Cashplus

[chaffmeister]

Vader:
You say the competition is sold out. Not sure of the data you're seeing, but it doesn't jive with other information out there. Like the cash business that's going on. Like the futures business that is being reported as hedging (committment of traders). Also, many farmers are holding out for $20.00 in the jeans - even $30.00. (You see, they still have wheat in the bin.)

But what about the farmer who sold his wheat and replaced it with MGEX futures. Do you think he cares that "the US is out of wheat"?

How's that guy doing, being long March futures?

You see, the trouble with the CWB and its approach to marketing is it's one-dimensional.

[charliep]

Vader

Check the CWB presentation at the Crop Production week. Slides 14, 15 and 16.

http://www.cropweek.com/presentations/2008/2008-jan11-cwb-brophy.pdf

[Fransisco]

Rod/Vader said,
<blockquote>"I have asked that sales comparisons be provided to the board of Directors at each meeting. These are posted in a binder which is available for all Directors to see."</blockquote>

Francisco- Can I see it for myself?

Rod /Vader said,
<blockquote>"Each sale is compared to the relevant competition at the time of the sale. These premiums vary widely depending on the region of the world and who the relevant competition is. Some sales have very large premiums particularly in the case of top quality milling wheat </blockquote>

Francisco- So these numbers are not worked back to the farm gate then?

Rod/Vader said,
<blockquote>"You might ask some of our so-called "marketing choice" directors what their view is of the sales information provided for them.</blockquote>

Francisco- Are they free to share all of the information available to them with myself and other producers?

Rod/Vader said,
<blockquote>"In addition to the sales values comparison I want to our staff to generate a volume based comparison." </blockquote>

Francisco- Would I and any other farmer be able to see that one as well once it is done?

Rod/Vader said,
<blockquote> "THE CWB ROCKS!!"</blockquote>

Francisco- Actually showing us the sources of your information and your math would go a long way towards verifying whether or not that statement is true. I ask again that you please do so.

[Fransisco]

Rod/Vader I don't know or care who Eric is but I think he asks good questions that I would like to hear the answer to as well.

[hoppsing]

Erik, why should all new malt plants built to replace closing old U.S. capacity, or the serve the S.W. or Mexico, be built in Canada with a $25/tonne freight disadvantage. Oh,and don't forget that wonderful railway service, the abundant car supply and the railways tripping over themselves to ship cars south. Ya, right! And what about the Alta power,gas,and labour costs. There is no Alta advantage! The new plants in Australia also have a $25 freight advantage into S.Asia plus significantly lower energy costs.

[TOM4CWB]

hoppsing,

Who said all new plants would build here?

The issue is; none are planned.

Have you seen the Prince Rupert advantage we have on container freight?

We have so much going for us... and like biofuels... if we can stimulate more demand... all prices will rise to a new higher level.

$440/t is that new higher level for many malt international barley growers... a pity it is not for 'designated area' growers as well!

Or do you really want low barley prices... for some other reason... like you have livestock to feed; and want to keep feed prices loW?

[Vader]

Francisco - I don't care who you are. But as long as I don't know who you are you have no credibility or honor as far as I am concerned. You might be some schill paid by some Multinational grain company to raise shit and promote lies.

The numbers shown to the members of the Board of Directors of the CWB are confidential. If you were to canvass all 15 directors, and if their response to you was consistent, then certainly that would lend some credibility to what I say.

If you are simply here to be a shit disturber and are not willing to invest the time and effort to get the answers to the questions that you ask then what is the point of all the questions?

[chaffmeister]

While waiting for Fransisco to respond, could you answer my questions, Vader?

[Vader]

Charlie, yes for legal purposes it is a 3 way contract.

slide #17

Objectives achieved
• Cash price that responds to market conditions – Yes
• Flexibility to offer farmers premiums and discounts - Yes
• Secure supplies - Yes
• Facilitate forward sales - Yes
• Place price & production risk on those willing to assume it
– Yes
• Effective liquidated damages - Yes
• Fulfill CWB’s obligations - Yes
• Ensure competitive prices offered to farmers - Yes
• Maximize farmer/selector flexibility to negotiate - Yes

[Vader]

who is chaffmeister - no credibility and no honor when you have to hide behind you anonymous handle.

Did you see the article in this weeks Western Producer? The North Dakota State Mill has never, ever purchased wheat from the Canadian Wheat Board. They insist on buying from local growers. Until now. Why. Read their answer below

"Since 1922 the State Mill has had a policy of not buying grain from Canada."

Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson, a member of the Industrial Commission, said the group decided to grant Taylor permission because of “extraordinary circumstances.”

“This was not a decision easily reached. We specifically said that this permission is granted only under extraordinary circumstance, and when it is absolutely apparent there is no wheat in North Dakota,” Johnson told the Associated Press.

[chaffmeister]

Vader:
I see nothing in your checklist that says "price transparency".

When BARI went out with CashPlus, did they get immediate uptake?

I noticed they came out with a price for a day or so, and then it was bumped up substantially.

Did the CWB increase the CashPlus price or did BARI do it on their own?

If the CWB did it, what was the increase based on? CashPlus guaranteed farm price is meant to be based on sales made - but there were no new sales to push the price higher.

If BARI did it, wouldn't that mean they paid for it on their own? This would be in addition to what they paid the CWB. So where is the price transparency in the CWB's price?

Why is there a clause in the contract between the maltster and the CWB that states the buyer (maltster) can't say what they paid the CWB for the barley?

Wouldn't knowing that help in transparency?

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

Deanna taught you well.

"But as long as I don't know who you are you have no credibility or honor as far as I am concerned."

It matters not who makes the claim Vader. Does the person know? Has the CWB even told you what they are doing?

THis internet tool... no matter how much it irks you Vader... exposes the people who hide behind the skirt of Bullies and the Liberanos.

I call your bluff Vader... you just got caught. Read what you have posted. How does it feel!

[kryger]

Just another pool with a different name. Dividend or final payment, what is the difference. Deal directly with the malster and get premiums if over specs, malster always paid premium if they wanted your malt, what is the difference between CashPlus and pooling. I can't see it.
Price transparency? CWB sets the price, same as pooling. The only difference that I can see is the higher initial payment this year, but as we all know, that will steadily erode.

[charliep]

Vader

I will note the CashPlus pricing mechanism (at least as explained to me) has changed since this presentation. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the CashPlus price is determined? To answer the Ron's original question, your answer might include whether the CashPlus prices will be web posted/generic and available to all or specific to a selector/only available when a farmer is discussing business/considerng a signing a contract?

Will the CWB take on the role of enforcing these contracts? If there are disputes, will be CWB serve any role in enforcing the contract (perhaps something similar to a clearinghouse). Will note it is not a three way contract. It is three contracts. A contract between the selector and the CWB. A contract between the farmer and the CWB. A contract on specific quality and other factors (including premiums) between the selector and the farmer.

Will there be a contingency fund to support this program? If there is, will be contingency fund be separate from the current PPO one? Have noted the current contingency fund lost $40 mln in 2006/07 but no seems to care.

Will note chaffmeister question and look for your thoughts. This is the first question a farmer should ask the selector - how much did you/how much am I leaving on the table.

Quote: "Why is there a clause in the contract between the maltster and the CWB that states the buyer (maltster) can't say what they paid the CWB for the barley?"

[bucket]

Vader

The mill in north dakota , as I have said in a previous topic, should have bought directly from Canadian farmers with no middleman called the cwb. You people did not find this market, it came looking. I should not have to pay the extortion fees to the cwb to serve a market that announced it needs grain.

Just like the cashplus farmers do not need another leech(the cwb) on their farms. If the maltsers want their plants to run empty with no supply of barley because they and the cwb do not want to pay a premium - tough luck for them. Playing a chicken and egg game here - the maltster can not win this year without putting premiums into their pricing.

As for the cwb - they are just another leech and the directors are just self serving leeches.

why don't we adopt a organic buy back for all cwb grains so that Rod and Stewart (larry hill's brother in law) are not the only ones benefitting from their self serving interests. I find it ironic that the outspoken organic producer wants everyone else to use the cwb but he wants special provisions for his grain marketing.