The sky is not falling Rod--SH.

[Econ101]

I'd say it compares favorably with ROAs of most producers.

Exactly. And you're in a position to see a LOT of producers actual numbers, so you probably have a better handle on this than most. So Tyson makes about the same return that producers do. So basically everybody is screaming b/c Tyson has more than they do. The screaming basically just means that they want somebody (the gov't) to chop Tyson down and distribute that wealth to them. Sure sounds a lot like socialism/communism to me.

Now I'm not saying Tyson is squeeky clean, it's just that they've been able to string together several generations of HUUUUUUGE risk takers that also happen to be good businessmen. This has amassed a tremendous amount of wealth that everybody sees & thinks "They're screwing me and taking my money. I want it back." No, they just happened to leverage themselves at the right times and to make it work.

It's not Tyson's fault that they've been successful.

Phil

If you are talking about whether or not they committed a crime and the damages, their earnings are inconsequential. No one is claiming that they are rich and therefore owe everyone else. That is just a silly argument.

Phil, this is one of the lousiest excuses for allowing people who commit crimes to get away with them. I hope you are not serious in your thought here.

 

[fedup2]

SH writes:"MIKE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE GIPSA INVESTIGATIONS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN FINES CAN YOU?

OF COURSE NOT! "
----------------

I went to the GAO site that audited Gipsa and and found a long list of violations by packers and most all were given warnings, not fined. Not taking sides here, just sharing information. The actual violations and action taken are listed in their report. Here is a summary.
------------------
"About 64 percent of 844 USDA audits of packers—conducted over 36 months ending in April 2005—identified packers' transactions that were inaccurately reported, unsupported by documentation, or omitted from packers' reports. Moreover, some packers have not promptly corrected problems. Since 2002, USDA has sent 11 packers 21 letters urging the packers to correct longstanding problems and warning them of the consequences of delay. Twice USDA has levied $10,000 fines on packers, but suspended the fines when these packers agreed to comply. As of September 2005, USDA had continuing issues with 2 of the 11 packers. USDA officials noted that packers' errors are relatively few compared to the large volumes of data that packers report daily. However, USDA has not (1) assessed the overall quality of packers' data, (2) used its audit results to help focus future audit efforts, and (3) ensured that follow-up promptly resolves problems."

 

[agman]

The sky is not falling but the clouds are getting a little darker for Tyson. With the lower earnings, lobbiest(K-street project) scandals, money scandals in Congress, and producers organizing against them, Tyson may want to rethink their strategy of THE ABUSE OF MARKET POWER.

THE LOSS LEADER OF INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION IS LOWER EARNINGS!!!

Zacks strong sell - Tyson

Zacks Sell List Highlights: Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Tyson Foods, Mosaic, and Petrohawk Energy

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 19, 2006--Zacks.com releases details on a group of stocks that are currently members of the exclusive Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now. These stocks are currently rated as a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell): Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) and Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN). Further, Zacks announced #4 Rankings (Sell) on two other widely held stocks: Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) and Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK). To see the full Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now visit: http://at.zacks.com/?id=92



Since inception in 1988, the S&P 500 has outperformed the Zacks #5 Rank List -- Stocks to Sell Now by 155.5% annually (11.8% vs. 4.6% respectively). While the rest of Wall Street continued to tout stocks during the market declines of the last few years, Zacks told investors which stocks to sell or avoid.



Here is a synopsis of why RRGB and TSN have a Zacks Rank of 5 (Strong Sell) and should most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #5 Strong Sell rating is applied to 5% of all the Zacks ranked stocks:



Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) blamed slower than anticipated same-store sales growth as well as weak performance at some locations outside of the comparable base for impacting its results. The company said that the lackluster growth will likely result in fiscal 2005 profits totaling $1.60-$1.63 per share versus the previous guidance for $1.71-$1.73 per share. Following the announcement, seven of the 11 covering analysts cut their forecasts. The current consensus estimate for fiscal 2005 profits of $1.67 per share compares to last month's estimate of $1.76 per share.



Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) has missed earnings expectations during three out of the past four quarters. Two of the eight covering analysts have cut their projections for the fiscal 2006. The new consensus estimate for profits of $1.12 per share compares to the one month ago estimate for profits of $1.17 and the 90-day old estimate of $1.37 per share.



Here is a synopsis of why MOS and HAWK have a Zacks Rank of 4 (Sell) and should also most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #4 Sell rating is applied to 15% of all the stocks ranked by Zacks:



Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) recently warned that DAP margins and equity earnings are likely to be lower in the second half of fiscal 2006. As a result, one of the three covering analysts cut his projections for full year earnings. The new consensus estimate calls for fiscal 2006 profits of 83 cents versus 87 cents a week ago and 98 cents two months ago.



Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK) has missed estimates four times during the past five quarters. Two of the four covering analysts revised their forecasts after the company released projections for 2006 daily production and expenses. The new consensus estimate for 2006 profits of $1.05 per share is 3.7% below the estimate of 30 days ago.



Truly taking advantage of the Zacks Rank requires the understanding of how it works. The free special report; "Zacks Rank Guide: Harnessing the Power of Earnings Estimate Revisions" is available to provide this insightful background. Download a free copy now to prosper in the years to come at http://at.zacks.com/?id=93



About the Zacks Rank



For over 17 years, the Zacks Rank has proven that "Earnings estimate revisions are the most powerful force impacting stock prices." Since inception in 1988, #1 Rank stocks have generated an average annual return of +33%. During the 2000-2002 bear market, Zacks #1 Rank stocks gained 43.8%, while the S&P 500 tumbled 37.6%. Also note that the Zacks Rank system has just as many Strong Sell recommendations (Rank #5) as Strong Buy recommendations (Rank #1). Since 1988, Zacks Rank #5 stocks have underperformed the S&P 500 by 155.5% annually (+4.6% vs. +11.8%). Thus, the Zacks Rank system allows investors to truly manage portfolio trading effectively.



Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter offers continuous coverage of Zacks #1 Rank stocks and highlights those stocks poised to outperform the market. Subscribe to this free newsletter today by visiting http://at.zacks.com/?id=94



The Zacks Rank, and all of its recommendations, is created by Zacks & Co., member NASD. Zacks.com displays the Zacks Rank with permission from Zacks & Co. on its web site for individual investors.



About Zacks



Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 to compile, analyze, and distribute investment research to both institutional and individual investors. The guiding principle behind Zacks is the belief that investment experts, such as brokerage analysts and investment newsletter writers, have superior knowledge about how to invest successfully. The goal is to unlock these pros' profitable insights for individual investors hard-pressed to find this valuable information in one source. A free subscription to "Profit from the Pros" weekly e-mail newsletter provides the best way to use these experts' insights for more profitable investing. Register for a free subscription to the Profit From the Pros newsletter at http://at.zacks.com/?id=95



Zacks Investment Research is under common control with affiliated entities (including a broker-dealer and an investment adviser), which may engage in transactions involving the foregoing securities for the clients of such affiliates.



(a) The S&P 500 Index ("S&P 500") is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 500 large-company common stocks selected by Standard & Poor's. The S&P 500 includes the reinvestment of all dividends, no transaction costs, and represents the gross returns before management fees.



Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.





home.businesswire.com

If they can manipulate prices as you claim why would they endure losses?

 

[Mike]

SH writes:"MIKE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE GIPSA INVESTIGATIONS RESULTED IN VIOLATIONS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN FINES CAN YOU?

OF COURSE NOT! "
----------------

I went to the GAO site that audited Gipsa and and found a long list of violations by packers and most all were given warnings, not fined. Not taking sides here, just sharing information. The actual violations and action taken are listed in their report. Here is a summary.
------------------
"About 64 percent of 844 USDA audits of packers—conducted over 36 months ending in April 2005—identified packers' transactions that were inaccurately reported, unsupported by documentation, or omitted from packers' reports. Moreover, some packers have not promptly corrected problems. Since 2002, USDA has sent 11 packers 21 letters urging the packers to correct longstanding problems and warning them of the consequences of delay. Twice USDA has levied $10,000 fines on packers, but suspended the fines when these packers agreed to comply. As of September 2005, USDA had continuing issues with 2 of the 11 packers. USDA officials noted that packers' errors are relatively few compared to the large volumes of data that packers report daily. However, USDA has not (1) assessed the overall quality of packers' data, (2) used its audit results to help focus future audit efforts, and (3) ensured that follow-up promptly resolves problems."

Also:
What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends, among other things, that USDA improve the transparency
of its market news reports, and its auditing of packers' transactions.

 

[pknoeber]

If you are talking about whether or not they committed a crime and the damages, their earnings are inconsequential. No one is claiming that they are rich and therefore owe everyone else. That is just a silly argument.

Phil, this is one of the lousiest excuses for allowing people who commit crimes to get away with them. I hope you are not serious in your thought here.

Econ, I guess I'll throw this disclaimer out right now so you'll kow where I stand. And if you've read the trial transcript closely you'll understand immediately what I mean.

I studied under Ted Schroeder at KSU & worked with him as a grad student. I think & believe along the same lines as he does.

That should outline my point of view very thoroughly.

Phil

PS: I also think he's one of the brightest & hardest working people I've ever had the privilege to meet.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "If they can manipulate prices as you claim why would they endure losses?"

So you think they can't manipulate prices. Do you think they would if they could?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "You don't know much about R-CALF. R-CALF does not endorse candidates - never has. Why do you feel the need to tell tall tales?"

Yeh right, and R-CULT is not opposed to "M"ID either are they? You bet, tell me about tall tales when R-CALF's vote proved the "don't burden me with traceback" position that you were arguing with me about.

R-CALF leans to the left.

Leo McDonnel even stated that he was considering running for public office in Montana under the Democratic ticket.

Kathleen Kelly is a dem.

Herman Schumacher promotes dem candidates.

Mike Callicrate, R-CULT's packer blaming hero, switched from the Republican party.

R-CALF is democrat through and through which favors their love of government mandates and hatred towards large successful corporations.

Who do you think you are trying to kid Sandbag?

Fedup: "I went to the GAO site that audited Gipsa and and found a long list of violations by packers and most all were given warnings, not fined. Not taking sides here, just sharing information. The actual violations and action taken are listed in their report. Here is a summary."

I'll tell you how this works Fedup, the packer blamers in this industry force stupid laws like Mandatory Price Reporting on the packers when voluntary pricing was working just fine. They create a beurocracy that is virtually impossible to comply with then criticize the packers when they can't get the paperwork right and GIPSA for not sending them to prison for not getting the paperwork right.

Too bad the same price reporting laws are not forced on the LMA. Prices on all cattle including those missing tails, frozen ears, off colors, and who scalped them.

Remember the Mandatory Price Reporting fiasco that resulted in lower cattle prices a few years ago???? Same damn thing! That is a direct result of packer blamers and their government mandates. When the prices were reported incorrectly, guess who blamed the packers? Yup, the same packer blamers that initiated the goofy law.

That's exactly what they want to do with "M"COOL. "M"COOL, as written, is unenforceable. The packer blamers insisted on packers identifying where beef was born, raised, and slaughtered BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE BURDENED WITH TRACEBACK DUE TO LIABILITY CONCERNS. So what do we end up with? An unenforceable retarded law that forces packers to track beef without records on the cattle the beef came from. HOW THE HELL DO YOU COMPLY WITH THAT???? That's how ignorant these packer blamers are. Then they turn around and criticize GIPSA and the packers for not complying with the stupid laws that they initiated which are virtually impossible to comply with. TYPICAL BLAMERS!

You wonder why the packers have a hard time complying with these government mandates?

DID YOU LIST THE VIOLATIONS??? No!

Was it falsifying records or incorrectly filling out complicated documents?

Quite a difference.

Obviously if no fines were leveled it wasn't a major crime but the packer blamers like to think so to justify their packer blame.

"....identified packers' transactions that were inaccurately reported, unsupported by documentation, or omitted from packers' reports."

Inaccuracies, insufficient documentation, and omissions?

OH MY GOD LOCK THEM AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As of September 2005, USDA had continuing issues with 2 of the 11 packers. USDA officials noted that packers' errors are relatively few compared to the large volumes of data that packers report daily. However, USDA has not (1) assessed the overall quality of packers' data, (2) used its audit results to help focus future audit efforts, and (3) ensured that follow-up promptly resolves problems."

82% of the packers reporting are in compliance with a complicated system of reporting and the errors are minor AND PACKER BLAMERS ARE CRYING FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY???????

Sandbag: "Do you think they would if they could?"

"IF" THEY COULD?

YOU'VE ALREADY CLAIMED THEY "DID" and now you say "IF" they could?

Which way is it Sandhills two-stepper?

IF PACKERS CAN MANIPULATE PRICES, WHY WOULD THEY SUSTAIN LOSSES???

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!


Phil,

Ted Schroeder is a good man. I hope he never backs away from the truth to coddle these packer blaming fools.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The sky is not falling but the clouds are getting a little darker for Tyson. With the lower earnings, lobbiest(K-street project) scandals, money scandals in Congress, and producers organizing against them, Tyson may want to rethink their strategy of THE ABUSE OF MARKET POWER.

THE LOSS LEADER OF INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION IS LOWER EARNINGS!!!

Zacks strong sell - Tyson

Zacks Sell List Highlights: Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Tyson Foods, Mosaic, and Petrohawk Energy

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 19, 2006--Zacks.com releases details on a group of stocks that are currently members of the exclusive Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now. These stocks are currently rated as a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell): Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) and Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN). Further, Zacks announced #4 Rankings (Sell) on two other widely held stocks: Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) and Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK). To see the full Zacks #5 Rank List - Stocks to Sell Now visit: http://at.zacks.com/?id=92



Since inception in 1988, the S&P 500 has outperformed the Zacks #5 Rank List -- Stocks to Sell Now by 155.5% annually (11.8% vs. 4.6% respectively). While the rest of Wall Street continued to tout stocks during the market declines of the last few years, Zacks told investors which stocks to sell or avoid.



Here is a synopsis of why RRGB and TSN have a Zacks Rank of 5 (Strong Sell) and should most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #5 Strong Sell rating is applied to 5% of all the Zacks ranked stocks:



Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) blamed slower than anticipated same-store sales growth as well as weak performance at some locations outside of the comparable base for impacting its results. The company said that the lackluster growth will likely result in fiscal 2005 profits totaling $1.60-$1.63 per share versus the previous guidance for $1.71-$1.73 per share. Following the announcement, seven of the 11 covering analysts cut their forecasts. The current consensus estimate for fiscal 2005 profits of $1.67 per share compares to last month's estimate of $1.76 per share.



Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE:TSN) has missed earnings expectations during three out of the past four quarters. Two of the eight covering analysts have cut their projections for the fiscal 2006. The new consensus estimate for profits of $1.12 per share compares to the one month ago estimate for profits of $1.17 and the 90-day old estimate of $1.37 per share.



Here is a synopsis of why MOS and HAWK have a Zacks Rank of 4 (Sell) and should also most likely be sold or avoided for the next one to three months. Note that a #4 Sell rating is applied to 15% of all the stocks ranked by Zacks:



Mosaic, Inc. (NYSE:MOS) recently warned that DAP margins and equity earnings are likely to be lower in the second half of fiscal 2006. As a result, one of the three covering analysts cut his projections for full year earnings. The new consensus estimate calls for fiscal 2006 profits of 83 cents versus 87 cents a week ago and 98 cents two months ago.



Petrohawk Energy Corporation (Nasdaq:HAWK) has missed estimates four times during the past five quarters. Two of the four covering analysts revised their forecasts after the company released projections for 2006 daily production and expenses. The new consensus estimate for 2006 profits of $1.05 per share is 3.7% below the estimate of 30 days ago.



Truly taking advantage of the Zacks Rank requires the understanding of how it works. The free special report; "Zacks Rank Guide: Harnessing the Power of Earnings Estimate Revisions" is available to provide this insightful background. Download a free copy now to prosper in the years to come at http://at.zacks.com/?id=93



About the Zacks Rank



For over 17 years, the Zacks Rank has proven that "Earnings estimate revisions are the most powerful force impacting stock prices." Since inception in 1988, #1 Rank stocks have generated an average annual return of +33%. During the 2000-2002 bear market, Zacks #1 Rank stocks gained 43.8%, while the S&P 500 tumbled 37.6%. Also note that the Zacks Rank system has just as many Strong Sell recommendations (Rank #5) as Strong Buy recommendations (Rank #1). Since 1988, Zacks Rank #5 stocks have underperformed the S&P 500 by 155.5% annually (+4.6% vs. +11.8%). Thus, the Zacks Rank system allows investors to truly manage portfolio trading effectively.



Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter offers continuous coverage of Zacks #1 Rank stocks and highlights those stocks poised to outperform the market. Subscribe to this free newsletter today by visiting http://at.zacks.com/?id=94



The Zacks Rank, and all of its recommendations, is created by Zacks & Co., member NASD. Zacks.com displays the Zacks Rank with permission from Zacks & Co. on its web site for individual investors.



About Zacks



Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 to compile, analyze, and distribute investment research to both institutional and individual investors. The guiding principle behind Zacks is the belief that investment experts, such as brokerage analysts and investment newsletter writers, have superior knowledge about how to invest successfully. The goal is to unlock these pros' profitable insights for individual investors hard-pressed to find this valuable information in one source. A free subscription to "Profit from the Pros" weekly e-mail newsletter provides the best way to use these experts' insights for more profitable investing. Register for a free subscription to the Profit From the Pros newsletter at http://at.zacks.com/?id=95



Zacks Investment Research is under common control with affiliated entities (including a broker-dealer and an investment adviser), which may engage in transactions involving the foregoing securities for the clients of such affiliates.



(a) The S&P 500 Index ("S&P 500") is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 500 large-company common stocks selected by Standard & Poor's. The S&P 500 includes the reinvestment of all dividends, no transaction costs, and represents the gross returns before management fees.



Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.





home.businesswire.com

If they can manipulate prices as you claim why would they endure losses?

Planning and executing crimes has rarely really been profitable in the long run. Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Arthur Anderson, and others can attest to that. The minute we think that the crime has to be profitable to be convictable is the minute we lose our justice system.

Should rapeists get away with rape if they were not satisfied with the sex?

Should embezzelors get away with embezzeling if they take all the proceeds and lose it all gambling?

Should corporate executives have any less liability under the law in terms of punishment than anyone else just because they can manipulate the public opinion with their money (Richard Scrushy) and pay off both the Republican and Democratic politiicians (Ken Lay)?

Your argument holds no water. It is an empty cup. I bring you a cup that runneth over in benefits to us all. "Justice" should never be for sale or for the privledged few.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

IF PACKERS CAN MANIPULATE PRICES, WHY WOULD THEY SUSTAIN LOSSES???

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

I think alot of people in this forum are taking a relatively short term view of price manipulation.

SH, I realize that I've been stuck in the packer blamer camp, even though I've never outright said they DID manipulate markets. I've only presented logical arguements that state how they COULD manipulate markets.

Anyway, take this for however you want: It would be tough for a company to have a huge effect on prices over the short term, even though they may be exerting alot of influence. Instead, most well run companies will take a long term view of profitability. The price influence they exert may only amount to a few cents in the short term, and may not even be noticeable, but over the longer term, that can really add up. Thats why you can't simply look at overall prices, but profitability of everyone who is involved in the market over the long term.

Rod

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Nice job dancing around Agman's question. Like he said, you've never answered a question before why would you now?

Here, dance around this:

1. What circumstances allow packers to manipulate markets at sometimes and not at others?

Obviously packer margins run in the red at times.

Obviously packers want to be profitable.

1. (again) What allows packers to manipulate markets at sometimes and not at others.

If you are going to take the market manipulation position you have taken, you need to be able to explain it. Not empty unsupported "statements" and "THEORIES", EXPLAIN IT.

PROVIDE PACKER EXAMPLES, not Enron and Worldcom examples that you think might apply to the packers.

Or you can admit that you can't explain it rather than exposing your phoniness again.


~SH~

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1. What circumstances allow packers to manipulate markets at sometimes and not at others?

While Econ doesn't need my help here, and I may be mucking things up, I don't think I've seen him say that packers only manipulate the market occasionally. I think what hes saying (and if I'm full of crap, Econ, tell me) is that the amount of market manipulation may not be able to erase other market pressures, but its still there and its still exerting its influence. Or perhaps its not exerting its influence, but the manipulation itself is still illegal and still there.

Rod

 

[Jason]

Rod, be careful believing anything conman posts. He has been pinned to the wall on numerous occassions and then claims he never said what he just said.

Why would packers choose not to manipulate markets if they could?

1) They can't manipulate them or

2) The laws in place are a deterrent or

3) They are just generous souls that want everyone to prosper.

No matter what answer you pick it shoots another theory about manipulation or conspiracy down.

This is what R-half and conman don't understand. They take a position they think is popular then when another issue comes up they change their story.

There have been posts about how much money Tyson is raking in.

Then posts about how they have missed their earnings.

Then posts about how they are being fined for violations.

Then posts how they never get caught.

Then posts about no competition.

Then posts how hard it is to compete against them.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "You don't know much about R-CALF. R-CALF does not endorse candidates - never has. Why do you feel the need to tell tall tales?"

SH, "R-CALF leans to the left. Leo McDonnel even stated that he was considering running for public office in Montana under the Democratic ticket. Kathleen Kelly is a dem. Herman Schumacher promotes dem candidates. Mike Callicrate, R-CULT's packer blaming hero, switched from the Republican party. R-CALF is democrat through and through which favors their love of government mandates and hatred towards large successful corporations. Who do you think you are trying to kid Sandbag?"

You picked 4 people out of 18,000 and reached a conclusion that everybody has the same political leanings. :roll:

When I was in high school, Nebraska's governor, both senators, and 2 of 3 congressmen were Democrats. Did that make Nebraska a blue state?

I dare you to back your statements with truth and facts. Name 1 Democrat candidate that R-CALF has endorsed.

Sandbag: "Do you think they would if they could?"

SH, "IF PACKERS CAN MANIPULATE PRICES, WHY WOULD THEY SUSTAIN LOSSES??? ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!"

There are examples of exactly that happening. Enron was sustaining losses while manipulating electricity prices. Get your head out of those gopher holes and read the news sometime - you might learn something and might be able to refrain from asking such stupid questions.

 

[Jason]

Enron was sustaining losses while manipulating electricity prices.

Is Enron still in business?

NO!

If Tyson is doing the same as Enron they will be forced out of business too.

 

[Sandhusker]

Enron was sustaining losses while manipulating electricity prices.

Is Enron still in business?

NO!

If Tyson is doing the same as Enron they will be forced out of business too.

Maybe, maybe not. History is full of companies that were manipulating prices - and are still in business.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "I dare you to back your statements with truth and facts."

I just did and you corrected me on nothing again.

Leo is left!
Kathleen is left!
Herman supports left leaning candidates but I am not sure if he is a republican or not.
Johnny Smith, one of SD's most ardent R-CALF supporter, supported Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson due to their anti corporate packer blaming views.
This democrat leaning tiger can't change it's stripes Sandbag.

Of course R-CALF is not going to outwardly endorse democratic political candidates or they would lose many of their "SO CALLED" conservative members who have bought into their packer blaming rhetoric. That doesn't change the fact that the top of R-CALF leans to the left and the organization as a whole supports an anti corporate government mandate solution oriented agenda. There is no arguing that. I know some guys that dropped their membership to R-CULT due to their most outspoken proponents endorsing dem candidates.


Why do you continue to dance around the question Sandbag, if Tyson can manipulate markets, why do they sustain losses?

Periods of generosity?

Selective manipulation?

You can't answer the question because it would expose your ignorance. All you can do is continue to make the "market manipulation" statement. As long as you are not forced to back it with facts, you think your position has merit. It doesn't. INNOCENT UNTIL "PROVEN" GUILTY! You have no proof! Pickett had no proof! YOU GOT NOTHING, EVER!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "I just did and you corrected me on nothing again. Leo is left!
Kathleen is left! Herman supports left leaning candidates but I am not sure if he is a republican or not. Johnny Smith, one of SD's most ardent R-CALF supporter, supported Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson due to their anti corporate packer blaming views. This democrat leaning tiger can't change it's stripes Sandbag. Of course R-CALF is not going to outwardly endorse democratic political candidates or they would lose many of their "SO CALLED" conservative members who have bought into their packer blaming rhetoric. That doesn't change the fact that the top of R-CALF leans to the left and the organization as a whole supports an anti corporate government mandate solution oriented agenda. There is no arguing that. I know some guys that dropped their membership to R-CULT due to their most outspoken proponents endorsing dem candidates"

Nice speel, but you can't come up with a single candidate R-CALF has endorsed. By your definition, you are "factually void".

 

[Econ101]

Rod, be careful believing anything conman posts. He has been pinned to the wall on numerous occassions and then claims he never said what he just said.

Why would packers choose not to manipulate markets if they could?

1) They can't manipulate them or

2) The laws in place are a deterrent or

3) They are just generous souls that want everyone to prosper.

No matter what answer you pick it shoots another theory about manipulation or conspiracy down.

This is what R-half and conman don't understand. They take a position they think is popular then when another issue comes up they change their story.

There have been posts about how much money Tyson is raking in.

Then posts about how they have missed their earnings.

Then posts about how they are being fined for violations.

Then posts how they never get caught.

Then posts about no competition.

Then posts how hard it is to compete against them.

Packers can manipulate markets. Pickett prove that. Whether they do it all the time or just selected time periods of their choosing is another question. Pickett did not claim that Tyson manipulated the markets or broke the law all of the time. They did prove that it was manipulated at certain intervals. The argument that they could manipulate them all of the time, or that it would be in their best interest to do so shows how little you know about the markets.

During the manipulation periods, their margins increased. Even Agman admits to that.

Jason, when you were cheating on your tests in school, did you do it all the time, or just when it was advantageous to you? If the teacher walked by did you stop cheating a little until she walked by? If you knew the answer to the question you were working on, did you cheat on it or just answer it?

Even though packers have the ability to manipulate prices, do they do it all the time or just when it is strategically beneficial? When they want to "put the screws" to a competitior, they might do everything they can including lowering their margins, to out compete a rival. Does this mean that they will lower their margins all the time? Of course not. If they do have a strategic reason like running out competitors they will be more likely to decrease their margins, even to negative margins, to run someone else out of business? Of course. Is some of this just plain old competition? Yes of course. How do you differentiate? READ THE PSA AND UNDERSTAND IT AND YOU WILL KNOW. The PSA is an economic law to address the question. Who has the final say as to whether or not it is being done? Juries. They decide all the grey area.

 

[Jason]

So conman answers number 3 the packers are just generous.

If the packers are just generous then just sell when they are being generous.

If the packers can only manipulate the markets for periods of time then get their a$$es kicked at other times it disproves any manipulation.

If that scenario was correct that they can only manipulate it at times, and they can only make $26 while manipulating it, why do some small packers survive? They haven't got the volume to manipulate the market, but they stay in business. It isn't possible for the big boys to make a profit without manipulation but smaller packers can?

I think conman's "voices" are getting confused.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Packers can manipulate markets. Pickett prove that."

Pickett didn't prove a damn thing. Pickett lost!

Conman: "Pickett did not claim that Tyson manipulated the markets or broke the law all of the time. They did prove that it was manipulated at certain intervals."

Pickett didn't prove a damn thing. Pickett lost!

Conman: "The argument that they could manipulate them all of the time, or that it would be in their best interest to do so shows how little you know about the markets."

The argument that they can only manipulate markets under certain conditions or only manipulate markets when it's in their best interest to do so shows how little you know about the markets which is virtually nothing.

Conman: "During the manipulation periods, their margins increased."

Hahaha! So anytime packers are profitable, they are manipulating markets and when they're not profitable, they're not manipulating markets.

What an idiot!



~SH~