Question for OCM regarding Captive Supply Reform Act

[Anonymous]

OCM,

You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.

ocm: "MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them."

In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."

1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?

The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.

2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?


Why not post the bill in it's entirety?



~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM,

You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.

ocm: "MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them."

In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."

1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?

The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.

2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?


Why not post the bill in it's entirety?



~SH~

You have misquoted MRJ's quote. She said "would prohibit forward contracts" PERIOD not "as we know them".

MRJ's quote is an accurate rendition of what the AMI said. But the AMI made a false statement.

Link to the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4257_ih.xml

Selected quoted from the bill itself.
"To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts."

[Prohibit the]

"use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A)
"does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B)
"is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i)
"buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii)
"more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii)
"buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;

"(C)
"is based on a formula price; or

"(D)
"provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i)
"in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii)
"in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii)
"in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary."


We know these kinds of transactions from Wall Street. They are normal there. Forward contracting (options) on Wall Street has almost all these same requirement--especially a fixed price.

Note just for ~SH~. This does not prohibit grid sales.

PS AMI lied!!

 

[Anonymous]

ocm: "You have misquoted MRJ's quote. She said "would prohibit forward contracts" PERIOD not "as we know them"."

I never quoted MRJ, I simply responded to your statement regarding her quote. This law prohibits forward contracts and grid pricing as we know it.

This law has one intent and that is to route cattle through the sale barns so the Livestock Marketing Police can carve another piece of the pie.

[Prohibit the]

"use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A)
"does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

This would eliminate formula pricing that relies on a weekly weighted average which most do.

"(B)
"is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i)
"buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii)
"more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii)
"buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;

Buyers and sellers have an opportunity to participate in the bid? Why the heck would a seller bid on fat cattle? Real brilliance there!

There is absolutely no doubt that "B" is to route cattle through the sale barns so the Livestock Marketing Police can carve their piece of the pie through the sale of fat cattle.

SOCIALIZED CATTLE MARKETING!

I HAVE A RIGHT TO WITNESS YOUR SALE!

Absolutely pathetic.

Does anyone need further proof of the arrogance of the Livestock Marketing Police to save this industry from itself?

"(C)
"is based on a formula price; or

"(D)
"provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i)
"in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii)
"in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii)
"in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary."

Allows the government to determine how many you have to sell at one time. I think I'm going to puke.

ocm: "This does not prohibit grid sales."

This does prohibit most grid sales that use the weekly weighted average. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Arrogant Livestock Marketing Police saving the feeding industry from their own pricing mechanisms. Let the battle begin.

URGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRITE OR CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR WOMAN TODAY AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE THIS COMMUNIST LAW THAT ALLOWS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE HOW FAT CATTLE CAN BE SOLD!

The feeders do not need conspiracy driven producers telling them how to market their fat cattle.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

This communist bill in it's entirety:

109th CONGRESS
1st Session


H. R. 4257

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 8, 2005


Mr. Pomeroy (for himself, Mrs. Cubin, and Ms. Herseth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the "Captive Supply Reform Act".


SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FORWARD CONTRACTS.


(a) In general.—Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended—

(1) by striking "to:" and inserting "to—";

(2) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(3) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by designating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;

(4) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)" and inserting "paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6)";

(5) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking the first capital letter of the first word in the paragraph and inserting the same letter in the lower case;

(6) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "or" at the end; and

(7) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) the following:


"(6) use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A) does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B) is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i) buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii) more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii) buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;


"(C) is based on a formula price; or

"(D) provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i) in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii) in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii) in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary.".






(b) Definitions.—Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:


"(15) Formula price.—

"(A) In general.—The term 'formula price' means any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established.

"(B) Exclusion.—The term 'formula price' does not include—

"(i) any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a futures market price; or

"(ii) any adjustment to the base for quality, grade, or other factors relating to the value of livestock or livestock products that are readily verifiable market factors and are outside the control of the packer.



"(16) Forward contract.—The term 'forward contract' means an oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into, without regard to whether the contract is for—

"(A) a specified lot of livestock; or

"(B) a specified number of livestock over a certain period of time.".

I don't know how the smiley faces became attached to this but the only ones smiling about this bill is the arrogant Livestock Marketing Police.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

This communist bill in it's entirety:

109th CONGRESS
1st Session


H. R. 4257

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 8, 2005


Mr. Pomeroy (for himself, Mrs. Cubin, and Ms. Herseth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the "Captive Supply Reform Act".


SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FORWARD CONTRACTS.


(a) In general.—Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is amended—

(1) by striking "to:" and inserting "to—";

(2) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(3) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by designating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;

(4) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)" and inserting "paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6)";

(5) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), and (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking the first capital letter of the first word in the paragraph and inserting the same letter in the lower case;

(6) in each of paragraphs (1) through (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking "or" at the end; and

(7) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) the following:


"(6) use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A) does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B) is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i) buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii) more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii) buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;


"(C) is based on a formula price; or

"(D) provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i) in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii) in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii) in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary.".






(b) Definitions.—Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:


"(15) Formula price.—

"(A) In general.—The term 'formula price' means any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established.

"(B) Exclusion.—The term 'formula price' does not include—

"(i) any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a futures market price; or

"(ii) any adjustment to the base for quality, grade, or other factors relating to the value of livestock or livestock products that are readily verifiable market factors and are outside the control of the packer.



"(16) Forward contract.—The term 'forward contract' means an oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into, without regard to whether the contract is for—

"(A) a specified lot of livestock; or

"(B) a specified number of livestock over a certain period of time.".

I don't know how the smiley faces became attached to this but the only ones smiling about this bill is the arrogant Livestock Marketing Police.



~SH~

And the ones supporting market manipulation are frowning.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "And the ones supporting market manipulation are frowning."

No, the ones supporting free markets are frowning.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "And the ones supporting market manipulation are frowning."

No, the ones supporting free markets are frowning.


~SH~

I suppose this is the same argument your electric monopoly can make on price discrimination. Good thing for all of us, they don't succeed (although they have) in that argument.

 

[Anonymous]

A monopoly is not a competitive market. The beef industry is no where close to a monopoly.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

A monopoly is not a competitive market. The beef industry is no where close to a monopoly.


~SH~

SH, sometimes you bring such insight to the board. The correct term would be monopsony for cattlemen/packer relationship. And, yes, you are right. As far as the relationship between the producers and the packers, it is truely an oligopsony. Part of Section 202 of the PSA covers that aspect of the relationship. The other part (Section 202 a,b) assumes market power, which is obviously the case in the cattle business. Electric utilities have the same rules as Section 202 a, and b and so do a lot of other regulated industries. They are not being enforced in the cattle business and GIPSA (JoAnn Waterfield and McBride as well as the lame economists at the USDA) is to blame.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The correct term would be monopsony for cattlemen/packer relationship. And, yes, you are right. As far as the relationship between the producers and the packers, it is truely an oligopsony. Part of Section 202 of the PSA covers that aspect of the relationship. The other part (Section 202 a,b) assumes market power, which is obviously the case in the cattle business."

Monopsony, oligopsony, Triclopsidy......whatever!

There is no proof of market manipulation. NONE!


NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "The correct term would be monopsony for cattlemen/packer relationship. And, yes, you are right. As far as the relationship between the producers and the packers, it is truely an oligopsony. Part of Section 202 of the PSA covers that aspect of the relationship. The other part (Section 202 a,b) assumes market power, which is obviously the case in the cattle business."

Monopsony, oligopsony, Triclopsidy......whatever!

There is no proof of market manipulation. NONE!


NEXT!



~SH~

Yes, 12 people believed it. All the little tricky arguments you and Agman bring up have just confused a handful of judges that either wanted to rule a certain way anyway so they made up stuff or were fooled by your "magic tricks". I am not so easily fooled.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "All the little tricky arguments you and Agman bring up have just confused a handful of judges that either wanted to rule a certain way anyway so they made up stuff or were fooled by your "magic tricks"."

Conman, the judges in Pickett were never privy to any arguments I have presented. Where did you get that silly notion from?

Conman: "I am not so easily fooled."

Anyone as ignorant about beef industry issues as you are couldn't discern what is foolish and what isn't.


~SH~

 

[mrj]

OCM,

You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.

ocm: "MRJ, you should be ashamed of yourself repeating AMI's lie. This statement you made that says that the bill would prohibit forward contracts is an outright lie.

I'm calling you on it. Quote from the bill. Better yet just read it yourself. There is no way that statement can be construed as true.

The AMI LIED. And you have believed them."

In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."

1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?

The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.

2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?


Why not post the bill in it's entirety?



~SH~

You have misquoted MRJ's quote. She said "would prohibit forward contracts" PERIOD not "as we know them".

MRJ's quote is an accurate rendition of what the AMI said. But the AMI made a false statement.

Link to the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4257_ih.xml

Selected quoted from the bill itself.
"To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts."

[Prohibit the]

"use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A)
"does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B)
"is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i)
"buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii)
"more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii)
"buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;

"(C)
"is based on a formula price; or

"(D)
"provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i)
"in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii)
"in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii)
"in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary."


We know these kinds of transactions from Wall Street. They are normal there. Forward contracting (options) on Wall Street has almost all these same requirement--especially a fixed price.

Note just for ~SH~. This does not prohibit grid sales.

PS AMI lied!!

ocm, in the interest of decency, honesty, and fair play, what other person posting a quote from a news story have you publicly stated should "be ashamed" of quoting someone whom you CLAIM lied?

Are you demanding all who post quotes from news stories verify every statement in those stories is true?

Are you the omniscient god that is going to determine what is "truth" and what is not?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

OCM,

You appear to be quite concerned that the captive supply reform act is not misrepresented.




In light of this, Mabel Dobbs with WORC livestock committee recently stated, "Contracts and marketing agreements used by packers and cattle producers today can be revised to comply with the new law."

1. If this bill would not prohibit forward contracts as we know them, why would they need to be revised to comply with the law?

The fact is, if Mabel Dobbs is correct, this law would prohibit forward contracts as we know them.

2. How would establishing a fixed base price and requiring that contracts be traded in open, public markets change the concern of packers utilizing their captive supply cattle to stay out of the cash market?


Why not post the bill in it's entirety?



~SH~

You have misquoted MRJ's quote. She said "would prohibit forward contracts" PERIOD not "as we know them".

MRJ's quote is an accurate rendition of what the AMI said. But the AMI made a false statement.

Link to the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4257_ih.xml

Selected quoted from the bill itself.
"To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts."

[Prohibit the]

"use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A)
"does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B)
"is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i)
"buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii)
"more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii)
"buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;

"(C)
"is based on a formula price; or

"(D)
"provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i)
"in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii)
"in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii)
"in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary."


We know these kinds of transactions from Wall Street. They are normal there. Forward contracting (options) on Wall Street has almost all these same requirement--especially a fixed price.

Note just for ~SH~. This does not prohibit grid sales.

PS AMI lied!!

ocm, in the interest of decency, honesty, and fair play, what other person posting a quote from a news story have you publicly stated should "be ashamed" of quoting someone whom you CLAIM lied?

Are you demanding all who post quotes from news stories verify every statement in those stories is true?

Are you the omniscient god that is going to determine what is "truth" and what is not?

MRJ

MRJ, that is what trials and juries are for.

 

[mrj]

BTW, have any of you readers heard anyone other than John Birchers and other conspiracy buffs toss out the words "monopsony" and "oligopsony" along with claims of "agency capture" and innuendo about control of government agencies by sinister businessmen?

Not to mention saying they have been victimized for their activism against corporate evils by having their own private phones tapped........

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "MRJ, that is what trials and juries are for."

Until the legal process reaches conclusions that don't support your packer blaming conspiracy oriented bias huh?


~SH~

 

[mrj]

You have misquoted MRJ's quote. She said "would prohibit forward contracts" PERIOD not "as we know them".

MRJ's quote is an accurate rendition of what the AMI said. But the AMI made a false statement.

Link to the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4257_ih.xml

Selected quoted from the bill itself.
"To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts."

[Prohibit the]

"use, in effectuating any sale of livestock, a forward contract that—

"(A)
"does not contain a firm base price that may be equated to a fixed dollar amount on the day on which the forward contract is entered into;

"(B)
"is not offered for bid in an open, public manner under which—

"(i)
"buyers and sellers have the opportunity to participate in the bid;

"(ii)
"more than 1 blind bid is solicited; and

"(iii)
"buyers and sellers may witness bids that are made and accepted;

"(C)
"is based on a formula price; or

"(D)
"provides for the sale of livestock in a quantity in excess of—

"(i)
"in the case of cattle, 40 cattle;

"(ii)
"in the case of swine, 30 swine; and

"(iii)
"in the case of other types of livestock, a comparable quantity of the type of livestock determined by the Secretary."


We know these kinds of transactions from Wall Street. They are normal there. Forward contracting (options) on Wall Street has almost all these same requirement--especially a fixed price.

Note just for ~SH~. This does not prohibit grid sales.

PS AMI lied!!

ocm, in the interest of decency, honesty, and fair play, what other person posting a quote from a news story have you publicly stated should "be ashamed" of quoting someone whom you CLAIM lied?

Are you demanding all who post quotes from news stories verify every statement in those stories is true?

Are you the omniscient god that is going to determine what is "truth" and what is not?

MRJ

MRJ, that is what trials and juries are for.

So, Econ, is that going to be the next R-CALF lawsuit: that AMI lied in a news story about Forward contracting???? Go for it! Suppose we will hear the call for more donations to support the "good works" soon.

MRJ

 

[ocm]

ocm, in the interest of decency, honesty, and fair play, what other person posting a quote from a news story have you publicly stated should "be ashamed" of quoting someone whom you CLAIM lied?

Are you demanding all who post quotes from news stories verify every statement in those stories is true?

Are you the omniscient god that is going to determine what is "truth" and what is not?

MRJ

MRJ, I apologize for getting a litle hot about it. But I had already posted the information on Nov 14th. Like me you probably have another life and don't read everything on here.

Is this an admission that their claim that it would prohibit forward contracting is bogus?

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, I don't know what R-CALF is going to do. Juries are to determine what is "truth" in litaged instances.

 

[mrj]

ocm, in the interest of decency, honesty, and fair play, what other person posting a quote from a news story have you publicly stated should "be ashamed" of quoting someone whom you CLAIM lied?

Are you demanding all who post quotes from news stories verify every statement in those stories is true?

Are you the omniscient god that is going to determine what is "truth" and what is not?

MRJ

MRJ, I apologize for getting a litle hot about it. But I had already posted the information on Nov 14th. Like me you probably have another life and don't read everything on here.

Is this an admission that their claim that it would prohibit forward contracting is bogus?

Thank you for the "almost" apology........almost because you justify yourself rather than answering questions I raised about differing standards for different people apparently based on their stand on issues. And you are right about one thing.........I do not get everything read, and some not as thoroughly as I would like.

I do believe the jury is out on what this proposed legislation would do to forward contracting. It is, after all, quite a distance between that which is porposed and that which ends up as law. There have been many people who insist forward contracting must end, so who knows their basis for that statement? I know I don't, and doubt you really do either......who is to say what will prevail in the final version of the proposed law?

MRJ