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

Which pocket did they get the money from Agman?

Econ101

Well-known member
Tyson's capital spending to top $560 million



MEATPOULTRY.com

May 15, 2006

by MEAT&POULTRY Staff



SPRINGDALE, ARK. — In its quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Tyson Foods, Inc., is expecting its capital spending during the 2006 fiscal year to be $560 million.



In the report, the company said the spending is to cover costs to build a third case-ready plant, construction at its headquarters (including a new office tower), expanded product development kitchens and a pilot plant.



"The new facilities will also provide space for the consumer insights group and make provisions for team member development activities and a variety of other projects that will increase automation and support value-added product growth," the company said in the S.E.C. filing.



Tyson sustained a loss of $127 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended April 1. During the second quarter of fiscal 2005, the company reported a net income of $76 million, equal to 23c per share on the common stock.



Sales for the quarter were $6,251,000,000, which compared with $6,359,000,000 for the same period during fiscal 2005.





meatpoultry.com
 

Mike

Well-known member
and a pilot plant

I guess this will be to make disposable pilots to jet the boys around in the corporate jets. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What's that you say agman????????????............SH??????????????

Margins are tight?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Don't you realize that $560 MM they are spending only means $560MM less that they will have to buy our products? They're margin players, that money can only come from producer's pockets! If you think there is so much money in packing, you and your friends should just pool your $560MM together and build your own plant and corporate tower!

HYPOCRITES!

LIARS!

DECEIVERS!

DIVERTION! DIVERTION!

THAT'S WHY I LOATH YOU *&$#ING &^@$ARDS!

PUNISH PROSPERITY!

SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!

BRAAAAAAAAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What's your point Mike (assuming you even have one)?

That because Tyson is investing in expansion in one meat division that there is no chances of losses in another?

Did someone give you the impression that Tyson never made a profit IN ANY MEAT DIVISION EVER????

Again, MAKE YOUR POINT rather than an "ILLUSION".

Here little Sandcheska, "FETCH" (throws stick).


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
:lol: Sandcheska :lol: Where di you come up with that one Scotty. Sometimes even your grade two mind makes me laugh.

Count on you to be there to defend the packers (S)uper (H)ero

I would ask you to quit trying to divert from the topics on this site with your name calling - but is is enjoyable to see what creative names your manic mind will come up with next.

Nobody can ever say they are not entertained by you Scotty.

Got those pom poms warmed up yet - Cargill will likely follow up the Tyson announcement with one of there own. Won't be long now til you only have to remeber two packer names to defend SH. Has your USBP group talked of selling out yet? Maybe you could suggest what a good thing it would be for them and all of us if they did.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
A man calling another "Sandcheska" brings up an image of the name caller wearing a bright pink shirt, yellow scarf, designer jeans, pointed boots with silver tips, rouge, mascara, and sipping on a wine cooler. (and talking about "them pesky little gophers")
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
A man calling another "Sandcheska" brings up an image of the name caller wearing a bright pink shirt, yellow scarf, designer jeans, pointed boots with silver tips, rouge, mascara, and sipping on a wine cooler. (and talking about "them pesky little gophers")

Watch it Sandhusker- he's flirting with ya

:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :pretty:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Tyson sustained a loss of $127 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended April 1. During the second quarter of fiscal 2005, the company reported a net income of $76 million, equal to 23c per share on the common stock.

Of course NONE of that $127 million loss was from capital expenditures and interest from previous years, was it SH?

I'm a little curious about where the money is coming from myself, since they're so broke and working on so tight a margins. Perhaps maybe they opened up some bordellos to bring in some cash. Since cheating producers is the second oldest profession, perhaps they're trying their luck at the first?

Rod
 

Jason

Well-known member
Rod what part of the dip in earnings of $108 million can be disputed?

Granted some of the costs on the balance sheet are from expansions, but do you really think they are making a huge profit based on the numbers?

For the fiscal 05 quarter quoted, they made 1.17% profit on gross sales.

To put this in perspective, let's calculate that back to a small ranch.

100 cows with gross annual sales of $70,000. 1.17% is a profit of $819.

Fiscal 06 showed a -2.03% return. On the small ranch that would be a loss of $1,421.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "Of course NONE of that $127 million loss was from capital expenditures and interest from previous years, was it SH?"

Still trying to create the "ILLUSION" I see!

When I asked you whether their reported losses included capital expenditures you said, I DON'T KNOW!

Well if you don't know, why do you continue to "CREATE THE ILLUSION"?

FIND OUT AND LET US KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE FOR ONCE!


I guess Mike didn't have a point.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Rod what part of the dip in earnings of $108 million can be disputed?

Granted some of the costs on the balance sheet are from expansions, but do you really think they are making a huge profit based on the numbers?

For the fiscal 05 quarter quoted, they made 1.17% profit on gross sales.

To put this in perspective, let's calculate that back to a small ranch.

100 cows with gross annual sales of $70,000. 1.17% is a profit of $819.

Fiscal 06 showed a -2.03% return. On the small ranch that would be a loss of $1,421.

If the small ranch could only write off 1/10 of the expense in salaries that the CEO recieves and is written off before your 1.17% derived figure, the number would be $563,800.00 based on an average of the past five years.

source:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/ORLJ.html

So those 100 cows would have to have a gross annual sales of $70,000.00 plus $563,000.00 which would mean each cow would have to gross $6,338.00 each. That does not even include the 1.17% profit numer. We did not even calculate the other salaries that allowed him to get that amount, Jason.

Stop making stupid arguments of why the rich should get richer off of the producer's back, Jason.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
When I asked you whether their reported losses included capital expenditures you said, I DON'T KNOW!

Nice twist SH. You said AS REPORTED TO GIPSA. We're not talking GIPSA numbers right now, SH, and you know it. You've already lost this debate twice. Do you need me to bring out the books a third time and prove you wrong a 3rd time? Why do you continue to try and twist this stuff? Have you got to gain?

Rod
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Jason said:
Rod what part of the dip in earnings of $108 million can be disputed?

Granted some of the costs on the balance sheet are from expansions, but do you really think they are making a huge profit based on the numbers?

For the fiscal 05 quarter quoted, they made 1.17% profit on gross sales.

To put this in perspective, let's calculate that back to a small ranch.

100 cows with gross annual sales of $70,000. 1.17% is a profit of $819.

Fiscal 06 showed a -2.03% return. On the small ranch that would be a loss of $1,421.

Jason, I've never once disputed the dip in earnings, but I do question the margins that repeatedly get bandied about. In order for them to invest 500 and 600 million a year, they eventually have to EARN that much, plus interest.

I'm showing a fairly heavy loss on my ranch this year, despite still earning over $300 per adult. Why? Because I bought a haybine, a tractor, a quarter of land, and a baler 2 years ago. Does it mean that I'm not profitable? Hell no. It means that my operation is solid enough that the bank felt perfectly comfortable with loaning me as much as they did.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "You've already lost this debate twice. Do you need me to bring out the books a third time and prove you wrong a 3rd time?"

You didn't win a damn thing Rod. You twisted what started out as Tyson's beef processing profits and losses into Tyson's profits and losses IN ALL THEIR MEAT DIVISIONS.

When asked whether the profit and loss figures in question considered capital expenditures, you admitted you didn't know and you don't know in this case either. The truth is, you don't know much of anything regarding these topics.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Rod: "You've already lost this debate twice. Do you need me to bring out the books a third time and prove you wrong a 3rd time?"

You didn't win a damn thing Rod. You twisted what started out as Tyson's beef processing profits and losses into Tyson's profits and losses IN ALL THEIR MEAT DIVISIONS.

When asked whether the profit and loss figures in question considered capital expenditures, you admitted you didn't know and you don't know in this case either. The truth is, you don't know much of anything regarding these topics.


~SH~

SH, tyson controls all of their operations they own, whether they are in poultry, beef, pork, or in different countries. They can swing the profitability in any of those operations with decisions made in another and put companies that do not have positions in all of them at a disadvantage.

It is the concentration game.

The truth is you are just and idiot and have to prove it continually on this board.

Guess what? We already know it.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
1) You didn't win a damn thing Rod. You twisted what started out as Tyson's beef processing profits and losses into Tyson's profits and losses IN ALL THEIR MEAT DIVISIONS.

2) When asked whether the profit and loss figures in question considered capital expenditures, you admitted you didn't know and you don't know in this case either. The truth is, you don't know much of anything regarding these topics.

1) Ah, how quickly you forget SH. I specifically showed you their books, which do include capital expenditures, showed you were it equalled the losses quoted in the article. You're the one who insisted they were GIPSA numbers.

So, if they were GIPSA numbers SH, show me the spot in the GIPSA regs that says the packers don't have to report capital expenditures and interest, and then show me where GIPSA doesn't use those numbers. Your knowledge of accounting is slim, SH, and you repeatedly ignoring that which I put in front of you only serves to underline your total ignorance on this topic.

2) And once again you twist. I said that I didn't know if GIPSA numbers included capital expenditures. Quit trying to twist SH.

Rod
 

Jason

Well-known member
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Jason said:
Rod what part of the dip in earnings of $108 million can be disputed?

Granted some of the costs on the balance sheet are from expansions, but do you really think they are making a huge profit based on the numbers?

For the fiscal 05 quarter quoted, they made 1.17% profit on gross sales.

To put this in perspective, let's calculate that back to a small ranch.

100 cows with gross annual sales of $70,000. 1.17% is a profit of $819.

Fiscal 06 showed a -2.03% return. On the small ranch that would be a loss of $1,421.

Jason, I've never once disputed the dip in earnings, but I do question the margins that repeatedly get bandied about. In order for them to invest 500 and 600 million a year, they eventually have to EARN that much, plus interest.

I'm showing a fairly heavy loss on my ranch this year, despite still earning over $300 per adult. Why? Because I bought a haybine, a tractor, a quarter of land, and a baler 2 years ago. Does it mean that I'm not profitable? Hell no. It means that my operation is solid enough that the bank felt perfectly comfortable with loaning me as much as they did.

Rod

So your doing the same thing Tyson is doing Rod. Buying land and equipment to make your operation more viable because margins are slim.

I don't see the problem. If Tyson was making 10% or 20% profit on their sales it would show they have the ability to control the prices. The dip in earnings shows they are vulnerable to consumer drops in spending.

If you don't make the payments on what you buy it will be repossesed, same for Tyson.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Jason said:
Rod what part of the dip in earnings of $108 million can be disputed?

Granted some of the costs on the balance sheet are from expansions, but do you really think they are making a huge profit based on the numbers?

For the fiscal 05 quarter quoted, they made 1.17% profit on gross sales.

To put this in perspective, let's calculate that back to a small ranch.

100 cows with gross annual sales of $70,000. 1.17% is a profit of $819.

Fiscal 06 showed a -2.03% return. On the small ranch that would be a loss of $1,421.

Jason, I've never once disputed the dip in earnings, but I do question the margins that repeatedly get bandied about. In order for them to invest 500 and 600 million a year, they eventually have to EARN that much, plus interest.

I'm showing a fairly heavy loss on my ranch this year, despite still earning over $300 per adult. Why? Because I bought a haybine, a tractor, a quarter of land, and a baler 2 years ago. Does it mean that I'm not profitable? Hell no. It means that my operation is solid enough that the bank felt perfectly comfortable with loaning me as much as they did.

Rod

So your doing the same thing Tyson is doing Rod. Buying land and equipment to make your operation more viable because margins are slim.

I don't see the problem. If Tyson was making 10% or 20% profit on their sales it would show they have the ability to control the prices. The dip in earnings shows they are vulnerable to consumer drops in spending.

If you don't make the payments on what you buy it will be repossesed, same for Tyson.

I am going to try to make this real simple.

If Tyson made 1 billion, as opposed to 1 million, and they used the 999 million of the one billion for expansion, would you be able to say in both instances that Tyson only made 1 million in net profit?

The amount of "profit" on sales in both instances could be the same, depending on how they write off depreciation of the investment that year and that of previous years.

Basically this is a manipulatable number. Tyson could be gaining market share and hence a better stance in future earnings and claim they "only made" 1 million in "profit".
 

Jason

Well-known member
For the "geniuses" that think 100% of expansions can be written off in 1 year, they can't.

Books cannot be manipulated to make a profitable company show losses without getting caught. Continued losses trigger audits. A business cannot continue to do business with losses mounting.

If a company has expanded fast enough to have expansion repayment costs eat all their profits, they are on shakey ground. 1 more dip in earnings will break them.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Jason said:
1) For the "geniuses" that think 100% of expansions can be written off in 1 year, they can't.

2) Books cannot be manipulated to make a profitable company show losses without getting caught. Continued losses trigger audits. A business cannot continue to do business with losses mounting.

3) If a company has expanded fast enough to have expansion repayment costs eat all their profits, they are on shakey ground. 1 more dip in earnings will break them.

1) I don't think Econ was attempting to say that 100% of expansions could be written off in a year, but rather to put into simple words that which I was not able to.

2) No they can't be manipulated, however depreciation is at a different rate than actual cash outlay. Capital depreciation may account for 500 million one year, while the actual cash outlay to service the debt may only be 250 million. So when a company expands, they can end up showing a legal loss for several years after the expansion, even though their cash flow doesn't feel the sting as badly.

3) Tyson had ~$4 billion in capital expenditures on the books in 2002. Their profits are steadily eaten away, and will continue to be eaten away for many years. What you need to look at is that they have been able to reduce this debt and still spend between 400 and 500 million/yr in new capital expenditures. That is not the sign of company who is going through hard times.

Also see 2). My whole arguement is that Tyson does have cashflow, and lots of it. Their rate of capital depreciation is higher than cash outflow (as it should be), so they can show a loss while on a cash basis, they're just fine. The only reason they're showing losses in the millions right now is simply due to heavy expansion and heavy outlays of capital. They probably weren't expecting the 100 odd million in income reduction, but thats paltry compared to the 3 billion they still owe.

And yes, I know I'm doing the same thing, all companies do, and its perfectly legal, but with some substantial differences:

1) I'm still profitable, and will consider myself profitable until my cash inflow can't meet my actual cash outflow.

2) I'm not attempting to hide my profits behind capital expenditures and expansion while poor-mouthing my suppliers. Tyson is. They're on shaky ground, in my opinion, and will likely have their credit downgraded, unless the beef prices come up. But its not souly, nor even primarily due to poor beef demand, but rather big spending.

Rod
 
Top