vader's good barley ideas

[chaffmeister]

sask:
Shorter pool periods have been the only answer to the PRO "market-lag" problem that the CWB seems to even consider. Evader says he supports the idea:<i>This would bring us closer to a cash pricing model.</i> But it won't eliminate the problem, just make it smaller(or shorter, as you say).

And, yes, that's it. That's all a shorter pool period would do. The CWB currently has shorter pool periods in feed barley and they're still fraught with pricing problems - I won't bore you with the details.

So why not run an unpriced pool?

Vader?

[kamichel]

Why have a barley price pool? Why not just have one fixed price that changes every ten minutes of the day. That is what I would like to see. That gives the best market signal and makes buyers bid for farmers grain. The pools in my opinion only let buyers purchase below market value. You see most farmers that locked in fixed prices did so because the price was right in their opinion. And they also locked in better than pool prices 99 percent of the time in my opinion. Perhaps an average pool price could be offered that is an average of what farmers have priced not what the CWB gives the grain away for. That may work out better.

[craig]

Vader
You make suggestions on changes to the board that you would support. If the board had got with it and made some changes to it's operations maybe you wouldn't be in the position you are in today. There are a number of producers who have looked to the board to show some flexibility and a willingness to address the concerns of those outside the inner circle. What we have got instead was maintain the status quo at any cost. The attitude seems that only we know what's best for producers. If you want the respect of your peers you need to realize we don't all share your views. If you had addressed those concerns maybe we wouldn't be where we are at today.

[just_wondering]

Vader I would ask you if you have all these good ideas what is the hold up it can't be Strahls appointees as they are only 4 it can't be the elected choice directors as they are only 2 not the chair only 1 vote as I see it we have 8 monopolists holding up all of the designated area.
Too put it very simply earn my business.
I have no probeblem with dealing with voluntary gov't agencies, FCC is my lender of choice.

[chaffmeister]

Kamichel: <i>Why have a barley price pool? Why not just have one fixed price that changes every ten minutes of the day. That is what I would like to see. </i>

What you just described fits with my idea of an unpriced pool. One that will change in price every time the futures price changes.

Let’s remember that there are some out there that may still want a pooled price to manage their risk. But the problem with a voluntary pool (according to the CWB) is that it can’t be competitive. If the CWB offered a pooled basis, this would solve that problem.

If the CWB is providing any benefit, it would show up in a basis – not futures.

Pricing performance would be your own – at the market – through pricing orders like you might do with canola. Responsive to appropriate price signals. And would allow the CWB to be competitive with other buyers.

The CWB could offer 5 pools – one for each futures contract:
Aug-Sept delivery basis the Oct
Oct-Nov delivery basis the Dec
Dec-Jan-Feb delivery basis the Mar
Mar-Apr delivery basis the May
May-Jun-July delivery basis the July

The CWB says that without the single desk, they can’t offer anything the grain companies can’t offer. How about risk management through pooling?

[kamichel]

How about for every pooled ton sold there should be a pooled ton purchased or speculated on. Is there buyers , end users that would also like to use a pooling system? Probably. Could a pooled contract work the same as any other futures contract?

[gerald.d]

I wish to take you people back up this thread a little way to where Adamsmith says that the CWB will still have to deal with the 62% of farmers who don't want the CWB to have a monopoly on barley. I believe it is actually a much higher number than that. Approx. 80,000 ballots sent out. 29,067 returned. response rate of 36.25%. Of those, 37.8% were in favor of maintaining a single desk monopoly. That's only 13.7% of total producers.And Vlidimier, don't try to tell me that some of those who didn't vote could possibly care deeply about the need to keep a strong CWB,If they did they would have voted!

[chaffmeister]

I was just reviewing this thread and took note that this is just another example of Evader avoiding direct and reasonable questions. How can you have an "open and fair discussion" as chuckChuck appears to want, when the guy on the other side ignores your questions?

Evader, can you at least say WHY you avoid these questions?

To jog your memory:

1....Thoughts on the basis pool idea?

2....Thoughts on organics as a niche market? (in which you apparently support farmers getting zero-cost export licenses with no buy-back)

[TOM4CWB]

EVader,

I hear some CWB Directors are having a meeting at 423 Main this week.

Can we take you seriously about the commitment to exempt containers and organic shipments from the buyback and treat them like; seed, processed feed, or grain grown outside the "designated area"?

WIll you move a motion to get this, small but important, move in motion?

[parsley]

Vader, You said "no-cost"

That is very different from no-buyback.

no -cost means selling to the Board and buying back at no cost.

No buyback is what Ontario has. it is what the feed mills have. It is what seed growers have.

Be specific for me here.

no cost or no-buyback?

Parsley