have is cheap talk which is representative of the phony you are.


Sandbag: "You're missing the obvious, Jason. In SH's scenario, there are two different entities; one offering cash prices and one a contracted price. With Pickett, Tyson was the only entity."

What a classic spin job!

What's at issue here is two seperate markets, not two seperate entities. With Pickett, every feeder had Swift and Excel to sell to as alternatives to Tyson with multiple marketing options with each of those packers.

You can't spin out of this Sandbag. If dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is market manipulation, then dropping your price at the sale barn to reflect the cattle you purchased on the video is market manipulation as well. IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING but master illusionists like you will try to claim a difference that's why it took the courts to set things straight and they did.


Sandbag: "Also, neither of SH's examples have the size to turn the market. When you control 1/3 of a market, you can't help but move it."

Yet another unsupported allegation.

You guys got nothing again!



Angus Breeder: "SH, Everything does not have to be a conspiracy."

I agree! Tell that to the packer blamers that think when ibp drops their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market that it's market manipulation. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy in their arguments.


Angus Breeder: "Superior is an open market, anyone who want's to participate can. If buyers want to reward produces for the program more power to them. "

Agreed!


Angus Breeder: "If a breeder was sending the same group of calves to the barn and selling for $3 less than on video, said breeder should be more proactive and look at the video or look at a straight sale off the farm."

I agree totally!

You missed the point. The point is if the packer blamers are going to consider ibp dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market as market manipulation, the same principle would have to apply to someone who drops their price in the sale barn due to purchases they made at Superior Livestock.

To clarify my position, NEITHER IS MARKET MANIPULATION. Both are part of free market system.

These packer blamers want to regulate how feeders can sell cattle based on their phony market manipulation conspiracies that they can't prove in a court of law.


~SH~

SH, Where was a lie? Post it. Keep it in its original context. You sit there and claim I lied, Mike C. committed perjury, and you have no facts to back up what you say. Is everyone that disagrees with you a liar? You obviously have "the big head".
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Quote:
Angus Breeder: "If a breeder was sending the same group of calves to the barn and selling for $3 less than on video, said breeder should be more proactive and look at the video or look at a straight sale off the farm."


I agree totally!

You missed the point. The point is if the packer blamers are going to consider ibp dropping their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market as market manipulation, the same principle would have to apply to someone who drops their price in the sale barn due to purchases they made at Superior Livestock.

To clarify my position, NEITHER IS MARKET MANIPULATION. Both are part of free market system.

These packer blamers want to regulate how feeders can sell cattle based on their phony market manipulation conspiracies that they can't prove in a court of law.


~SH~

I would not have a problem with this argument if the cash price was the only price or did not set the price in for the next week's formula price.

That is where the market manipulation took place.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "SH, Where was a lie? Post it. Keep it in its original context. You sit there and claim I lied, Mike C. committed perjury, and you have no facts to back up what you say. Is everyone that disagrees with you a liar? You obviously have "the big head"."

You have to be the most arrogant person alive. You're worse then Saddam Husein. You lie continually then pretend like you didn't.

Your latest lie is that you seldom read my garbage anymore yet here you are responding to every post I make showing again what a liar you are.


Mike Callicrate lied under oath. The definition of perjury is lying under oath. That is exactly what Callicrate did.


Conman: "I would not have a problem with this argument if the cash price was the only price or did not set the price in for the next week's formula price."

Who cares what you do or don't have a problem with. Your opinion is irrelevant because you don't know anything about the cattle markets.


Conman: "That is where the market manipulation took place."

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Sh, "Mike Callicrate lied under oath. The definition of perjury is lying under oath. That is exactly what Callicrate did. "

If he lied, that would be perjury. When did he get wrung up for perjury? Bring some proof, not your biased opinion.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Conman: "SH, Where was a lie? Post it. Keep it in its original context. You sit there and claim I lied, Mike C. committed perjury, and you have no facts to back up what you say. Is everyone that disagrees with you a liar? You obviously have "the big head"."

You have to be the most arrogant person alive. You're worse then Saddam Husein. You lie continually then pretend like you didn't.

1. Your latest lie is that you seldom read my garbage anymore yet here you are responding to every post I make showing again what a liar you are.


2. Mike Callicrate lied under oath. The definition of perjury is lying under oath. That is exactly what Callicrate did.


Conman: "I would not have a problem with this argument if the cash price was the only price or did not set the price in for the next week's formula price."

3. Who cares what you do or don't have a problem with. Your opinion is irrelevant because you don't know anything about the cattle markets.


Conman: "That is where the market manipulation took place."

4. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not market manipulation.



~SH~

1. I don't have to read half of your posts to be able to respond. If they contained an intelligent series of thoughts this might not be the case. Just skimming them over suffices for me. You did not prove that I lied about this. You only proved how little intelligence your posts contain and how easy it is to refute them.

2. There was not even a case brought against him for perjury, let alone a conviction. That was because there was not enough evidence to make the case. Funny how you convict people with no trial and a jury verdict carries no weight with you.

3. You are really funny, SH. I have shown the holes in your little arguments time and again, and yet you keep repeating the same mistakes.

4. The jury disagreed with you. Takes a little time to educate some people, but it is being done. I don't think your operation will ever be successful.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Perjury, by definition: The wilful and voluntary giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or eveidence in regard to a matter or thing material to the issue or point of inquiry in a legal document or while under oath in a judicial proceeding.

Perjured, a definition: 1. Guilty of perjury; having sworn falsely.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "If he lied, that would be perjury. When did he get wrung up for perjury? Bring some proof, not your biased opinion."

How many times do we have to go over the same thing? Callicrate was not wrung up on perjury charges, Judge Strom simply instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue.

Callicrate has also lied about ibp "stepping out of the cash market for 8 weeks". They guy can't tell the truth and you defend him because he sings your packer blaming song.


Conman: " 1. I don't have to read half of your posts to be able to respond. If they contained an intelligent series of thoughts this might not be the case. Just skimming them over suffices for me. You did not prove that I lied about this. You only proved how little intelligence your posts contain and how easy it is to refute them."

So now we are backpeddling from not reading my garbage to reading half my posts and skimming. Hahaha! A liar like you can't keep your stories straight.

When are you going to bring the proof of these "back door meetings"? That was another lie.

You've never refuted anything I have ever stated with facts to the contrary. All you can do is spin it like assuming that Callicrate didn't committ perjury simply because he was not brought up on charges. Typical of your slimey slithering ways.


Conman: "I have shown the holes in your little arguments time and again, and yet you keep repeating the same mistakes."

No, you've attempted to find holes in my arguments but you never can. All you can do is make some deceptive feeble attempt to discredit my statements. Not once have you ever refuted anything I have stated with opposing facts. You're simply too "factually void". A total loser!


Conman: "4. The jury disagreed with you."

The judge, the 11th circuit court, and the final verdict disagreed with you and that's what matters.


NEXT!


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top