Yet another attempt to legislate the markets!

[ocm]

OCM......From AMI's website ( http://www.meatami.com/Template.cfm?Section=InsideAMI&template=PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=2723&News=Y)


Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House
November 10, 2005

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector. Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) also co-sponsored the bill that could expose producers to greater price risk and market volatility.

The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill. Formula price would mean "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established." A forward contract would be defined as an "oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into …."

AMI, which opposes the bill, noted that while the bills' intention is to "prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts," it disregards that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........

OCM, please point out the lies. I find it interesting that HR 4257 is word for word, the same language as S. 1044, which Sen Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced in the senate on 5/13/03. Unless I missed something, Sen Enzi does not have a single reference on his website to this bill since he introduced it. More time has been wasted on this site discussing 1044 / 4257 that anywhere else.

I also have a current copy of all the listed alliances (55 in all) from Drovers Journal, dated March '04. I'm sure there's been attritition since then, but it's for the most part current. Do you not believe HR 4257 would severely cripply most of these alliances? That is, unless they totally reconstruct their pricing structure to meet 1044 / 4257.

For obvious reasons, it appears the senate totally ignored S. 1044. What makes you think the house won't do the same with HR 4257?

Beefman

Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House

The headline of their release is the lie. The bill does NOT prohibit forward contracting.

Repeated in the first paragraph of their release:
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector.

And a third time:
The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill.


These statements are blatantly false (the second and third ones contain a partial truth--formula pricing is prohibited)

I found a link on Enzi's site linking to the bill.

The bill would have NO effect on alliances. Essentially the only change is that when a forward contract is made, it must be priced--no formula. And note ~SH~ is incorrect, there is no effect on grid pricing. Grids are not prohibited, it's just that the base must be negotiated at the time the agreement is made, not dependent on a formula and determined by the packer later.

I cannot conceive how this would affect an alliance. Can you explain?

 

[Beefman]

OCM......From AMI's website ( http://www.meatami.com/Template.cfm?Section=InsideAMI&template=PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=2723&News=Y)


Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House
November 10, 2005

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector. Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) also co-sponsored the bill that could expose producers to greater price risk and market volatility.

The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill. Formula price would mean "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established." A forward contract would be defined as an "oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into …."

AMI, which opposes the bill, noted that while the bills' intention is to "prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts," it disregards that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........

OCM, please point out the lies. I find it interesting that HR 4257 is word for word, the same language as S. 1044, which Sen Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced in the senate on 5/13/03. Unless I missed something, Sen Enzi does not have a single reference on his website to this bill since he introduced it. More time has been wasted on this site discussing 1044 / 4257 that anywhere else.

I also have a current copy of all the listed alliances (55 in all) from Drovers Journal, dated March '04. I'm sure there's been attritition since then, but it's for the most part current. Do you not believe HR 4257 would severely cripply most of these alliances? That is, unless they totally reconstruct their pricing structure to meet 1044 / 4257.

For obvious reasons, it appears the senate totally ignored S. 1044. What makes you think the house won't do the same with HR 4257?

Beefman

Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House

The headline of their release is the lie. The bill does NOT prohibit forward contracting.

Repeated in the first paragraph of their release:
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector.

And a third time:
The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill.


These statements are blatantly false (the second and third ones contain a partial truth--formula pricing is prohibited)

I found a link on Enzi's site linking to the bill.

The bill would have NO effect on alliances. Essentially the only change is that when a forward contract is made, it must be priced--no formula. And note ~SH~ is incorrect, there is no effect on grid pricing. Grids are not prohibited, it's just that the base must be negotiated at the time the agreement is made, not dependent on a formula and determined by the packer later.

I cannot conceive how this would affect an alliance. Can you explain?

Today, cattle feeders sending their cattle on a value based carcass pricing system can go a variety of ways, including bid the grid, or tied to a variety of other pricing mechanisms, which are not always established until after the cattle leave the yard. Bottom line, you have a choice to best fit your situation. HR 4257, as written today, and also as written over two years ago in S. 1044, would wipe out those value based pricing mechanisms where the base price is not established prior to the cattle leaving the yard. When you peel this onion back, it might be the "intent" to leave alliances / value based marketing unharmed. However, the opposite effect would be the norm, should HR 4257 become a reality. It's nearly impossible to do a spin job on 4257 to be interpreted as being grid friendly.

As you just explained, with 4257 "the base must be negotiated at the time the agreement is made, not dependent on a formula and determined by the packer later." This effectively eliminates grids / pricing mechanisms that use yield averages, or live cash pricing to convert to a base price at a time after harvest. As such, 4257 (again, as written) would affect a large percentage of grids available today.

Beefman

 

[agman]

OCM......From AMI's website ( http://www.meatami.com/Template.cfm?Section=InsideAMI&template=PressReleaseDisplay.cfm&PressReleaseID=2723&News=Y)


Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House
November 10, 2005

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector. Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) also co-sponsored the bill that could expose producers to greater price risk and market volatility.

The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill. Formula price would mean "any price term that establishes a base from which a purchase price is calculated on the basis of a price that will not be determined or reported until a date after the day the forward price is established." A forward contract would be defined as an "oral or written contract for the purchase of livestock that provides for the delivery of the livestock to a packer at a date that is more than 7 days after the date on which the contract is entered into …."

AMI, which opposes the bill, noted that while the bills' intention is to "prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts," it disregards that many producers and processors jointly enter into contracting and marketing agreements to limit exposure to market volatility, access capital, and implement value-added business practices. Marketing agreements and contracting often provide the means to access capital for young producers often to enter farming and ranching. (end)........

OCM, please point out the lies. I find it interesting that HR 4257 is word for word, the same language as S. 1044, which Sen Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced in the senate on 5/13/03. Unless I missed something, Sen Enzi does not have a single reference on his website to this bill since he introduced it. More time has been wasted on this site discussing 1044 / 4257 that anywhere else.

I also have a current copy of all the listed alliances (55 in all) from Drovers Journal, dated March '04. I'm sure there's been attritition since then, but it's for the most part current. Do you not believe HR 4257 would severely cripply most of these alliances? That is, unless they totally reconstruct their pricing structure to meet 1044 / 4257.

For obvious reasons, it appears the senate totally ignored S. 1044. What makes you think the house won't do the same with HR 4257?

Beefman

Bill Prohibiting Livestock Forward Contracting Introduced in House

The headline of their release is the lie. The bill does NOT prohibit forward contracting.

Repeated in the first paragraph of their release:
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) this week introduced legislation (H.R. 4257) that would prohibit the use of forward contracts and formula pricing in the livestock sector.

And a third time:
The bill would amend the Packer and Stockyards Act to outlaw "formula price" and "forward contract," as defined by the bill.


These statements are blatantly false (the second and third ones contain a partial truth--formula pricing is prohibited)

I found a link on Enzi's site linking to the bill.

The bill would have NO effect on alliances. Essentially the only change is that when a forward contract is made, it must be priced--no formula. And note ~SH~ is incorrect, there is no effect on grid pricing. Grids are not prohibited, it's just that the base must be negotiated at the time the agreement is made, not dependent on a formula and determined by the packer later.

I cannot conceive how this would affect an alliance. Can you explain?

Today, cattle feeders sending their cattle on a value based carcass pricing system can go a variety of ways, including bid the grid, or tied to a variety of other pricing mechanisms, which are not always established until after the cattle leave the yard. Bottom line, you have a choice to best fit your situation. HR 4257, as written today, and also as written over two years ago in S. 1044, would wipe out those value based pricing mechanisms where the base price is not established prior to the cattle leaving the yard. When you peel this onion back, it might be the "intent" to leave alliances / value based marketing unharmed. However, the opposite effect would be the norm, should HR 4257 become a reality. It's nearly impossible to do a spin job on 4257 to be interpreted as being grid friendly.

As you just explained, with 4257 "the base must be negotiated at the time the agreement is made, not dependent on a formula and determined by the packer later." This effectively eliminates grids / pricing mechanisms that use yield averages, or live cash pricing to convert to a base price at a time after harvest. As such, 4257 (again, as written) would affect a large percentage of grids available today.

Beefman

You have got it right Beefman. The good news is that this piece of legislation has little if any chance of passing. If it would happen to pass it would be challenged immediately in the courts.

 

[Econ101]

That is just because the packers want to continue to manipulate the beef markets with their frauds. The abuse of these mechanisms is what allows the frauds. If the Tyson can go into court, not present the information in the discovery process that would prove the frauds, and then hide behind the "no proof" theory, then the cattle markets will continue to be manipulated and cattle producers will continue to be cheated.

The only way to make extra profits in a commodity is to differentiate and then discriminate. These agreements allow that to happen. Differentiation based on real quality differences is allowed. Price discrimination based on quality is allowed. Price differentiation or discrimination based on the type of sales agreement is fraud. The packers mix these elements to claim that they are not committing fraud. They then deny the data that would shake out these elements in discovery. Judge Strom should have sanctioned Tyson for not providing the discovery data that the plaintiffs asked for. He did not. He was biased. If Tyson wished to remain silent on those discovery issues, they should not have been allowed to put on a case at all. If a defendant waives his right to the 5th amendment (which you can not do in civil court anyway unless there is a criminal element possibility) then he has the possibility of cross examination. On the discovery that would have seperated the elements described above, Tyson remained silent and so did GIPSA in their requirements of data collection. This was a government sponsored fraud by either incompetence or corruption or both.

I don't believe in gun control---unless you have used that gun to commit a crime, which Pickett proved. This is a "gun control" law because the courts are so inept.

 

[agman]

That is just because the packers want to continue to manipulate the beef markets with their frauds. The abuse of these mechanisms is what allows the frauds. If the Tyson can go into court, not present the information in the discovery process that would prove the frauds, and then hide behind the "no proof" theory, then the cattle markets will continue to be manipulated and cattle producers will continue to be cheated.

The only way to make extra profits in a commodity is to differentiate and then discriminate. These agreements allow that to happen. Differentiation based on real quality differences is allowed. Price discrimination based on quality is allowed. Price differentiation or discrimination based on the type of sales agreement is fraud. The packers mix these elements to claim that they are not committing fraud. They then deny the data that would shake out these elements in discovery. Judge Strom should have sanctioned Tyson for not providing the discovery data that the plaintiffs asked for. He did not. He was biased. If Tyson wished to remain silent on those discovery issues, they should not have been allowed to put on a case at all. If a defendant waives his right to the 5th amendment (which you can not do in civil court anyway unless there is a criminal element possibility) then he has the possibility of cross examination. On the discovery that would have seperated the elements described above, Tyson remained silent and so did GIPSA in their requirements of data collection. This was a government sponsored fraud by either incompetence or corruption or both.

I don't believe in gun control---unless you have used that gun to commit a crime, which Pickett proved. This is a "gun control" law because the courts are so inept.

Dream on Pinocchio. Who believes your version of anything? Did you not previously state the Taylor had access to data that was never before available to other economists? Now you claim he did not have that data. He had access to all their pricing data and proved nothing. He assumed something and had six untested theories but proved nothing just as you do in each of your posts. He admitted to that under oath-all theory and no facts. Does that sound familiar to you?

 

[Econ101]

That is just because the packers want to continue to manipulate the beef markets with their frauds. The abuse of these mechanisms is what allows the frauds. If the Tyson can go into court, not present the information in the discovery process that would prove the frauds, and then hide behind the "no proof" theory, then the cattle markets will continue to be manipulated and cattle producers will continue to be cheated.

The only way to make extra profits in a commodity is to differentiate and then discriminate. These agreements allow that to happen. Differentiation based on real quality differences is allowed. Price discrimination based on quality is allowed. Price differentiation or discrimination based on the type of sales agreement is fraud. The packers mix these elements to claim that they are not committing fraud. They then deny the data that would shake out these elements in discovery. Judge Strom should have sanctioned Tyson for not providing the discovery data that the plaintiffs asked for. He did not. He was biased. If Tyson wished to remain silent on those discovery issues, they should not have been allowed to put on a case at all. If a defendant waives his right to the 5th amendment (which you can not do in civil court anyway unless there is a criminal element possibility) then he has the possibility of cross examination. On the discovery that would have seperated the elements described above, Tyson remained silent and so did GIPSA in their requirements of data collection. This was a government sponsored fraud by either incompetence or corruption or both.

I don't believe in gun control---unless you have used that gun to commit a crime, which Pickett proved. This is a "gun control" law because the courts are so inept.

Dream on Pinocchio. Who believes your version of anything? Did you not previously state the Taylor had access to data that was never before available to other economists? Now you claim he did not have that data. He had access to all their pricing data and proved nothing. He assumed something and had six untested theories but proved nothing just as you do in each of your posts. He admitted to that under oath-all theory and no facts. Does that sound familiar to you?

What are you talking about, Agman? I never said Taylor did not have the data he needed to to his econometric analysis. That is another made up thing by you. If you don't understand something I post just ask me before you make your usual blundering foolishness. By the way, Pinocchio was the first movie I ever watched. It was good.

 

[agman]

That is just because the packers want to continue to manipulate the beef markets with their frauds. The abuse of these mechanisms is what allows the frauds. If the Tyson can go into court, not present the information in the discovery process that would prove the frauds, and then hide behind the "no proof" theory, then the cattle markets will continue to be manipulated and cattle producers will continue to be cheated.

The only way to make extra profits in a commodity is to differentiate and then discriminate. These agreements allow that to happen. Differentiation based on real quality differences is allowed. Price discrimination based on quality is allowed. Price differentiation or discrimination based on the type of sales agreement is fraud. The packers mix these elements to claim that they are not committing fraud. They then deny the data that would shake out these elements in discovery. Judge Strom should have sanctioned Tyson for not providing the discovery data that the plaintiffs asked for. He did not. He was biased. If Tyson wished to remain silent on those discovery issues, they should not have been allowed to put on a case at all. If a defendant waives his right to the 5th amendment (which you can not do in civil court anyway unless there is a criminal element possibility) then he has the possibility of cross examination. On the discovery that would have seperated the elements described above, Tyson remained silent and so did GIPSA in their requirements of data collection. This was a government sponsored fraud by either incompetence or corruption or both.

I don't believe in gun control---unless you have used that gun to commit a crime, which Pickett proved. This is a "gun control" law because the courts are so inept.

Dream on Pinocchio. Who believes your version of anything? Did you not previously state the Taylor had access to data that was never before available to other economists? Now you claim he did not have that data. He had access to all their pricing data and proved nothing. He assumed something and had six untested theories but proved nothing just as you do in each of your posts. He admitted to that under oath-all theory and no facts. Does that sound familiar to you?

What are you talking about, Agman? I never said Taylor did not have the data he needed to to his econometric analysis. That is another made up thing by you. If you don't understand something I post just ask me before you make your usual blundering foolishness. By the way, Pinocchio was the first movie I ever watched. It was good.

You are so confused you don't even know what you post anymore. Did Taylor and the Plaintiff's lawyers not get everthing they wanted? Where is your evidence to the contrary. Another one of your phony assumptions I guess-par for you.

 

[Econ101]

Dream on Pinocchio. Who believes your version of anything? Did you not previously state the Taylor had access to data that was never before available to other economists? Now you claim he did not have that data. He had access to all their pricing data and proved nothing. He assumed something and had six untested theories but proved nothing just as you do in each of your posts. He admitted to that under oath-all theory and no facts. Does that sound familiar to you?

What are you talking about, Agman? I never said Taylor did not have the data he needed to to his econometric analysis. That is another made up thing by you. If you don't understand something I post just ask me before you make your usual blundering foolishness. By the way, Pinocchio was the first movie I ever watched. It was good.

You are so confused you don't even know what you post anymore. Did Taylor and the Plaintiff's lawyers not get everthing they wanted? Where is your evidence to the contrary. Another one of your phony assumptions I guess-par for you.

Have you read all of the posts Agman? I am not the one confused here. I haven't asked Taylor or the Plaintiff's lawyers if they got everything. Mike posted that when asked about the pricing offered on the formula pricing compared to the cash offerings, Tyson did not provide that information. Maybe you want to clear that up for us with some of your addtional information.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "That is just because the packers want to continue to manipulate the beef markets with their frauds. The abuse of these mechanisms is what allows the frauds. If the Tyson can go into court, not present the information in the discovery process that would prove the frauds, and then hide behind the "no proof" theory, then the cattle markets will continue to be manipulated and cattle producers will continue to be cheated.

The only way to make extra profits in a commodity is to differentiate and then discriminate. These agreements allow that to happen. Differentiation based on real quality differences is allowed. Price discrimination based on quality is allowed. Price differentiation or discrimination based on the type of sales agreement is fraud. The packers mix these elements to claim that they are not committing fraud. They then deny the data that would shake out these elements in discovery. Judge Strom should have sanctioned Tyson for not providing the discovery data that the plaintiffs asked for. He did not. He was biased. If Tyson wished to remain silent on those discovery issues, they should not have been allowed to put on a case at all. If a defendant waives his right to the 5th amendment (which you can not do in civil court anyway unless there is a criminal element possibility) then he has the possibility of cross examination. On the discovery that would have seperated the elements described above, Tyson remained silent and so did GIPSA in their requirements of data collection. This was a government sponsored fraud by either incompetence or corruption or both.

I don't believe in gun control---unless you have used that gun to commit a crime, which Pickett proved. This is a "gun control" law because the courts are so inept.

More empty unsupported statements by Conman who thinks packers trim lean carcasses, packers grade their own cattle, and someone tapped his phoneline. A complete phony too ignorant to recognize his own ignorance.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

More empty unsupported statements by Conman who thinks packers trim lean carcasses, packers grade their own cattle, and someone tapped his phoneline. A complete phony too ignorant to recognize his own ignorance.

Nothing substantive to add to this forum, SH? Packers trim almost all carcasses. Some for fat, and some for other things. Can you prove me wrong?

You are taking on Agman's "tell" of name calling and just plain making up stuf so you can make a post that denegrates others. What have you got to bring of substance to this discussion?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Nothing substantive to add to this forum, SH? Packers trim almost all carcasses. Some for fat, and some for other things. Can you prove me wrong?"

Blemishes and bruised areas. DID YOU THINK THEY WOULD GRIND THOSE WITH LEAN TRIMMINGS?

Explain your "free trim" statement so I can watch you bury yourself deeper.

Conman: "You are taking on Agman's "tell" of name calling and just plain making up stuf so you can make a post that denegrates others."

What did I makeup CHEAP TALKER?

PROVE IT!

You won't because all you have is cheap talk and now your trying to cover your ignorance in a claim that I'm making stuff up.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Nothing substantive to add to this forum, SH? Packers trim almost all carcasses. Some for fat, and some for other things. Can you prove me wrong?"

Blemishes and bruised areas. DID YOU THINK THEY WOULD GRIND THOSE WITH LEAN TRIMMINGS?

Explain your "free trim" statement so I can watch you bury yourself deeper.

Conman: "You are taking on Agman's "tell" of name calling and just plain making up stuf so you can make a post that denegrates others."

What did I makeup CHEAP TALKER?

PROVE IT!

You won't because all you have is cheap talk and now your trying to cover your ignorance in a claim that I'm making stuff up.



~SH~

So you admit that you are a windbag!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So you admit that you are a windbag!!!!"

More diversion! Imagine that?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH:Explain your "free trim" statement so I can watch you bury yourself deeper.

I love trying to educate you, SH, as you know so little about this industry. I have found, however, that people who pay for an education themselves often are better rewarded in their pursuit than those who get it for free. You seem to exemplify this observation. Welfare has the same characteristics.

Would a contribution of $100 to Big C be too dear to you?

 

[Anonymous]

Explain your "free trim" statement Conman!

Show the world what an idiot you really are or divert and save yourself the humiliation of exposing your ignorance FURTHER.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Explain your "free trim" statement Conman!

Show the world what an idiot you really are or divert and save yourself the humiliation of exposing your ignorance FURTHER.


~SH~

May be you could ask Jason to chip in on that $100.00 contribution. Looks like Murgen may want to step in also.

 

[Anonymous]

Explain your "free trim" statement Conman.

What seems to be the holdup?

Why do you keep dancing around having to explain yourself?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Explain your "free trim" statement Conman.

What seems to be the holdup?

Why do you keep dancing around having to explain yourself?


~SH~

Its the weekend, SH, and my wife wants me to hang some blinds. I do keep wondering what I am getting for your free "education".

 

[Anonymous]

When you get done hanging blinds you can explain your "free trim" statement you phony.


~SH~