Selling at auction.
- Thread starter Big Muddy rancher
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:Big Muddy rancher said:
Yup, I think thats what I will do,feed these black steers till they are bout 12 weight and haul em to the sale barn
Good for Haymaker then you will beable to join the TEXAS CATTLE FEEDERS ASSOC. Maybe with some real world experience you will know what your talking about. :cowboy:
katrina
Well-known member
Most of the buyers are on the benches with orders to be filled and they don't have the leverege, cuz they have to bid or be left out. Selling on the grid is fine. We choose not to.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
katrina said:
That what's great about this Biz is we have choices. Sell the cattle the way you want to. Maybe some day you will find a alliance that works for you and your cattle will be priced before you start feeding. Who knows.
katrina
Well-known member
Would you like an alliance to feed too? I don't think I would. I like open options.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
katrina said:
If I found one that I could make a profit with and I was treated fair I might.
I haven't yet and I sell fats out of the feedlot on sealed bids and calves at the auction barn and private treaty. What ever works for the situation at hand. Do you sell all your fats by auction or are some sold direct?
katrina
Well-known member
Our experiace is that we seem to do better by auction than direct. I know alot of people who go direct. It just didn't seem to be as good for us. Always seemed like there was a conspirancy for us to get less selling direct. And I know there wasn't.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
I think people should sell anyway they want to, as long as there are no shenanigans by either party.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Well alrighty then, If people are comfortable selling on the Grid or Contracting why do you think it is alright for LMA and R-CALF to stick their noses in somebody elses business. If they done like them don't use them.
Big Muddy rancher said:
I will bet you have asked this same question at least a dozen times.
And you get the same answer a dozen times,I guess you figure to be like some of these two bit politicians,keep asking the same question till you get the answer you want? It has been positively proven,people like you that partner with the packers,are creating captive supplies that are used to manipulate markets..............good luck PS I forgot you claim to be a politician
sorry for the derogatory remark about you politicians
A
Anonymous
Guest
Glad to hear that you are opposed to the captive supply reform act supported by your twisted organization.
What market fundamentals have changed when comparing to a "buyer's market"?
From a packer's standpoint, what is the difference between a "buyer's market" and a "seller's market"? The price the producer receives only?
Are packers less profitable in a "sellers market"?
Are there less captive supply cattle available in a "seller's market"?
Watch the inevitable diversion folks.................
Where you fall flat on your face is in your inability to explain why packers can only manipulate markets under certain conditions. Hell, you haven't even identified what those conditions could be.
You are a complete phony! As long as you can make statements and avoid answering questions or backing your position, you can continue to mask your ignorance TO SOME.
~SH~
I assume most people on this thread are referring to the Captive Supply Reform Act. It has NO restrictions on sellers. It only requires that large buyers buy in a public forum. Potential contracts must be put up for public scrutiny during the bidding process.
That could be done through auctions.
That could be done through video.
That could be done through specs certified by a broker who would be responsible for the cattle meeting the spec.
All of these can be done through forward contracting.
Too many people are setting up straw men on the CSRA
AMI's recent news release told an absolute LIE that the CSRA would prohibit forward contracting. It does not do that. It does not prohibit grid purchasing. The only thing it prohibits is contracts made without a firm base price established when the contract is written.
Anybody will still be allowed to sell anyway they want to. The big boys must just use a firm base price and those contracts must be bid for in an open system SIMILAR to an auction or stock exchange.
How does any of this restrict the sellers freedom.
That could be done through auctions.
That could be done through video.
That could be done through specs certified by a broker who would be responsible for the cattle meeting the spec.
All of these can be done through forward contracting.
Too many people are setting up straw men on the CSRA
AMI's recent news release told an absolute LIE that the CSRA would prohibit forward contracting. It does not do that. It does not prohibit grid purchasing. The only thing it prohibits is contracts made without a firm base price established when the contract is written.
Anybody will still be allowed to sell anyway they want to. The big boys must just use a firm base price and those contracts must be bid for in an open system SIMILAR to an auction or stock exchange.
How does any of this restrict the sellers freedom.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Who are you to tell me that I cannot chose between a weekly weighted average base price for my formula cattle and the cash market?
If I need a negotiated base price, I'LL SELL TO ANGUS GENE NET WITH A NEGOTIATED BASE PRICE ON THE GRID. If I don't like a non negotiated base price, I can sell in the cash market. I don't need arrogant livestock marketing police OR YOU telling me how to market my cattle.
Like I said, the CSRA will be shot down in flames. WRITE IT DOWN!
Most cattle producers will not support such "socialism" in cattle marketing.
This is nothing more than an LMA ploy to get fat cattle routed through their auction markets to carve another piece of the pie away from the producer.
Most grids base price is based on a weekly weighted average of the week prior to delivery. This would eliminate that option. Who's setting up a strawman?
The cattle feeding industry does not need you packer blamers to save them from their pricing mechanisms. If you don't like the non negotiated base price, SELL IN THE CASH MARKET!
This is a step towards a government run cattle industry from those who are most critical of USDA and GIPSA. HOW IRONIC!
~SH~
If I need a negotiated base price, I'LL SELL TO ANGUS GENE NET WITH A NEGOTIATED BASE PRICE ON THE GRID. If I don't like a non negotiated base price, I can sell in the cash market. I don't need arrogant livestock marketing police OR YOU telling me how to market my cattle.
Like I said, the CSRA will be shot down in flames. WRITE IT DOWN!
Most cattle producers will not support such "socialism" in cattle marketing.
This is nothing more than an LMA ploy to get fat cattle routed through their auction markets to carve another piece of the pie away from the producer.
Most grids base price is based on a weekly weighted average of the week prior to delivery. This would eliminate that option. Who's setting up a strawman?
The cattle feeding industry does not need you packer blamers to save them from their pricing mechanisms. If you don't like the non negotiated base price, SELL IN THE CASH MARKET!
This is a step towards a government run cattle industry from those who are most critical of USDA and GIPSA. HOW IRONIC!
~SH~
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
HAY MAKER said:Big Muddy rancher said:
I will bet you have asked this same question at least a dozen times.
And you get the same answer a dozen times,I guess you figure to be like some of these two bit politicians,keep asking the same question till you get the answer you want? It has been positively proven,people like you that partner with the packers,are creating captive supplies that are used to manipulate markets..............good luck PS I forgot you claim to be a politician
Where have I ever partnered with a packer. I have never fed cattle under contract and the cattle have been priced when leaving the feedlot. Again you show your ignorance. :cowboy:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
There's no use argueing with you, SH. You have no idea on the hows and whys of fair functional markets.
Big Muddy rancher said:HAY MAKER said:
I will bet you have asked this same question at least a dozen times.
And you get the same answer a dozen times,I guess you figure to be like some of these two bit politicians,keep asking the same question till you get the answer you want? It has been positively proven,people like you that partner with the packers,are creating captive supplies that are used to manipulate markets..............good luck PS I forgot you claim to be a politician
Where have I ever partnered with a packer. I have never fed cattle under contract and the cattle have been priced when leaving the feedlot. Again you show your ignorance. :cowboy:
Well excuse me MR. Tam,all this time I had you figured as a packer partner,way you brag on em I just naturally assumed you were their partner :wink: ..................good luck
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Glad to hear that you are opposed to the captive supply reform act supported by your twisted organization."
Guess you missed the word "shenanaigans". Ask somebody what that means.
Guess you missed the word "shenanaigans". Ask somebody what that means.
~SH~ said:
SH, I don't have a problem with packers making money. Not one bit at all. I do have a problem with them using their buying power and market power to alter the supply/demand equilibrium. It always leads to economic ineffiencies via deadweight losses.
In seller's markets, there is limited supply and higher prices. Go ask your local real estate person what that means. Sometimes it is a buyers market. Sometimes market manipulation makes it a buyers market.
That is what Pickett proved to the jurors. We are living with the economic consequences of the packer's artificial slide down the supply curve now. Packers want to cry that domestic supplies are tight---they are, in part because the packers supressed the prices that ranchers got for their cattle. Boom and bust, but because of the market's invisible hand of equilibrium prices giving signals to producers, but because of market manipulation giving false signals.
Most cattle producers want a more stable price for their cattle than the current boom bust cycle that currently exists with packer manipulation. The years of high prices are the result of low prices for a long period of time. "Imports" cry the packers, "That is the solution to our supply problems." Maybe price stability by getting rid of market tricks is the answer.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
ocm said:
So your saying I can't call up a packer and say I want such a price for my fats in December and If he agrees we have a deal. as those would be Captive supply. Now what if that packer offered the same price to enough feeders to supply all his December demand. At a set price What is wrong with this. The feeder know what he is going to get and can price cattle according. The packer will be out of the cash market for December. The cash market could go down because he is not buying . Is he wrong for manipulting the cash market if he doesn't take advantage of it?
