Response to Jdepape on the CWB

[oneoff]

And good for you too; pars. I've agreed with you on previous occasions too. Right now I'm going to stick to signing my name to controversial letters to editors.
But what can be done (if anything)about our hypocritical and downright self centered neighbours who are proud of their supposed "community building"; but usually carefully try position themselves right on the middle of the fence (or the side with largest numbers); but almost always land on the side of maximum benefit to themselves.

[Kodiak]

Maybe he fell into a woodchuck hole.

[concerned]

I've followed some posts on here for awhile and the theory stuff is hard to apply. Jdepape is posting numbers and I prefer math to theory. I have a question to ask Mr. dePape (sorry for spelling if wrong). When you compare the cwb premium to the cwb costs, is it a apple to apple comparison? Are there any costs in the cwb cost number that would also be incurred by farmers with or without the board?

thanks
Joe

[TOM4CWB]

Concerned,

I agree with your need to look at these numbers with a concern that IF there were a change... would grain growers actually see more revenue at the farm gate?

If there were marketing choice... without a transparent arbitrage function in that market... (Eg ICE Canola futures) I seriously doubt any real and concrete savings would flow directly back to the farm gate in western Canada.

I believe it is absolutely necessary that the CWB prepare for both the opportunity to function in a transparent market place; as well as facilitate the tools that create arbitrage with the global market place for the produce the CWB is supposed to be marketing.

It is ironic: The CWB has stated in the past that no 'designated area' grain grower has ever marketed their own wheat or barley... only the CWB can do this (they claim because of the 'single desk').

Ironic,

Because the CWB does not market our board grains... it simply sells at what ever price the buyer chooses to pay... there is NO monopoly over the customer that buys our grain.

The buyer can refuse the CWB offer and decide to purchase product from a different origin outside the 'designated area'.

Therefore the CWB is like a discount liquidator... no obligation to return any specific cost to the grower. The discount factors the CWB has today; $15.95/t Adjustment Factor on CWRS for instance... is a much more important cost that is directly attributable to the 'single desk' monopoly over 'designated area' grain growers.

THE CWB MUST stop this arbitrary and vicious economic practice of discounting our produce... to pad the pool accounts... and in turn which prevents arbitrage with a valid and fair connection with our global export markets.

The CWB would be prevented from discount pricing... if they couldn't cover their 'discretionary' give away values with the tracks being washed away by the pool...

[TOM4CWB]

Concerned,

To be clear, the transparent arbitrage function in that market... IS THE ICE Canola futures. It is also CBOT, MGE, & KCBT... which the CWB uses... but fudges with the 'adjustment factor' plus any basis it wishes to extract to pad the pool accounts.

Losses of arbitrage are massive... in these instances... in comparison with the $4/t John brought to our attention.

[oneoff]

Maybe "theory stuff" is vitally importannt too.

[jdepape]

Concerned (Joe):

Excellent question – if you’re talking about the $10.14 I mentioned, it is the costs as reported by the CWB to the Federal Grain Monitor.

On page 80 of the 08-09 Annual Report of the Federal Grain Monitor, it described CWB costs:

“CWB Costs (gross) represent the per-tonne operating costs of each pool account at an in-store export port position, plus the apportioned value of its overall transportation savings.”

This includes CWB administration costs (overhead) plus direct marketing costs (extra freight where applicable, demurrage and despatch, etc). CWB admin costs would definitely NOT be incurred by farmers without the CWB. The other costs might be incurred by the private trade but, unlike the CWB, when a grain company gets hit with demurrage, they eat it (they can’t pass it onto farmers).

To be clear on what CWB costs are being reported by the Grain Monitor, it would be great to see a breakdown. I doubt we ever will though.

[parsley]

" I doubt we ever will though"


Yes, well. So much for math.

And an interesting question would be if the math IS
favourable, does that mean the CWB should be
endorsed with complete abandon?

You see, that's where 'theory' comes in.

You either believe your grain is your grain, or you
don't.

And it also follows, it I want to gift the grain, it's my
business, whether the math looks good or not.

The 'theory' is the principal. You either have them
or you are classed as a 'dependent.'


Pars

[jdepape]

Apparently I was not clear...

"I doubt we ever will though"

This does not place any doubt as to the fact that these are indeed CWB costs we're talking about. Costs that you as farmers would not see in a competitive market without a single desk.

This speaks to the fact that the CWB is not as open as it says it is. And I doubt that it will miraculously "open up" and show its warts - even though we're pressing the point.

But its still worth trying because at the end of the day, it IS your grain.

[parsley]

Both of us pursue marketing choice albeit with different approaches.

I admire your skill at exacting numbers, jdepappe, and I realize that when dealing with rational people or companies or institutions,numbers is what one uses to convince there is a need for change.

Not so with the CWB.

In my experience.

They will tell you anything by way of evasion, omission, vernacular word usages, skipping sections, selected quote, versions, quoting past legislation, using legislation theat iS NOT EVEN PUT INTO FORCE, stalling, well, using any excuse in the book, ignoring,


....any of them to escape change.

The difference between you and I depappe, is that you treat them as if they are going to deal WITH DECENCY.

It is my opinion, ( I am redundant so that the CWB don't sic their lawyers on Agriville)that the CWB are indecent, and deceptive because they work for their own interests, not farmers.

My opinion is garnered from my personal experience from my personal association with them, as well as the experiences shared by other farmers, with me.

Thanks for all your work, depappe. it IS appreciated very much.

Parsley