Just a couple more points:
1. The 01/02 feed barley pool was 54,373 tonnes that generated $9.505 million in revenue. If we assume that 30,000 tonnes went domestically (as the CWB indicated) and we assume the price to be $190 (against a $195 market indication), that means domestic sales generated $5.7 million, leaving $3.805 million for exports. This would mean the average offshore sale price was $156.12 per tonne.
Compare that to the PRO of $179.59/t. Also begs the question - why did the CWB sell anything offshore that year - the domestic market was never that low that year. It should have sold everything domestically, which then begs the question, why should the CWB be in barley at all?
2. Just to get us back on track - how is it that the CWB can justify such poor performance when it is using the same tools as the rest of the market - WCE feed barley futures?
1. The 01/02 feed barley pool was 54,373 tonnes that generated $9.505 million in revenue. If we assume that 30,000 tonnes went domestically (as the CWB indicated) and we assume the price to be $190 (against a $195 market indication), that means domestic sales generated $5.7 million, leaving $3.805 million for exports. This would mean the average offshore sale price was $156.12 per tonne.
Compare that to the PRO of $179.59/t. Also begs the question - why did the CWB sell anything offshore that year - the domestic market was never that low that year. It should have sold everything domestically, which then begs the question, why should the CWB be in barley at all?
2. Just to get us back on track - how is it that the CWB can justify such poor performance when it is using the same tools as the rest of the market - WCE feed barley futures?
Comment