Question about CWB and malt barley

[charliep]

tower

Since you represent the CWBmaybe you can help me with a question.

From the Questions farmers are asking of the latest GrainMatters, I see the following question: "Why did the CWB sell malting barley at prices that are low in comparison to current market values?"

The arguments make sense to some degree (would reflect why a farmer would hedge as an individual manager) but from an organization that does not grow/deliver malt, why would it short the market 700,000 tonnes (a number I have seen) without having any commitment from farmers to supply barley? Shouldn't they be using at least some risk management strategies without inflicting the pain of lower prices on farmers and creating supply uncertainty for maltsters (CWB contracts say they have to find the barley based on the market signals the CWB provides). This is particularly the case in the current crop year when 2006/07 world barley prices were so tight and US corn prices were moving higher on ethanol demand.

The CWB goes at long ways to helping maltsters with their price risk management and at low or zero cost - I suspect the business was done at what all sides (CWB, maltsters, brewers) considered a fair price (some premium but not enough to prevent the business from being done). Farmers are not granted the same status with significant deductions from pool returns outlooks which are spent on managing the CWB risk relative to the pool accounts. The last set of discounts for the fixed price contract (discounts to the PRO) on April 17 was $21.80/tonne for feed barley and $25.80 for malt barley. Why do maltsters have their risk managed for free while farmers have to pay premiums for fixed price contracts so the CWB can manage their risk relative to the pool.

What role does the CWB have in managing malting barley contract integrity? When farmers have walked on malt barley contracts over the past 6 months, what steps has the CWB taken to encourage performance/enforcement of contract terms? On the other side, in years of lots of barley/high quality, what steps does the CWB take to ensure that malt barley rejections by maltsters are legitimate and the farm managers interests are looked after.

Realize these these questions will be answered shortly when the CWB discloses to the world their new and innovative contracts (not holding my breath) but am always frustated why we can't have these types of questions answered/discussion around this topic. Even the CWB would benefit.

[tower]

I represent the cwb, that's gotta be a new job eh? Please understand that as a farmer I have some problems with the board, mostly dealing with the compromises they have made infavour of trying to satisfy people who don't want the board.

Despite having these problems I still think that it would be a serious loss to the independance and strength of western farmers if we were to lose it.

I agree that the board should have a presence in these types of public forums but I ain't it. I suggest that we try to get at least one of their pr people or preferably their director in charge of PR to come on here and speak with us.

[crusher]

Charlie,

Wished I'd said that. Thanks for going to bat for us farmers. CWB directors take note. Tom4cwb is not priming you is he?

[Fransisco]

We lost that independence 70 years ago to the CWB.

[tower]

charliep, are you the charliep who is a moderator on this forum? why don't you ask the cwb to put some answers on here for farmers to see. hopefully it would blossom into a full blown and ongoing discussion.

[Fransisco]

There are two wheat board directors who regularly read and respond to this forumn Rod Flaman goes by the name of Vader and another whose real name I forget right now goes by the name of agstar.

[AdamSmith]

I suspect that BennyHinn is also a cwb director or was once a mb director. Just a hunch BH

[chaffmeister]

General rule-of-thumb is:

If...
1. they don't answer direct questions, or
2. they stop contributing to a discussion when presented with facts and logic that confounds their rhetoric, or
3. they get frustrated and desperate, taking personal jabs at the other side of a particular debate,

Then they are CWB directors.

At least that's what I think.

[tower]

Alright then, would our moderators request of our cwb participants if there is any reason they can't have a director responsible for public relations, information come on and answer relevant questions raised on the forum concerning barley marketing for example.

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,

The CWB used to provide a moderator for us on this Forum, but sadly it could not stand the test of: time, logic, morals, economics, or any other standard that represents a civilised group of people.

SImple proof; the CWB is not a responsible or credible organisation with long term stability or a future.

It would rather poke and prod us... make fun of real and serious problems that destroy families and farms... from the side lines.

101 honest people will tell you the same thing... if you actually care... You could try to get these arrogant gun toteing robots to come down to earth!

So why don't we have a CASH market that arbitages the international market... 24/7 in all board grains TOWER?

[chaffmeister]

Tower – it’s not just CWB directors that I’m complaining about. It’s just about anyone who supports the CWB on this forum. And with all due respect, that includes you.

It’s been shown that the CWB does a poor job selling barley (gets well below crop-year average prices).
CWB supporters say “show me this data”. And then nothing.

It’s been shown that the CWB system has a very high cost structure compared to canola.
CWB supporters say “show me this data”. And then nothing.

It’s been shown that CWB senior staff truly does not understand how the grain business works.
No response.

It’s been shown that the CWB does not get premiums.
No discussion. No counter-argument. Nothing.

It’s been shown that the way the CWB acts in the market, it mutes demand-driven rallies.
No response at all.

It’s been shown that the CWB makes trading decisions based on politics and not economics (this means poor marketing results).
No discussion. No counter-argument. Nothing.

It’s been shown over and over that the CWB misleads farmers.
No response.

It’s been shown how the CWB could operate in a choice market.
No discussion. No counter-argument. Nothing.

I’ve shown where to get real information and data that shows some of this – and Tower you’ve done just what the other CWB-supporters have done with this. Nothing.

The attitude of most CWB supporters on this forum is to childishly and arrogantly chide those that have a real interest in increasing the understanding of the CWB. No earnest response to troubling facts, no counter-argument based on logic. BennyHin, Burbert, Agstar77, Vader, wilagro are the worst. (I’m sure this’ll be seen as an invitation to come up with some inane response like “hahahahahahaha” – so fire away boys.)

So although it can be frustrating, this attitude and refusal to consider facts simply steels my resolve.

Strong unwavering CWB support with no logic is a sure sign of deceit. And the many farmers that I know deserve much better.

[tower]

Tom, I think it would be appropriate for the board to once again provide a researcher, not just to this forum but for general discussions around the west. I can see how a lot of the emotional and unreasonable hyperbole, like your bit about gun-toting robots might be seen as a waste of time and therefore counterproductive.

However I will try to get them down to earth or at least to this level. Such as my efforts are worth with the wheat board. They don't know me from Mork from Ork.

Why don't we have an arbitrage system? I would suspect that we do have a function that operates within the board that keeps its marketers on top of those factors like foreign exchange and value shifts in other parts of the world. Why is it necessary to have that in a cash market.

Cash markets always have the tendency to get corrupted and you know we have enough problem with that.

[tower]

chaffmeister, one mans proof is what he wants to hear. While on the other hand another mans proof is what he wants to hear.

I had a look at the quorumcorp data you presented. Yes there is a cost associated with the services that the wheat board provides, did you think that this agency should do its job for free? I don't see the direct relationship you seem to be talking about between barley costs and canola costs. Perhaps there are factors which have not been considered in the makeup of the respective costs.

I looked at the sparks report done for the Alberta government, which for me at least raises concerns about objectivity, but aside from that I noticed a number of suppositions and assumptions made that didn't seem to have any backup data or references, though the authors did at least point them out. Those might have made a difference in the outcome.

As well the report uses fob Portland as opposed to in terminal in Vancouver, and 100% discounts the value of payments made to farmers arising from interest accruing on grain sales. Perhaps if these items were added up the picture would not be, as I admit it appears, pretty bad.

As for the rest of your points without more specifics I don't think I would comment other than to say that I think the wheat board like any other body can be misinterpreted if it suits the needs of people who have another belief system.

I am intereseted in your information that shows an operating cwb in a choice market.

[Fransisco]

<b."chaffmeister, one mans proof is what he wants to hear. While on the other hand another mans proof is what he wants to hear."</b>

Are we to assume from this then tower that you have blinders on and only accept evidence, be it theoretical or factual, that supports your case?

[parsley]

Ontario is an operating system working under the Part IV licensing part of the CWB Act.

And it functions well.

What's your problem?

Parsley