Why R-Calf Threatens the Packer led NCBA

[agman]

Agman, "Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not."

If I reported that I got paid $10 and the highest price reported was $9.50, I'd have a clue something was amiss.

Agman, ":Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?"

I wouldn't - but you have presented a straw man. What does your example have to do with reporting incorrect figures? That is what the case is about.

How much do you want to bet that the case has nothing to do with REPORTING incorrect figures by packers? Put up or shut up.

The only straw man is your display of your lack of knowledge of this case and more importanly product pricing by packers. Just admit you know little if anything about packer operations and pricing.

Also, are you admitting you would not know the value of the cattle in the pen per the question I asked; if not, why not? Admitting to your limitations will not hurt you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not."

If I reported that I got paid $10 and the highest price reported was $9.50, I'd have a clue something was amiss.

Agman, ":Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?"

I wouldn't - but you have presented a straw man. What does your example have to do with reporting incorrect figures? That is what the case is about.

How much do you want to bet that the case has nothing to do with REPORTING incorrect figures by packers? Put up or shut up.

The only straw man is your display of your lack of knowledge of this case and more importanly product pricing by packers. Just admit you know little if anything about packer operations and pricing.

Also, are you admitting you would not know the value of the cattle in the pen per the question I asked; if not, why not? Admitting to your limitations will not hurt you.

Maybe you can just tell us what the case is about - you're the one who knows more than anybody else.

 

[agman]

I posed a question to point out the extreme lunacy of the charges against the packers. I see that you can''t answer the question either. Rather you divert and assume by your question that I do not want producers to get their fair share-WRONG. That asumption is another of your foolish and baseless assumptions which only demonstrates your ignorance.

Your other commentary only shows how little you truly know about the facts regarding this case. Par for you, partial facts and an unsupportable conclusion.

 

[Econ101]

Your question is moot.

You are right, I have not reviewed the case any at all. I don't know the contentions in detail of the case and I don't know the evidence. All of that is for a jury to decide. I find it funny that you enjoy substituting yourself for that jury more and more. You still twisted the question raised by the lawsuit to defray responsibility by those actually not following the manditory reporting. The facts, hopefully, will be the basis of the outcome of the trial and not the nonsense the 11th circuit likes to make up.

It is a fact that if some of the packers misreported the information in the program to the USDA, they may have caused decisions based on that inaccurate information to cost people who relied on that information. Packers should pay for those damages, and no hiding behind the "they didn't make as much money as the the fraud cost" theory that you and SH have touted under our Pickett discussions.

If you would like to bring up the facts of the case instead of the lunacy of your prior and current arguments, be my guest. I am personally getting a little tired of you always siding with the packers when it comes to these issues.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Are we to believe that if data is entered into a blind data pool by many participants that those participants should miraculously know the output? I think not."

If I reported that I got paid $10 and the highest price reported was $9.50, I'd have a clue something was amiss.

Agman, ":Question, if 40 cattle producers place various numbers of cattle into a pen and you only know what you placed how would you know the value of the cattle in the pen cattle without ever seeing the entire pen of cattle?"

I wouldn't - but you have presented a straw man. What does your example have to do with reporting incorrect figures? That is what the case is about.

How much do you want to bet that the case has nothing to do with REPORTING incorrect figures by packers? Put up or shut up.

The only straw man is your display of your lack of knowledge of this case and more importanly product pricing by packers. Just admit you know little if anything about packer operations and pricing.

Also, are you admitting you would not know the value of the cattle in the pen per the question I asked; if not, why not? Admitting to your limitations will not hurt you.

Maybe you can just tell us what the case is about - you're the one who knows more than anybody else.

If you don't know what the case is about why and how can you draw a legitimate opinion? It certainly is apparent I know more than you per this case. Are you going to take me up on the bet or just divert as usual.

 

[Sandhusker]

How much do you want to bet that the case has nothing to do with REPORTING incorrect figures by packers? Put up or shut up.

The only straw man is your display of your lack of knowledge of this case and more importanly product pricing by packers. Just admit you know little if anything about packer operations and pricing.

Also, are you admitting you would not know the value of the cattle in the pen per the question I asked; if not, why not? Admitting to your limitations will not hurt you.

Maybe you can just tell us what the case is about - you're the one who knows more than anybody else.

If you don't know what the case is about why and how can you draw a legitimate opinion? It certainly is apparent I know more than you per this case. Are you going to take me up on the bet or just divert as usual.

The case is about improper reporting, Agman. I really don't know what you think it is about. Have you talked to Herman since I have?

 

[Econ101]

How much do you want to bet that the case has nothing to do with REPORTING incorrect figures by packers? Put up or shut up.

The only straw man is your display of your lack of knowledge of this case and more importanly product pricing by packers. Just admit you know little if anything about packer operations and pricing.

Also, are you admitting you would not know the value of the cattle in the pen per the question I asked; if not, why not? Admitting to your limitations will not hurt you.

Maybe you can just tell us what the case is about - you're the one who knows more than anybody else.

If you don't know what the case is about why and how can you draw a legitimate opinion? It certainly is apparent I know more than you per this case. Are you going to take me up on the bet or just divert as usual.

The outline of the case has already been drawn, Agman. Are you going to hide behind "superior" knowledge on this one? You can bring up the facts as you see them ----- if you have any. I have already pointed out a major fallacy in your logic in the question you asked. Talk about diversion! The words you use to describe others fit you very well.

I kind of like Mike's easy case route. If you have ANYTHING that would make it not applicable, please present it. I'll be waiting.

 

[agman]

The question is valid and gets to the heart of this frivolous case which you you know nothing about which is par for you. All talk and accusations without any factual backing. I just posed what is a simple question. I am sorry for you that it is over your head-some intellectual you are.

The only lunacy is your continued accusations without merit. You have demonstrated many times your clear willingness to lie at any cost to try to defend your baseless accusations and interpretation of events. Each time you post you demonstrate only more clearly what a true phony you are and how limited your real knowledge is of this great industry. You are impressing no one with your constant barrage of meaningless verbiage and phony accusations.

 

[Econ101]

Your question was an attempt to shift the blame of bad reporting and its consequences over to the USDA. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know the facts of the case, because I am not involved in the case. The interpretation of the facts should be left up to the jury---not judges. To say that your "superior" knowledge of this case gets you anything but an eye of suspicion is pre judgement on your part. If you have any evidence to support your little claim as to this case not having any merit, bring it.

I am waiting. Please, no more empty rhetoric and no more parlor tricks, Agman. As I said, I am waiting.

 

[agman]

Since you don't know the facts regarding this case as you admit then it follows that any opinion you express is baseless and as empty as your endless stream of other allegations which are also factless. How do you know what I have stated is incorrect if you don't know the facts to this case? Trapped youself again genius!! There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data.

There is no need for me to place any blame on the USDA as they immediately addmitted to the error in the formulation. That is a matter of public record. Another fact you do not know-par for you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Since you don't know the facts regarding this case as you admit then it follows that any opinion you express is baseless and as empty as your endless stream of other allegations which are also factless. How do you know what I have stated is incorrect if you don't know the facts to this case? Trapped youself again genius!! There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data."


Explain the following then. What does "Misreported" mean to you?



Jury Trial Begins April 3 in Cattle Producers' Class Action Suit Against 'Big 4' Packers and Misreported Boxed Beef Prices
Published: Feb. 22, 2006
Source: R-CALF

A federal jury trial will begin in Aberdeen April 3 to consider claims made against the four largest United States beef packers arising out of the misreporting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) boxed beef prices that occurred between April 2 and May 11, 2001.

The lawsuit was filed two and one-half years ago by three cattle producer-plaintiffs – Herman Schumacher, Michael Callicrate and Roger Koch – all of whom are proud members and staunch supporters of R-CALF USA. Each of these men sold cattle to the defendant-packing companies during the misreporting period. In June 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann certified the case as a class action on behalf of all cattle producers who sold fed cattle on the cash market, or a basis affected by it, during the misreporting period to any of the four packer defendants: Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., formerly IBP Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions, d/b/a Excel Corporation; Swift & Co., formerly known as ConAgra Beef Co.; and National Beef Packing Co., formerly known as Farmland National Beef Packing Co. The defendants control about 80 percent of the market for beef products in this country. The trial, expected to last two weeks, follows motions by the defendants to have the case dismissed, which Judge Kornmann denied in January.

The misreporting of boxed beef prices occurred at the start of mandatory reporting of boxed beef prices, which took effect April 2, 2001. Under the mandatory reporting law, the packers must report twice daily to USDA certain cattle-price information, including prices being received by the packers for boxed beef cuts. USDA duty was to then release the price information to the public so cattle producers and other market players have accurate, up-to-date information on cattle prices to inform their business operations. During the misreporting period, the prices the packers reported contained substantial errors that actually underreported the price the packers were receiving for boxed beef, which had the effect of depressing the prices cattle producers received for fed cattle sold to the packers during the same time period.

The reporting errors occurred in Choice and Select USDA boxed beef prices, with Choice prices underreported by between $1 per hundredweight (cwt) to more than $6 cwt during the period, and Select prices generally were underreported by about $1 cwt for most of the period. The lawsuit alleges the packer defendants violated the federal Packers and Stockyard Act (PSA), which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices by packers and stockyards. The suit claims that the packers' conduct was unlawful because they knew from their internal records what prices they were receiving for boxed beef, while the sellers of fed cattle accepted lower prices for their cattle because of the inaccurately reported USDA boxed beef prices.

"These packing companies were trading on inside information to reap a windfall profit at the expense of cattle producers," said plaintiff Mike Callicrate. "The packers knew both the real prices they were getting for their beef products, and the falsely lower prices being reported by USDA. Fed cattle sellers only had access to the false price information, and so were short-changed by the packers who had the true price information from their own records."

Callicrate and the other plaintiffs intend to prove at trial that the four packer-defendants caused total damages to cattle-producer class members exceeding $40 million.

The April trial follows on the heels of a U.S. Government Accountability Office report released in December, which shows more than half of the government's meatpacker audits revealed inaccuracies, omissions or undocumented transactions.

"That particular report raised serious questions in my mind as to whether the published price reports accurately represented true market conditions," said Schumacher, another plaintiff. "Market conditions affect how much money producers receive for their cattle."

Additionally, a January report released by USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded agency administrators had prevented employees from conducting investigations into complaints of anti-competitive activities and price manipulation by packers, and that USDA staff were falsely inflating the numbers of such investigations.

 

[agman]

Maybe you can just tell us what the case is about - you're the one who knows more than anybody else.

If you don't know what the case is about why and how can you draw a legitimate opinion? It certainly is apparent I know more than you per this case. Are you going to take me up on the bet or just divert as usual.

The case is about improper reporting, Agman. I really don't know what you think it is about. Have you talked to Herman since I have?

Yes, Herman is a plaintiff in the case and if you are so gullible as to believe his version be my guest. The case is central and paramount to whether packers knew the output from the USDA was in error. I don't want to pop your bubble but there are no allegations of incorrect reporting by packers. That allegation did not fly.

Why do you keep diverting from answering the question I posed to you? You no more would know the value of that pen of cattle then the packer would know what value comes out of a blind pool of inputs from numerous packers encompassing hundreds of individual product items. Since you trust Herman's opinion you could consult with him regarding the value of that pen of cattle!! Please post the derived value.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data."


Headline, "Jury Trial Begins April 3 in Cattle Producers' Class Action Suit Against 'Big 4' Packers and Misreported Boxed Beef Prices"

 

[ocm]

If you don't know what the case is about why and how can you draw a legitimate opinion? It certainly is apparent I know more than you per this case. Are you going to take me up on the bet or just divert as usual.

The case is about improper reporting, Agman. I really don't know what you think it is about. Have you talked to Herman since I have?

Yes, Herman is a plaintiff in the case and if you are so gullible as to believe his version be my guest. The case is central and paramount to whether packers knew the output from the USDA was in error. I don't want to pop your bubble but there are no allegations of incorrect reporting by packers. That allegation did not fly.

Why do you keep diverting from answering the question I posed to you? You no more would know the value of that pen of cattle then the packer would know what value comes out of a blind pool of inputs from numerous packers encompassing hundreds of individual product items. Since you trust Herman's opinion you could consult with him regarding the value of that pen of cattle!! Please post the derived value.

If you think that's all there is to the case, you are mistaken. I had some cattle sold the day before the error was publicly reported. I know exactly what happened, what the packer involved did to get the sale transacted before the next day. After the error was announced, prices immediately went up.

As for the packers knowing it was in error, if I owned 20% of the cattle sold out of a feedlot on a particular week, and the reported average for cattle sold out of the feedlot for the week was $5/cwt less than what I got, it would be easy to tell that something was wrong. Especially if the difference had never differed by over $.50 before. It would probably be the same if I owned only 10% of the cattle sold.

These packers had a significant share of the box market. They would know if the "average" reported differed significantly from what they got, and what their historical differentiation had been. And don't think they didn't get information about other companies box sales. You know better.

Your contention that the packers were in the dark is laughable.

 

[agman]

The case is about improper reporting, Agman. I really don't know what you think it is about. Have you talked to Herman since I have?

Yes, Herman is a plaintiff in the case and if you are so gullible as to believe his version be my guest. The case is central and paramount to whether packers knew the output from the USDA was in error. I don't want to pop your bubble but there are no allegations of incorrect reporting by packers. That allegation did not fly.

Why do you keep diverting from answering the question I posed to you? You no more would know the value of that pen of cattle then the packer would know what value comes out of a blind pool of inputs from numerous packers encompassing hundreds of individual product items. Since you trust Herman's opinion you could consult with him regarding the value of that pen of cattle!! Please post the derived value.

If you think that's all there is to the case, you are mistaken. I had some cattle sold the day before the error was publicly reported. I know exactly what happened, what the packer involved did to get the sale transacted before the next day. After the error was announced, prices immediately went up.

As for the packers knowing it was in error, if I owned 20% of the cattle sold out of a feedlot on a particular week, and the reported average for cattle sold out of the feedlot for the week was $5/cwt less than what I got, it would be easy to tell that something was wrong. Especially if the difference had never differed by over $.50 before. It would probably be the same if I owned only 10% of the cattle sold.

These packers had a significant share of the box market. They would know if the "average" reported differed significantly from what they got, and what their historical differentiation had been. And don't think they didn't get information about other companies box sales. You know better.

Your contention that the packers were in the dark is laughable.

So OCM tell me what is the pen of cattle worth in the question I posed to Sandhusker? Prices went up because producers withdrew their offerings from the market. I can assure you I am much closer to the total market and events than you are. Your simple conclusion that packers would know dismisses the fact that data is entered into a blind pool. If you think it is so clear that the packers knew there was a problem then it should be easy for you to answer the question I posed. Post the answer please. You claim to know what cattle sell for; post the answer. Knowing what cattle sell for is much earlier than knowing what hundreds of different items of beef sell for. Give it a shot.

BTW, by the end of next week you will know the outcome of the brief filed with the Supreme Court regarding the ruling in the Pickett case. Are you willing to make a side wager regarding the outcome of the so called brilliantly written Amicus Brief filed with the court. I will bet a cool one that the court resoundly rejects and dismisses the petition for a hearing.

 

[agman]

Agman, "There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data."


Headline, "Jury Trial Begins April 3 in Cattle Producers' Class Action Suit Against 'Big 4' Packers and Misreported Boxed Beef Prices"

Who misreported Sandhusker, the packers or the data compiling agency? Who misreported is a matter of public record.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, "There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data."


Headline, "Jury Trial Begins April 3 in Cattle Producers' Class Action Suit Against 'Big 4' Packers and Misreported Boxed Beef Prices"

Who misreported Sandhusker, the packers or the data compiling agency? Who misreported is a matter of public record.

So we are back to the incompetence or corruption of the USDA vs. packers not reporting accurately and timely.

Agman, in a 3 car wreck where car A hits car B and car B is pushed into car C through the actions of car A's movement, car A is still at fault and liable for car C.

The USDA decided to have no accountability when they decided not to follow up on Waterfield's incompetence or corruption and start the new coverup. How long do you think that will stand?

These packers need to stop hiding behind the USDA policy and actions. The incompetence thing is already causing political waves. How long do you think it will take? It is only a matter of time.

I still don't get why you continually side with packers over producers. The evidence still needs to play out in a court in front of a jury, I will grant you that. What new or other evidence do you have to bring to the discussion? Are you going to go on another rhetorical diatribe without presenting it?

 

[agman]

Agman, "There are no allegations that packers entered incorrect data."


Headline, "Jury Trial Begins April 3 in Cattle Producers' Class Action Suit Against 'Big 4' Packers and Misreported Boxed Beef Prices"

Who misreported Sandhusker, the packers or the data compiling agency? Who misreported is a matter of public record.

So we are back to the incompetence or corruption of the USDA vs. packers not reporting accurately and timely.

Agman, in a 3 car wreck where car A hits car B and car B is pushed into car C through the actions of car A's movement, car A is still at fault and liable for car C.

The USDA decided to have no accountability when they decided not to follow up on Waterfield's incompetence or corruption and start the new coverup. How long do you think that will stand?

These packers need to stop hiding behind the USDA policy and actions. The incompetence thing is already causing political waves. How long do you think it will take? It is only a matter of time.

I still don't get why you continually side with packers over producers. The evidence still needs to play out in a court in front of a jury, I will grant you that. What new or other evidence do you have to bring to the discussion? Are you going to go on another rhetorical diatribe without presenting it?

I side with the facts. Facts are something you are unaware of and incapable of deciphering. Why do you always cite against packers and remain unable to support your endless stream of accusations? You don't know anding about this case yet you make one phony and baseless assumption after another which only shows your total ignorance and bias. As far as incompetence you should be adept at recognition, just look in the mirror again.

 

[Anonymous]

Who misreported Sandhusker, the packers or the data compiling agency? Who misreported is a matter of public record.

All are the same- Packers/NCBA/USDA inc.......

 

[Econ101]

Who misreported Sandhusker, the packers or the data compiling agency? Who misreported is a matter of public record.

So we are back to the incompetence or corruption of the USDA vs. packers not reporting accurately and timely.

Agman, in a 3 car wreck where car A hits car B and car B is pushed into car C through the actions of car A's movement, car A is still at fault and liable for car C.

The USDA decided to have no accountability when they decided not to follow up on Waterfield's incompetence or corruption and start the new coverup. How long do you think that will stand?

These packers need to stop hiding behind the USDA policy and actions. The incompetence thing is already causing political waves. How long do you think it will take? It is only a matter of time.

I still don't get why you continually side with packers over producers. The evidence still needs to play out in a court in front of a jury, I will grant you that. What new or other evidence do you have to bring to the discussion? Are you going to go on another rhetorical diatribe without presenting it?

I side with the facts. Facts are something you are unaware of and incapable of deciphering. Why do you always cite against packers and remain unable to support your endless stream of accusations? You don't know anding about this case yet you make one phony and baseless assumption after another which only shows your total ignorance and bias. As far as incompetence you should be adept at recognition, just look in the mirror again.

I have asked you two or three times for the "facts" you have. Where are they? Bring them on.