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

Pig Wrestling, part 2

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I said this to you, SH "My reply; 12 jurors voted unamiously. Judge Strom even made the comment that "proof was provided"."

Your reply, "DIVERSION! No proof is provided to prove market manipulation. Judge Strom's reference to "proof was provided" was proof that ibp lowered their prices, not proof of a PSA violation or market manipulation or he would not have ruled in favor of the defense. Quit being deceptive again.


Following is Judge Strom's quote. Let's examine it to see if Strom was alluding that the proof was only that IBP lowered their prices;

Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

So IBP simply lowered their prices as their needs were met? The marketing agreements had nothing to do with it? Judge Strom's direct quote doesn't support your claim, SH.

You're telling ME to quit being deceptive? :roll: :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

So IBP simply lowered their prices as their needs were met? The marketing agreements had nothing to do with it? Judge Strom's direct quote doesn't support your claim, SH.

You're telling ME to quit being deceptive? :roll: :lol:

I wish I had the time to go through some of the posts from last week. Even SH himself said that the marketing agreements would result in lower cash prices. Last week was it?

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hahaha!

Another empty tree!


Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."


Yeh, so what point do you think you have this time????

IBP lowered their prices in the cash market as their needs were supplied by the formula market which resulted in lower cash prices.

That is not market manipulation OR THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE WON THEIR CASE.

Dropping your bids in the cash market due to your purchases in the formula market is a normal supply and demand reaction. No different than an order buyer in the salebarn dropping the price he's willing to pay for cattle after most of his orders are filled. SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

Judge Strom's ruling stated that there was no proof of a PSA violation and no proof of market manipulation. That ruling was upheld by the 11th circuit.

YOU GOT NOTHING HERE AUSTIN, AS USUAL!


~SH~
 

Mike

Well-known member
Strom:and the market as a whole.


SH:IBP lowered their prices in the cash market as their needs were supplied by the formula market which resulted in lower cash prices.

You failed to address one big part of the statement by Strom.


"AND THE MARKET AS A WHOLE"
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Another empty tree! Yeh, so what point do you think you have this time????"

My point is that your comment, 'Judge Strom's reference to "proof was provided" was proof that ibp lowered their prices" is a complete line of crap. Were you intending to deceive?

I'm still waiting for that apology. I'm beginning to think you're not man enough.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandman: "My point is that your comment, 'Judge Strom's reference to "proof was provided" was proof that ibp lowered their prices" is a complete line of crap."

Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

If Judge's Strom's "proof was provided" was not in reference to "lower prices paid", then what was it???

PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION????

IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE WON THEIR CASE YOU IDIOT!


Mike,

I would love to hear the proof that ibp lowering their bids in the cash market, could lower the market "AS A WHOLE". I would love to hear what that proof was.

If you honestly believe that is possible, then explain to me why the market would ever raise? Using that stupid logic, ibp could lower their bids on any given day at any given time and the market would follow.

In order to buy into such ridiculous logic, you would have to believe that ibp/Tyson has periods of generousity BECAUSE YOU SURE AS HELL CAN'T DENY THE FACT THAT MARKETS RISE AND FALL......or can you?????

You guys will carry on about absolutely nothing!

YOU LOST, GET OVER IT!!!!!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandman: "My point is that your comment, 'Judge Strom's reference to "proof was provided" was proof that ibp lowered their prices" is a complete line of crap."


Quote:
Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."


SH, "If Judge's Strom's "proof was provided" was not in reference to "lower prices paid", then what was it??? PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION???? IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE WON THEIR CASE YOU IDIOT!"

There's quite a difference in your tale that Strom meant Tyson simply lowered prices to Strom's actual statement that the use of marketing agreements are what resulted in lower prices. If you're trying to pull a fast on, you need to be faster around here.

Now you're dummying up again. Have you forgotten the added requirement that Pickett had to show no legitimate use for contracts? You remember that don't you? You should, you've posted on it many times. The robee had to prove the robber never used the weapon that was used in the crime for a legitimate purpose. Remember, armed robbery is not a crime if you use a hunting rifle?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "There's quite a difference in your tale that Strom meant Tyson simply lowered prices to Strom's actual statement that the use of marketing agreements are what resulted in lower prices."

Yet another lie!

How many times have I said Tyson lowered their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is a normal supply and demand market reaction????

THAT IS THE USE OF MARKETING AGREEMENTS LOWERING CASH PRICES YOU IDIOT!

There's no damn difference.


~SH~



I
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "There's quite a difference in your tale that Strom meant Tyson simply lowered prices to Strom's actual statement that the use of marketing agreements are what resulted in lower prices."

Yet another lie!

How many times have I said Tyson lowered their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is a normal supply and demand market reaction????

THAT IS THE USE OF MARKETING AGREEMENTS LOWERING CASH PRICES YOU IDIOT!

There's no damn difference.


~SH~



I

The allegation, and the thing the jury believed, is that the marketing agreements thinned the markets and then Tyson discriminated against the cash market (being thinned it was easier to manipulate--if it were not thinned, you would have a point here, SH), to depress the price setting cash market. The discrimination against the cash market resulted in the market as a whole being depressed because of this discrimination.

The fact that marketing agreements thinned the market made all the difference, SH. I am sorry you are not smart enough to see that.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "How many times have I said Tyson lowered their bids in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market which is a normal supply and demand market reaction???? "

In a competitive market which you say exists, Tyson could not lower their prices and get any cattle bought. You tell us that Tyson is not the market, just a part of the market. Strange how we can prove you wrong with your own previous comments so often. You need to make a list of things you've said so you can check for contradictions before you post.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "In a competitive market which you say exists, Tyson could not lower their prices and get any cattle bought. You tell us that Tyson is not the market, just a part of the market. Strange how we can prove you wrong with your own previous comments so often. You need to make a list of things you've said so you can check for contradictions before you post."

"WE" can prove me wrong??? Hahaha! You and your forum wife, Conman? LOL!

With what? MORE ILLUSIONS??

Then you woke up!

We've already been through this and your still too dense to understand it. Tyson had most of their needs bought in the formula market that is why they were able to lower their bids in the cash market. A normal supply and demand market reaction.

In the case of lowered boxed beef prices, if Tyson, Excel, and Swift had none of their needs met in either the cash market or the formula market, they would still drop their price in the cash market to reflect the price of lowered boxed beef and still get cattle bought. There is always willing sellers believing the price will go lower.

How else can you explain the fact that cattle many times are sold for lower prices one week than the previous week? Is lower prices always market manipulation??? Once again, the obvious is simply too obvious for a packer blamer.

As Herman stated in Aberdeen (paraphrasing), "there is no greater factor that affects live cattle prices than boxed beef prices". He finally said something truthful.

Explain how it is anti competitive to drop your prices in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market or how it is market manipulation to drop your prices in the cash market to reflect lower boxed beef prices??? You won't because you can't! Logic doesn't enter the picture for you.

You packer blamers keep spinning smaller and smaller circles until you finally vanish or in your case, make desperate statements that only sound good to you and your forum wife, Conman.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "The allegation, and the thing the jury believed, is that the marketing agreements thinned the markets and then Tyson discriminated against the cash market (being thinned it was easier to manipulate--if it were not thinned, you would have a point here, SH), to depress the price setting cash market. The discrimination against the cash market resulted in the market as a whole being depressed because of this discrimination."

So buying part of the available cattle in the formula market thins the available cattle in the cash market and Tyson drops their bids in the cash market due to having their needs met in the formula market.

THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tell that to the order buyer in the sale barn who drops his price due to his previous purchases which also thinned the market.

You packer blamers are so desperate at this point that you have to call normal supply and demand market reactions "market manipulation".

What a bunch of fools and you wonder why the packer blamers lost their case???



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "The allegation, and the thing the jury believed, is that the marketing agreements thinned the markets and then Tyson discriminated against the cash market (being thinned it was easier to manipulate--if it were not thinned, you would have a point here, SH), to depress the price setting cash market. The discrimination against the cash market resulted in the market as a whole being depressed because of this discrimination."

So buying part of the available cattle in the formula market thins the available cattle in the cash market and Tyson drops their bids in the cash market due to having their needs met in the formula market.

THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED MARKET MANIPULATION????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tell that to the order buyer in the sale barn who drops his price due to his previous purchases which also thinned the market.

You packer blamers are so desperate at this point that you have to call normal supply and demand market reactions "market manipulation".

What a bunch of fools and you wonder why the packer blamers lost their case???



~SH~

The problem is that they discriminated against the cash market for the same quality/yield animal, SH. The formula market was one that could not exert upwards price pressure. It could only keep price the same or if thinning the cash market enough, depress the cash market. The next week's calculation for the formula price was then depressed by that amount.

When you have purchases being made for strategic reasons and cattlemen forced into either selling into either the formula, which could give supply to packers, but not affect next week's price offered except downward, there is market manipulation.

The calculation of damages is the difference between what the total supply/price is compared to what was offered in the formula calculated individually for the same time period and then added for long term periods. Anomolies in the data are thus factored out as anomolies and have no relevance as they are still part of the average. All of the factors of changes in "demand" are thus factored out due to the time periods in question. There is no time period difference for the same time period. Judge Strom needs a "Daubert" test to see if he understands the math before allowing him to pass judgement on Dr. Taylor. He erred.

It is the same mathematical mechanics of fraud they use in the poultry business.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
So buying part of the available cattle in the formula market thins the available cattle in the cash market and Tyson drops their bids in the cash market due to having their needs met in the formula market.

Whether its manipulation or not, its still bad news for the overall market as it provides a downward price pressure because next weeks contracts are based on this weeks cash price which has been depressed by contracts.

Rod
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Sandbag: "In a competitive market which you say exists, Tyson could not lower their prices and get any cattle bought. You tell us that Tyson is not the market, just a part of the market. Strange how we can prove you wrong with your own previous comments so often. You need to make a list of things you've said so you can check for contradictions before you post."


SH, ""WE" can prove me wrong??? Hahaha! You and your forum wife, Conman? LOL! With what? MORE ILLUSIONS?? Then you woke up! We've already been through this and your still too dense to understand it. Tyson had most of their needs bought in the formula market that is why they were able to lower their bids in the cash market. A normal supply and demand market reaction."

You didn't address my comment. Explain to us how, in the competitive market you claim exists, Tyson is able to lower their prices and still fill the remainder of their needs with their competition still needing cattle. Remember you told us "Tyson isn't the market, they're part of the market".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "The problem is that they discriminated against the cash market for the same quality/yield animal, SH."

The formula cattle were not the same quality/yield animal.

Another lie!


Conman: "The formula market was one that could not exert upwards price pressure. It could only keep price the same or if thinning the cash market enough, depress the cash market. The next week's calculation for the formula price was then depressed by that amount."

How do you explain this in light of the fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula cattle delivered in the same week.

ANOTHER LIE CORRECTED!


Conman: "When you have purchases being made for strategic reasons and cattlemen forced into either selling into either the formula, which could give supply to packers, but not affect next week's price offered except downward, there is market manipulation."

ANOTHER LIE!

Every feeder has the option to sell on many pricing mechanisms with many packers. NOBODY IS FORCED TO SELL TO ANYONE, PERIOD!


Conman: "The calculation of damages is the difference between what the total supply/price is compared to what was offered in the formula calculated individually for the same time period and then added for long term periods. Anomolies in the data are thus factored out as anomolies and have no relevance as they are still part of the average. All of the factors of changes in "demand" are thus factored out due to the time periods in question. There is no time period difference for the same time period. Judge Strom needs a "Daubert" test to see if he understands the math before allowing him to pass judgement on Dr. Taylor. He erred"

Hahaha! What a bunch of bullsh*t!

You, the compulsive liar, thinks he knows more about the legal aspects of this case than Strom, the 11th circuit, and the Supreme Court. Your arrogance knows no bounds.


Rod: "Whether its manipulation or not, its still bad news for the overall market as it provides a downward price pressure because next weeks contracts are based on this weeks cash price which has been depressed by contracts."

Then how do you explain the fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the price paid for the formula cattle that are delivered in the same week???

Speaking from experience, I have sold cash cattle and I have sold formula cattle. I never know which method will bring the most money.


Sandbag: "You didn't address my comment. Explain to us how, in the competitive market you claim exists, Tyson is able to lower their prices and still fill the remainder of their needs with their competition still needing cattle. Remember you told us "Tyson isn't the market, they're part of the market"."

I already explained this a number of times. Many times feeders will sell at a low market simply based on the fear that it will go lower. Excel and Swift may be offering a better bid but that bid might not be offset by the extra transportation costs to an Excel or Swift plant as compared to an Ibp plant. Some feeders don't shop for the best price.

NEXT!



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "You didn't address my comment. Explain to us how, in the competitive market you claim exists, Tyson is able to lower their prices and still fill the remainder of their needs with their competition still needing cattle. Remember you told us "Tyson isn't the market, they're part of the market"."


I already explained this a number of times. Many times feeders will sell at a low market simply based on the fear that it will go lower. Excel and Swift may be offering a better bid but that bid might not be offset by the extra transportation costs to an Excel or Swift plant as compared to an Ibp plant. Some feeders don't shop for the best price. NEXT!


I knew you'd bring up the "transportation costs" line again. I just wanted more people to see it.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Rod: "Whether its manipulation or not, its still bad news for the overall market as it provides a downward price pressure because next weeks contracts are based on this weeks cash price which has been depressed by contracts."

Then how do you explain the fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the price paid for the formula cattle that are delivered in the same week???

Because cash basis forward contracts are price PRESSURE not a SETTER. There are dozens of pressures which influence cattle prices on a daily basis, and if all these other pressures are pushing up, then the forward contract pressure down won't be sufficient to stop the cash price from moving up. HOWEVER, the contracts which will be filled that week will still be a downwards pressure, possibly reducing the overall net gain in the cash market that week. Can it be measured? Of course not, but there is still no denying that the forward contract is downwards pressure.

You yourself said it SH, filling contracts will reduce demand in the cash market, depressing the prices in the cash market.

So next weeks contracts that are based on this weeks cash basis will be lower (if all other price pressures remain constant). If you want to sign a contract, then by all means, NEGOTIATE a basis price. While we still have reduced demand in the cash market, and risk other producers making bad negotiated basis prices, suppressing prices, at least then we lose the downwards pressure on next weeks contracts.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
~SH~ said:
Rod: "Whether its manipulation or not, its still bad news for the overall market as it provides a downward price pressure because next weeks contracts are based on this weeks cash price which has been depressed by contracts."

Then how do you explain the fact that there is times when the cash market is higher than the price paid for the formula cattle that are delivered in the same week???

Because cash basis forward contracts are price PRESSURE not a SETTER. There are dozens of pressures which influence cattle prices on a daily basis, and if all these other pressures are pushing up, then the forward contract pressure down won't be sufficient to stop the cash price from moving up. HOWEVER, the contracts which will be filled that week will still be a downwards pressure, possibly reducing the overall net gain in the cash market that week. Can it be measured? Of course not, but there is still no denying that the forward contract is downwards pressure.

You yourself said it SH, filling contracts will reduce demand in the cash market, depressing the prices in the cash market.

So next weeks contracts that are based on this weeks cash basis will be lower (if all other price pressures remain constant). If you want to sign a contract, then by all means, NEGOTIATE a basis price. While we still have reduced demand in the cash market, and risk other producers making bad negotiated basis prices, suppressing prices, at least then we lose the downwards pressure on next weeks contracts.

Rod

Rod, your suggestion, if I understand it, pretty much ends captive supply if everyone did it.

An opportunist like SH would not go along with this solution. He would sell out his fellow cattlemen for his own self interest.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
An opportunist like SH would not go along with this solution. He would sell out his fellow cattlemen for his own self interest.

Unfortunately there will be enough people who are unable to comprehend price pressures and will only be interested in their own pocket books, that cash market basis contracts will likely be around for years to come, unless legislated out of existence.

I've softened somewhat on my stance from last year, vis-a-vis contracted cattle. I understand the need for some large cow/calf operators and feeders to risk manage using forward contracts, however I think they should at least be using negotiated basis prices, not those based on the cash market.

I don't think it would end the captive supply, as someone could sign a far reaching contract (if I understand what you mean by captive supply) but at least the cash market is now only suspectible to normal supply and demand, and cannot, either inadvertently or intentionally, be used to lower contract prices the following week.

Rod
 
Top