• 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
Jason said:
It is clear to see jealousy is the motivation of anyone who doesn't accept there are tight margins in commodity based industry.

Tyson looks to be a very well run company that takes its bumps in the road because it has planned for them. If they hadn't they would be broke.

Sales dropped by $108 MILLION. That is no illusion lie or hidden money. That covers all sectors of their business. They didn't pull money from here to hide there.

Capital expenditures don't all come from sales in the current year. That can be saved money or borrowed money.

Rod said:
They had capital expendures and debt reduction of 1.25 billion. Thats 20%! In business, the difference between a profit margin of 5% and 25% is huge, even if that means they've went from making $1.00 to a $1.20.

Rod that logic isn't correct. They didn't hide profits in expansion (capital expenditures), they made additional expansions to continue to grow and to pay off what they already owed.

I know that's hard for some to understand. But if you buy a piece of land and have annual payments, what happens if your income falls due to slow markets? You see you are going to be short for next years payment. One option is to borrow more money and expand a sector of your business that will pay back itself and make up the shortfall on land payment. Sometimes the borrowed money is what is used to pay the original loan until the expansion is profitable.

If Tyson is making such good profits, buy stock. If they aren't, don't!

Margins are tight in commodities, Jason. Money is made off of volume, not large margins. Everyone knows that. Ask almost any farmer. Who did you have in mind with your your little jealousy bit?

Jason:
"Rod that logic isn't correct. They didn't hide profits in expansion (capital expenditures), they made additional expansions to continue to grow and to pay off what they already owed."

You do have a knack for saying exactly what you said was incorrect yourself.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Jason said:
Does Tyson carry any debt?

Did they have a drop in revenue?

Did they expand at the same time?


Figure it out.

They had a lot of retained earnings to draw from, didn't they, Jason?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "1) SH, this ones for you. You are the one who stated that the numbers in the article were GIPSA numbers. We were arguing that the losses they're showing didn't include capital depreciation, and thats whenyou drug the GIPSA stuff out. Show me that the losses posted in the articles have NO capital depreciation off of them. Prove it. You can't, because I already proved that the numbers in the article DO have capital depreciation and interest knocked off. As far as whether that money was spent on the beef sector, or chicken or hogs, take a few minutes a look at their website. They've had no appreciable expansion in either chicken or hogs, but they have in the beef sector. So I repeat, where are they expanding if not in chicken, hogs, or beef? Whorehouses?"

How many times do I have to explain this in order for you to get it through your thick head? I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TYSON'S PROFITS AND LOSSES AS A COMPANY, I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE PROFITS AND LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISIONS.

I want to discuss their beef profits and losses, NOT THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES AS A COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES THEIR PORK AND POULTRY DIVISIONS.

I want to discuss expansions in their beef processing enterprises, NOT IN THEIR PORK AND POULTRY PROCESSING ENTERPRISES.

The GIPSA numbers I am referring to are only for their beef processing plants. NO, I DID NOT JUST SAY THAT TYSON ONLY REPORTS THEIR BEEF PROCESSING PROFITS AND LOSSES TO GIPSA (trying to avoid the inevitable spin). THE NUMBERS YOU PRESENTED WERE FOR ALL OF THEIR MEAT ENTERPRISES. I WANT THE BEEF NUMBERS ONLY!

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NUMBERS FOR THEIR ENTIRE COMPANY!!!

Your "allegation" or "ILLUSION" or "THEORY" is that Tysons reported losses in their beef division is due to capital expenditures. PROVE IT!

You won't because you can't! At the same time, you refuse to believe the margins are as tight as they are.

You got nothing but an empty tree.

In case you didn't get it this time, I'll repeat myself. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PROFITS OR LOSSES AS A COMPANY NOR THEIR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AS A COMPANY. I CARE ABOUT THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PROVE THAT THEIR REPORTED LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION IS DUE TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

Good grief!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Rod: "1) SH, this ones for you. You are the one who stated that the numbers in the article were GIPSA numbers. We were arguing that the losses they're showing didn't include capital depreciation, and thats whenyou drug the GIPSA stuff out. Show me that the losses posted in the articles have NO capital depreciation off of them. Prove it. You can't, because I already proved that the numbers in the article DO have capital depreciation and interest knocked off. As far as whether that money was spent on the beef sector, or chicken or hogs, take a few minutes a look at their website. They've had no appreciable expansion in either chicken or hogs, but they have in the beef sector. So I repeat, where are they expanding if not in chicken, hogs, or beef? Whorehouses?"

How many times do I have to explain this in order for you to get it through your thick head? I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TYSON'S PROFITS AND LOSSES AS A COMPANY, I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE PROFITS AND LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISIONS.

I want to discuss their beef profits and losses, NOT THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES AS A COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES THEIR PORK AND POULTRY DIVISIONS.

I want to discuss expansions in their beef processing enterprises, NOT IN THEIR PORK AND POULTRY PROCESSING ENTERPRISES.

The GIPSA numbers I am referring to are only for their beef processing plants. NO, I DID NOT JUST SAY THAT TYSON ONLY REPORTS THEIR BEEF PROCESSING PROFITS AND LOSSES TO GIPSA (trying to avoid the inevitable spin). THE NUMBERS YOU PRESENTED WERE FOR ALL OF THEIR MEAT ENTERPRISES. I WANT THE BEEF NUMBERS ONLY!

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NUMBERS FOR THEIR ENTIRE COMPANY!!!

Your "allegation" or "ILLUSION" or "THEORY" is that Tysons reported losses in their beef division is due to capital expenditures. PROVE IT!

You won't because you can't! At the same time, you refuse to believe the margins are as tight as they are.

You got nothing but an empty tree.

In case you didn't get it this time, I'll repeat myself. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR PROFITS OR LOSSES AS A COMPANY NOR THEIR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AS A COMPANY. I CARE ABOUT THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PROVE THAT THEIR REPORTED LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION IS DUE TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

Good grief!


~SH~

SH, this looks like another on line hissy fit.

Maybe we should stop encouraging this 5 year old behavior with attention.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH said:
I want to discuss their beef profits and losses, NOT THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES AS A COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES THEIR PORK AND POULTRY DIVISIONS.

SH, you really must work on your reading comprehension. I said they had X millions of capital expenditures. Since their OWN WEBSITE doesn't show any movement in their pork and poultry divisions, where did the money get spent? If it wasn't on beef, where did it get spent?

Good grief is right. Before you debate these points any further SH, I want you to give me a breakdown of their purchases last year. I want you to prove that there was substantial movement in the pork and chicken arenas that would account for at least a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the capital expenditures.

SH, a debate requires both parties to bear proof. I've done so with Tyson's own books and their own website. Now its your turn. Put up, or shut up.

By the way, the GIPSA crap came from you. Both threads were stories about Tyson's losses, losses which were from shareholder reports, not GIPSA. You're the one who tried to confuse the issue by introducing GIPSA.

And also by the way, you specifically said that GIPSA numbers do not include depreciation. I'll try and find it, if you haven't already editted it out of the original thread you stated it in.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "SH, you really must work on your reading comprehension. I said they had X millions of capital expenditures. Since their OWN WEBSITE doesn't show any movement in their pork and poultry divisions, where did the money get spent? If it wasn't on beef, where did it get spent?"

You tell me Rod, you were the one creating the "ILLUSION" that the losses in their beef division was due to capital expenditures. You made the allegation, now where's the proof? It doesn't exist.

When I asked you whether the losses reported in their beef division were from capital expenditures you admitted you didn't know. What's to debate? I don't care about your "THEORIES".


Rod: "Before you debate these points any further SH, I want you to give me a breakdown of their purchases last year. I want you to prove that there was substantial movement in the pork and chicken arenas that would account for at least a SUBSTANTIAL portion of the capital expenditures."

You were the one who made the claim that the losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures then you admitted you didn't know. Why would I prove your statement either way? Either you can back what you said or you just threw it out there because it sounded good. You already admitted you didn't know whether Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures so there's nothing to debate. Once again, you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. You made it up.


Rod: "SH, a debate requires both parties to bear proof. I've done so with Tyson's own books and their own website. Now its your turn. Put up, or shut up."

You provided nothing to back your position that Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was capital expenditures. You presented an "Illusion" than admitted that you didn't know. Either prove that Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures or admit that you were shooting your mouth off about something you didn't understand, AGAIN. I'm not going to do your research for you. Either back your claim or admit you can't.


Rod: "By the way, the GIPSA crap came from you. Both threads were stories about Tyson's losses, losses which were from shareholder reports, not GIPSA. You're the one who tried to confuse the issue by introducing GIPSA."

No Rod, you were the one who tried to confuse the issue by presenting Tyson's financial records FOR THEIR ENTIRE COMPANY to create an illusion that would fit your "THEORY" on their beef losses being a result of capital expenditures. When you couldn't back your claim, you admitted that you didn't know whether Tyson's losses in their beef division was due to capital expenditures. Now you are back to creating the "ILLUSION" again.

The reason I mentioned GIPSA numbers is because that is where most of the beef division profit and loss data comes from that I have seen.


Rod: "And also by the way, you specifically said that GIPSA numbers do not include depreciation. I'll try and find it, if you haven't already editted it out of the original thread you stated it in."

Hahaha! Creating yet another illusion. I haven't edited anything.

If you believe GIPSA's reported losses for Tyson's beef division are due to capital expenditures, prove it. You won't because you can't.



~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
When I asked you whether the losses reported in their beef division were from capital expenditures you admitted you didn't know. What's to debate? I don't care about your "THEORIES".

Are you smoking something SH? Or do you purposely lie to try and win. At no time did I say that I didn't know the capital expenditures weren't from their beef division. Indeed, I've been postulating the entire time that the majority of the capital expenditures are FOR the beef division, based on information from TYSON'S own website. Egads.

~SH~ said:
Why would I prove your statement either way? Either you can back what you said or you just threw it out there because it sounded good. You already admitted you didn't know whether Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures so there's nothing to debate. Once again, you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. You made it up.

Have you even bothered to look at their website? Even know what moves Tyson's made? I didn't think you could prove me wrong. I was right. You won't even try.

~SH~ said:
If you believe GIPSA's reported losses for Tyson's beef division are due to capital expenditures, prove it. You won't because you can't.

I don't care about GIPSA numbers, the only numbers I cared about were the ones that were in the message threads. You attempted to introduce GIPSA as a way to divert attention from your own complete lack of knowledge.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey, check this out readers. Look at how Rod twists what I said into something totally different:

SH (previous): "When I asked you whether the losses reported in their beef division were from capital expenditures you admitted you didn't know. What's to debate? I don't care about your "THEORIES".

Now look at what Rod twists that statement into:

Rod: "At no time did I say that I didn't know the capital expenditures weren't from their beef division."

That's a word twist that would be the envy of the most deceptive amongst us (Sandbag).

I questioned whether the "LOSSES" in Tyson's beef division were from capital expenditures and Rod admitted he didn't know then he accuses me of lying and twists it into WHERE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OCCURRED.

Where the capital expenditures occurred within Tyson's company was not the issue, the issue was whether the losses that were reported from Tyson's beef division were from capital expenditures to which Rod admitted he didn't know.

What a deceiver!

You packer blamers are all the same.


Rod: "Have you even bothered to look at their website? Even know what moves Tyson's made? I didn't think you could prove me wrong. I was right. You won't even try."

I'll take that as another admission that you cannot back your claim that Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures.


Rod: "I don't care about GIPSA numbers, the only numbers I cared about were the ones that were in the message threads."

First you claimed the Tyson beef division loss numbers in the message thread were due to capital expenditures.

Then when I asked you if Tyson's beef division reported losses were from capital expenditures you said you didn't know.

Now you want me to prove to you that Tyson's beef division losses were not from capital expenditures.

Why do I bother with someone like you who can't even keep his stories straight?

Bottom line on this entire debate is that YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER TYSON'S REPORTED LOSSES IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION WAS FROM CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

Your claim was nothing more than a theory. A way for you to "BELIEVE" that Tyson was always profitable in their beef division because that's what you want to believe. Typical packer blamer.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Rod, if you keep twisting, diverting, and deceiving like you have been, your only choice for work will be a banker. :wink: :lol:

What a pathetic blamer you are! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
SH (previous): "When I asked you whether the losses reported in their beef division were from capital expenditures you admitted you didn't know. What's to debate? I don't care about your "THEORIES".

Now look at what Rod twists that statement into:

Rod: "At no time did I say that I didn't know the capital expenditures weren't from their beef division."

What? Is anyone else as confused as I am? In one sentence, SH, you say that I admitted to not knowing the losses reported in their beef division, yet I say I do know they are from information on their website.

SH, are you a drinker? You must get drunk before coming on here. You're making no sense at all.

~SH~ said:
Rod: "Have you even bothered to look at their website? Even know what moves Tyson's made? I didn't think you could prove me wrong. I was right. You won't even try."

I'll take that as another admission that you cannot back your claim that Tyson's reported losses in their beef division was from capital expenditures.

I have been there SH. I'm asking you to sober up and go there yourself and PROVE ME WRONG. If you can't do it, and I suspect you don't have the necessary intelligence level to do so, then shut up. Everytime you open your mouth, you reveal more ignorance and only hurt your position more.

I'm done with you on this thread SH. Your mouth is making claims that your brain can't back up. Prove me wrong SH. Prove that the losses I pointed to were from their chicken and pork sectors. Prove it. Put up or shut up.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rod: "What? Is anyone else as confused as I am?"

That's highly unlikely!


Rod: "At no time did I say that I didn't know the capital expenditures weren't from their beef division."

At no time did I accuse you of saying that you didn't know the capital expenditures weren't from their beef division.

The issue here was not whether or not Tyson has capital expenditures within their company, the issue here was whether or not Tyson's losses, AS REPORTED IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION, were from capital expenditures. That was the claim that you made then recanted once challenged to support that claim.

In layman's terms Rod, you made a statement you couldn't back with supporting facts. Par for a "factually defenseless blamer".


Rod: "In one sentence, SH, you say that I admitted to not knowing the losses reported in their beef division, yet I say I do know they are from information on their website."

YOU ADMITTED TO NOT KNOWING WHETHER THE LOSSES REPORTED IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION WERE FROM CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.

There's nothing to debate beyond that point. You admitted that you basically made up a theory and couldn't back it. True to your deceptive ways.


Rod: "SH, are you a drinker? You must get drunk before coming on here."

Nope!

OT and Randy Kaiser are the acclaimed drinkers, not me.


Rod: "I have been there SH. I'm asking you to sober up and go there yourself and PROVE ME WRONG. If you can't do it, and I suspect you don't have the necessary intelligence level to do so, then shut up. Everytime you open your mouth, you reveal more ignorance and only hurt your position more."

Rod, can you back your claim that Tyson's losses, AS REPORTED IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION, were from capital expenditures?

YES OR NO???


If you can, bring it and change your previous position claiming you didn't know.

If you can't, then admit it and let it go.


If I need to "sober up", then why did you ask me whether I'm a drinker? See how deceptive you are? You make a "theory" become fact by nothing more than your desire to believe it. What a pathetic little man.


Rod: "I'm done with you on this thread SH."

I understand why you would be. You made a claim and presented a theory that facts couldn't support.


Rod: "Your mouth is making claims that your brain can't back up."

How ironic that you would excuse me of what it is that you do best.


Rod: "Prove me wrong SH. Prove that the losses I pointed to were from their chicken and pork sectors. Prove it. Put up or shut up."

Quit trying to deceptively twist the debate Rod. The debate was not whether the losses you pointed to were from their chicken and pork sectors, the debate was whether the losses, AS REPORTED IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION, were from capital expenditures which you admitted that you couldn't prove.

The burden of proof is on you to back your "THEORY" or "CLAIM" that Tyson's reported losses in their beef division were from capital expenditures which you already admitted to not knowing.

Why are you blamers always so deceptive?

What's more important, making others think you are right or actually being right for a change?

There's no shame in admitting when you can't back a "THEORY", which you already did, so why are you still arguing and making an even bigger fool of yourself?


~SH~
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Rod: "Prove me wrong SH. Prove that the losses I pointed to were from their chicken and pork sectors. Prove it. Put up or shut up."

Quit trying to deceptively twist the debate Rod. The debate was not whether the losses you pointed to were from their chicken and pork sectors, the debate was whether the losses, AS REPORTED IN THEIR BEEF DIVISION, were from capital expenditures which you admitted that you couldn't prove.

Yep, thought so. When you're faced with having to give proof to back your own claims, you switch to lies.

Rod
 

Latest posts

Top