Send an email to get Freedom

[tower]

Kodiak, that's got to be one of those loaded questions. Eh?

"When it comes to doing business as a farmer, specifically when it comes to buying our inputs or selling our production through a cooperative approach, do you believe in:

A. Voluntary participation
B. Forced participation "

Oh yeah, definitely I gotta go with the forced participation, oh yeah the only way to go. Oh, maybe not.

Let's see, at what point does voluntary participation become forced? If the co-op is successful, providing good value for the members then it probably wouldn't be forced participation. If there is an elected board, as opposed to a government stacked one, it probably wouldn't be forced participation because unsatisfied members have the option of getting elected and taking the co-op in directions that provide good value.

so to sum up then, if the forcing issue is unsatisfactory service, improve the service.

[charliep]

agstar77

Perhaps one way the CWB is different from grain companies is the CWB manages risk relative to the pool accounts across a 15 month pooling period.

A grain company manages risk by matching purchases from farmers against sales to customers. If they are short or long onn the cash side, they will futures to offset this position. A grain companies motivation is too stay as even as possible in their risk position. My experience is that grain companies are no more successfull than anyone else in running profitable speculative positions and if anything do a pooer job - farmers and buyers are actually pretty good at managing timing of sales/purchases based on the market information they recieve.

On the CWB side, sales are managed through a whole pooling period based on an assumed sales pace. The sales desk will take futures positions based on how the actual sales program stacks up relative to this assumed sales pace. At the same time, the CWB is managing the PPO accounts based on the pace/timing of farmer decisions to sign up on the programs relative to the overall sales program/pace of sales relative to the plan.

The losses on the contingency fund are a symptom of a problem of a high cost/ineffective risk management strategy. To fix this, the B of D will have to approve and the operations side act on things like shorter pooling periods, separate pools for different classes and heavan forbid (sacralage I know) is to allow managing of farmer prices against actual sales (similar to malt barley CashPlus).

How did I get here from send an email to get freedon? Sorry about that.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

How we got here is this;?

Daily Price Contracts are far far from arbitage of the international market. Recently they have been out of kilter as much as $3 to $4/bu.

Fixed Price Contracts have a basis that is inversely porportional to the Futures market...

When the real world outside the CWB pool has a $4.00/bu premium to the futures... and the CWB discounts us $.35/bu.

New Crop 08 basis is $2.00/bu premium... and the CWB is a discount of $.90/bu.

And Chairman Ritter says I am the least of his problems... and why don't I follow him... and just pool.

In 2000 the FPC was much better than we have today.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

I am willing to pay a fair price for fair value... the CWB simply has not been able to deliver.

The Basis under the futures... is simply unacceptable for west coast delivery... which my farm is close to.

To have eastern Sask. at the same basis as Alberta... is absurd.

SO I must cross subsidise your farm.

Excuse me... but I object.

Make this system fair... or get out of the way.