~SH~ said:Says who?
SH, "Judge Strom in his ruling stated that nobody could explain how the damage figures were derived."
I don't believe that. The jurors were doing a serious job seriously. I"m sure they could provide the inputs used and how they were used.
SH, "You bank question is irrelevant so I refuse to play along with your irrelevant comparisons."
Translation: "I'm running from that question because it would expose my Pickett arguement as a packer-backing lip flap." You won't answer because that is basically what is being done with these cash-based contracts and you know it. Run away, SH run away. :lol:
Sandbag: "SH, If you wanted to get a loan and the banker said, "Sure, I'll guarantee you a loan on the date you want. The interest rate I charge you will be the average of my last three customers prior to your transaction". Would you go for that? Why or why not?"
~SH~ said:Ok Sandbag,
I have just enough time to play your stupid little game........
Sandbag: "SH, If you wanted to get a loan and the banker said, "Sure, I'll guarantee you a loan on the date you want. The interest rate I charge you will be the average of my last three customers prior to your transaction". Would you go for that? Why or why not?"
If I knew interest rates were going to raise and I knew the range in which the average of the three interest rates lied was lower than current raise was going to be, YES I WOULD!
If I didn't like that option, I'd find another banker.
The feeding industry does not need you arrogant R-CULT supporting packer blamers saving it from their own pricing mechanisms.
~SH~
Jason said:Sandhusker you are about the dumbest banker I have ever (virtually) met.
People have access to interest rates. They know what range their credit score will put them in at.
Fat cattle sellers know what the market is at. They know the range their cattle should sell at. Just because some don't want to do the work of staying current, they try to sue someone else to solve their problems.
Typical wellfare mentality.
Jason said:Sandhusker you are about the dumbest banker I have ever (virtually) met.
People have access to interest rates. They know what range their credit score will put them in at.
Fat cattle sellers know what the market is at. They know the range their cattle should sell at. Just because some don't want to do the work of staying current, they try to sue someone else to solve their problems.
Typical wellfare mentality.
~SH~ said:Bullsh*t Conman!
There was no proof of market manipulation. The jury didn't accept Taylor's phony $2 Billion figure which was far more than ibp's total profits revealing how ignorant he actually was. The jury came in with a lesser amount but couldn't explain how they derived at that figure either. Both figures were absolutely ludicrous when ibp only made $26 per head. In this case there is no way in hell you can manipulate markets beyond your profitability. The only issue here is how much money ibp should have paid for cattle according to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cannot possibly believe that ibp should operate at a loss.
Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation.
The judge stated there was no PSA violation and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. So you blame the judge for not finding a gun that never existed. You can't accept the truth Conman because you are an anti corporate packer blamer.
~SH~
Jason said:Just because most people don't know their credit score doesn't change the fact that they have one, and it is used to determine their interest rate on a loan. They can and should know it when shopping for a loan.
The incentive to enter a contract is multifold. It gives a garanteed price so a feeder can arrange financing for further purchases. It can get a feeder into a grid selling system to take advantage of the better genetics they have been buying. It might be as simple as the feeder hasn't got time to play the cash market when his cattle are ready. He knows his costs and takes a small profit that is locked in.
Ask the guys up here that had their fats contracted at $1.08 pre BSE about the benefits of a contract.
Investors are always told by ethical brokers that you should never risk more than you can afford to lose. If you can afford to lose a margin on cattle then don't bother signing a contract. If you can't, sign at the first profit margin that keeps you in business.
Sandbag: "How are you going to know the range and the average of the interest rates that will determine your rate? Those rates haven't been set yet and I don't have to report anything to you."
Conman: "Using it as a basis for captive supply pricing instead of the market average is."
Jason said:Are you that stupid Sandhusker?
I said there is a range fats sell for. A 2 cent difference can mean a profit or a loss.
BSE came out of nowhere and decimated the industry in Canada. Business is full of unforseen risks.
Do you carry life insurance? If you don't you must be confident that your family would do ok if you were hit by a bus tomorrow. A contract is a tool to protect those who enter into it from the unforseen.
Sandbag: "If you have a "very good idea what the cash cattle market base price" will be, why would you enter a contract and eliminate your options? There would be no need sign a contract."
Sandbag: "The truth is, you don't know what the prices will be in the cash market - you could be several months away from being ready to sell."
~SH~ said:Sandbag you are totally lost in this conversation. You don't even know the difference between forward contracting and formula pricing. We are not talking about forward contracting, we are talking about formula pricing vs. the cash market. You're in over your head again.
Sandbag: "If you have a "very good idea what the cash cattle market base price" will be, why would you enter a contract and eliminate your options? There would be no need sign a contract."
We are not talking about FORWARD CONTRACT PRICING you goofball, we are talking about grid and formula pricing vs. the cash market which is only 1 week apart.
1. Why would I sell on a formula price if I knew what the cash market would be?
TO GET PAID FOR THE GRADE AND YIELD QUALITY OF MY CATTLE. If I didn't want to get paid for carcass merit, I would take the cash price.
Sandbag: "The truth is, you don't know what the prices will be in the cash market - you could be several months away from being ready to sell."
2. Formula pricing with a weekly weighted average base price is only one week away from delivery, NOT MONTHS AWAY.
You are confusing a forward contract with formula pricing.
The concern is with the "weekly weighted average cash price" as a base for the formula price. Forward contracts are not based on a weekly weighted average of the cash price so how could you possibly make the leap to forward contracts?
You're a dandy Sandbag!
Show some integrity here Sandbag and admit that you are confused.
NEXT!
~SH~
Big Muddy rancher said:Econ has a disaster ever been declared in the US? It was rethorical because I already knew the answer. Yes. Almost every year and the government pays for something. BSE was a disaster in Canada the government came to our aid. Do they do it every year for the cattle industry in Canada? NO just in case you didn't know.
Sandhusker said:Big Muddy rancher said:Econ has a disaster ever been declared in the US? It was rethorical because I already knew the answer. Yes. Almost every year and the government pays for something. BSE was a disaster in Canada the government came to our aid. Do they do it every year for the cattle industry in Canada? NO just in case you didn't know.
They came to producer's aid because producers were in real danger of going belly up. Tyson and Cargill were never in danger. They didn't need any aid. Not only did they not need it, they profited more because of the "Salmon Run" as Kaiser figures it.
The packers were using you Canadian producers like a $2 working gal and your government was paying them to do it - and you're defending it.