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

What Does the Wall Street Think of Tyson?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Jason said:
But did Tyson ever not buy in the cash market? That was the allegation, but it was proven false.

That was what SH said. Now he says "Their needs were fulfilled in their formula market". He contradicts himself. If Tyson never got out of the cash market, that shows they didn't fulfill all their needs via contracts - which makes SH full of baloney.

Good 'ol SH also says that Tyson can't just drop their prices in the cash markets because of the remaining competition with Swift et al. However, he also says about Pickett that Tyson was lowering their bids as their needs were met. Another direct contradiction. If there is that much competition, Tyson wouldn't get any more cattle bought if they lowered their bids. That makes SH full of baloney.

However, if Tyson could lower their bids and still get the cattle they needed to shore up their needs, that only proves that there is NOT the level of competition with the other packers SH claims there is and also proves Pickett's case. That too, makes SH full of baloney.

I think SH needs to open up a sandwich shop or fertilizer plant.
 
Sandbag: "That was what SH said. Now he says "Their needs were fulfilled in their formula market". He contradicts himself. If Tyson never got out of the cash market, that shows they didn't fulfill all their needs via contracts - which makes SH full of baloney."

Sandbag, you are either incredibly stupid or you take some kind of personal satisfaction in acting like you are incredibly stupid just to get under my skin which only serves to mislead those folks who are actually trying to learn something here. You decide but either way it's sick and it's wrong and it really getting old.

You should know that "TYSON'S CATTLE NEEDS" is not an exact number if you knew anything at all about the packing industry. Sometimes they buy more cattle than their "AVERAGE" or "NORMAL" WEEKLY NEEDS (normal chain speeds and normal shift lengths) which are transferred for slaughter to the following week. THEIR NEEDS ARE NOT AN EXACT NUMBER FOR A SPECIFIC WEEK ONLY nor can they determine exactly how many cattle they will be able to buy at a certain price. They have to have willing sellers and the flexibility to work with what they do or do not get bought.

You packer blamers criticized Tyson for having more cattle procured than they could slaughter in a week SO OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE SUBJECTIVE but that's asking you to reason and to look at the validity in your own arguments. I'm quite sure that's asking too much.

When Tyson has MOST of their "NORMAL" WEEKLY needs filled in the formula market, they would naturally drop their price in the cash market to reflect those purchases. Dropping your price on the balance of your needs to reflect your purchases is a normal supply and demand reaction. Sometimes they have willing sellers and sometimes they don't. What also becomes obvious is if Tyson has MOST of their WEEKLY needs filled in the formula market, there is less cattle available for Excel and Swift to buy in the cash market. It should also be obvious that Swift and Excel are in competition with eachother. If Tyson didn't have willing sellers for the balance of their needs in the cash market and still needed cattle, they could turn right around and raise their bids or they could cut shifts or slow chain speeds reducing profitability.

If you knew anything about the packing industry at all you would know that "TYSON'S CATTLE NEEDS" is a subjective number dependant on a number of variables which I understand and you obviously don't.

What should also be obvious is that Tyson would not have any need to drop their cash price if all of their needs could be filled in the formula market. WHY WOULD YOU DROP YOUR PRICE IF YOU DIDN'T NEED OR WANT MORE CATTLE????? Tyson's needs is also subjective to "PRICE". It should be common sense that Tyson would need more "PROFITABLE" cattle than unprofitable cattle.

When I said Tyson had their needs filled in the formula market, I MEANT MOST OF THEIR NORMAL WEEKLY NEEDS. They don't always buy exactly what they need. Sometimes they buy more and sometimes they buy less. Those cattle are scheduled for delivery according to the slaughtering schedule.

Just because they dropped their price in the cash market doesn't mean they didn't buy some cattle in the cash market AFTER THEY DROPPED THEIR CASH BIDS.


Sandbag: "Good 'ol SH also says that Tyson can't just drop their prices in the cash markets because of the remaining competition with Swift et al. However, he also says about Pickett that Tyson was lowering their bids as their needs were met. Another direct contradiction. If there is that much competition, Tyson wouldn't get any more cattle bought if they lowered their bids. That makes SH full of baloney."

What a pathetic spin job. Your deception has absolutely no bounds. You put Leo and Bill to shame. At least they make an attempt to APPEAR honest. You can't even do that.

I never said that Tyson cannot drop their prices in the cash markets because of the remaining competition. That's not what I said at all you damn liar. What I said was Tyson will drop their price in the cash market to reflect their purchases in the formula market. If they have procured a large number of cattle in the formula market, OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED LESS CATTLE IN THE CASH MARKET. If they have procured a large number of cattle in the formula market, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS LESS CATTLE AVAILABLE FOR EXCEL AND SWIFT.

Tyson can still buy cattle in the cash market if their bids are lower than Excel and Swift IF SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW THAT EXCEL AND SWIFT HAVEN'T LOWERED THEIR BIDS or if the feeder's freight offsets the lower bid.

Do you honestly believe that Tyson, Excel and Swift raise and lower their prices in harmony??? Do you honestly believe that every feeder has the same amount of freight to each of the packers??? Do you honestly believe that Tyson's needs are always the same?


Sandbag: "However, if Tyson could lower their bids and still get the cattle they needed to shore up their needs, that only proves that there is NOT the level of competition with the other packers SH claims there is and also proves Pickett's case. That too, makes SH full of baloney."

Bullsh*t! It proves nothing of the kind. Not every feeder compares Tyson, Excel and Swift bids AT EVERY SINGLE MOMENT. Not every feeder has the same amount of freight to each of those packers. Not every packer raises and lowers their bids at the same time.

What will your next spin be you pathetic %!@!@^*?


~SH~
 
You are so far up a tree you're getting a nose bleed! :lol: :lol:

I can't add anything else to your most recent post except to say your contradictions have only gotten deeper. I rest my case - the board can read what both of us has written and figure it out.

Here's you problem, SH; Most folks made decisions based on facts. You make facts based on decisions. You have decided there is competition in the packing industry, you have decided Tyson would not manipulate the cash market - but your "facts" to support your decision contradict each other. You've trapped yourself with all four feet - and you're chewing off your tail! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
SH: "You should know that "TYSON'S CATTLE NEEDS" is not an exact number if you knew anything at all about the packing industry. Sometimes they buy more cattle than their "AVERAGE" or "NORMAL" WEEKLY NEEDS (normal chain speeds and normal shift lengths) which are transferred for slaughter to the following week. THEIR NEEDS ARE NOT AN EXACT NUMBER FOR A SPECIFIC WEEK ONLY nor can they determine exactly how many cattle they will be able to buy at a certain price. They have to have willing sellers and the flexibility to work with what they do or do not get bought.

You packer blamers criticized Tyson for having more cattle procured than they could slaughter in a week SO OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE SUBJECTIVE but that's asking you to reason and to look at the validity in your own arguments. I'm quite sure that's asking too much. "

SH, what happened to cattle being procured in the formula market and cash market having demand in two seperate weeks? That was your excuse for price differences between the cash and formula market.

The more you talk, the more you make my case.
 
Kinda fun catching him with his own statements, isn't it? Sure makes it easy. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just get him to post more and keep track of what he says. :lol:
 
Sandhusker said:
Kinda fun catching him with his own statements, isn't it? Sure makes it easy. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just get him to post more and keep track of what he says. :lol:

That is what happens when you lie and deceive. :lol: :lol:
 
Sandbag, all you can offer is the "ILLUSION" of conflicting statements simply because you're too ignorant to know anything about the packing industry. If there was truly conflicting statements you could present them. Since you can't, you create your "GRAND ILLUSIONS" again like the deciever you are.

Keep talking to yourself. When you think you can contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts, step up to the plate and see what happens AGAIN.

You packer blamers are just like obnoxious drunks who stagger back into the bar only to take another beating with the facts. After getting tossed out the door again, you lean against the dumpster until someone else creates an illusion you think you can support so you stagger towards the door again. What a shame that you can't be unmasked publicly with your ignorance.

Debating packer blamers on beef industry issues is like playing Stevie Wonder in Tennis. I just sit and laugh as they swing at the air creating their "ILLUSIONS" with their twist, spin, and lying critiques of what someone else brings to the table since they can't compose an original thought on their own.

The simple fact that you would join hands with a repititious liar like Conman, who has been caught lying then lies about lying, speaks volumes about you Sandbag. Kinda like R-CULT joining hands with Carol Tucker Foreman and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen when it supports their USDA blaming agenda at the time.


~SH~
 
Where is the lie, SH? Are you trying to develop your own language and dictionary again so words fit your bias? :roll:

SH:"You packer blamers criticized Tyson for having more cattle procured than they could slaughter in a week SO OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE SUBJECTIVE but that's asking you to reason and to look at the validity in your own arguments. I'm quite sure that's asking too much. "

SH, what happened to cattle being procured in the formula market and cash market having demand in two seperate weeks? That was your excuse for price differences between the cash and formula market.

The more you talk, the more you make my case."

You are the grand illusion. Now let us see the circus chicken dance.
 
~SH~ said:
Sandbag, all you can offer is the "ILLUSION" of conflicting statements simply because you're too ignorant to know anything about the packing industry. If there was truly conflicting statements you could present them. Since you can't, you create your "GRAND ILLUSIONS" again like the deciever you are.

Keep talking to yourself. When you think you can contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts, step up to the plate and see what happens AGAIN.

You packer blamers are just like obnoxious drunks who stagger back into the bar only to take another beating with the facts. After getting tossed out the door again, you lean against the dumpster until someone else creates an illusion you think you can support so you stagger towards the door again. What a shame that you can't be unmasked publicly with your ignorance.

Debating packer blamers on beef industry issues is like playing Stevie Wonder in Tennis. I just sit and laugh as they swing at the air creating their "ILLUSIONS" with their twist, spin, and lying critiques of what someone else brings to the table since they can't compose an original thought on their own.

The simple fact that you would join hands with a repititious liar like Conman, who has been caught lying then lies about lying, speaks volumes about you Sandbag. Kinda like R-CULT joining hands with Carol Tucker Foreman and Ralph Nader's Public Citizen when it supports their USDA blaming agenda at the time.


~SH~

I'm comfortable with what I've posted regarding your statements. 8)
 

Latest posts

Top