"Farmers owe wheat board $29M in overpayments"

[parsley]

Auditors?

Right.

What auditor in his financial-mind will beat his cash-Board-cow with a two x four full of correct numbers?

The numbers are going to be ah, let's put this delicatley...subtle and soft and buried and disguised.

Every auditor that resists real and true standardization of divulging finances should be blackballed.
Literally.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

When was the last time the CWB switched auditors?

I believe it has been decades!

If the Borg BOD had any integrity... they would turf the present firm out on their nose... THEY THEMSELVES are a big reason this very problem happened!

2003 clearly pointed out the weaknesses of the present PPO system... and the CWB DID nothing... THE AUDITOR demanded no real or substantial changes in PPO systems of risk management and cash payment though the CWB basis.

THIS present system of PPO pricing is a farce... and proves as Chaffmeister so eloquently pointed out... if they are this inept... I wouldn't trust them to go to the corner store with a $20 to get milk and ice-cream! They would come back with a old SOW and a package of ICE!

[chaffmeister]

In my view, not one major accounting/audit firm has the wherewithal to do what is needed here. I'm not saying they'd be too soft on the CWB (parsley's concern) but that they don't have the resources to REALLY understand what they're looking for.

And I'd avoid the Auditor General. The CWB seems to have some kind of weird mind-control over them. Maybe its the kool-aid.

You need someone who knows the grain business, understands risk management inside and out (contract design and implementation, hedging, hedge accounting), understands the CWB culture, knows how to rebuild complex transactions forensically and has the nads to tell it like it is.

Someone who's immune to the CWB kool-aid.

The last thing you need is an "auditor" or "accounting firm".

I don't know of any single person or firm that fits that bill, but I know two individuals who - working together - do. One's a long-time commodity trader (with the right kind of experience for this) and the other's a forensic accountant (who, among other things, works under contract to the commercial crime division of the RCMP). And I understand they've worked together before.

If it were up to me, I'd hire these two and let them hire whomever they felt they needed to get the job done.

And I'd have them do the PPOs, all hedging activities and the Contingency Fund. To start.

Kodiak says the shareholders should be able to demand it. I think in this situation, the Minister is the one that should demand it.

[parsley]

What about an AV-online class-farmer request to the Minister to initiate the action?

"Mr. Minister, please choose a third-party, experienced team of your choice, to initiate a Ministerial CWB Audit/Examination action, for the purpose of examining the CWB's PPOs, all hedging activities and the Contingency Fund, in order to alleviate farmer-percieved concerns regarding financial administration at the CWB."

Handy process during seeding time.

Farmers could recommend the team, too.

Parsley

[parsley]

My experience has been this:

When there is an "auditing problem", the auditors "meet" with the CEO to "alleviate" any "misconceptions" that might flow from a straight forward report.

The report, if it had been filed truthfully, could be: a)money squandered, b) money squirreled away into an area not approved, or c)often overspending, or d) political patronage padding into some friendly supporter, or e)an employee pocketing the cash f) bad decision by management resulting in horrendous losses.

The latter is of concern.

What I've learned..... the auditors and the CEO/top executives team who are trying to disguise the "hurt", DO NOT want a member of the audit committee absolutely insisting on attending the how-to-resolve-consultations that occurr in order to disguise the losses.

Disclosure is a nightmare for both auditor and executives, but it absolutely must occur, and the Directors serving on the audit committee must insist upon participating, insist on revelation, and insist upon serving the shareholders/farmers.

In other words, do their job.

Parsley

[wilagro]

parsley: "Mr. Minister, please choose a third-party, experienced team of your choice, to initiate a Ministerial CWB Audit/Examination action, for the purpose of examining the CWB's PPOs, all hedging activities and the Contingency Fund, in order to alleviate farmer-percieved concerns regarding financial administration at the CWB."

There is your problem...the word "percieved" or its correct spelling "perceived". Indeed, perceived by a handful of anti-CWBers who ALL know how the CWB should and could be run. WHY don't you guys and gals get a "job" with the CWB, as I am sure they are just waiting for your arrival?

This is especially true for some who have been on the CWBs case for the last eight years or more that I have been coming to this forum.

[parsley]

Actually Australia farmers "percieved" a problem with money being moved from one pooling account to another, at the whim of management.

Hard to tell if the decision is sound if the losses are magically covered.

I think Australia did something about it, can anyone update?

Nothing deteriorates a marketing body as much as can: percieved corruption, percieved reckless spending, percieved irresponsibility, percieved coverups. percieved secrecy.

The CWB has been under attack on all counts.

For decades.

Your solution, according to Sun tzu, is INACTION, right? Even if it's true.

Parsley

[agstar77]

Decades of attack and what has been gained? Nada. Totally distructive attacks without any value.

[chaffmeister]

What do you include in your list of attacks:

The Western Grain Marketing Panel (all industry) recommendation in 1996 to free up barley marketing?

The Standing Agriculture Committee (all party) recommendation in 2002 to free up barley marketing?

The more than 10 years of CWB Survey results that indicate a majority of farmers want <b>real choice</b> in barley marketing?

Under the circumstances, I don't think you have the moral ground to "defend" the barley single desk.

[parsley]

At least there's a number of employees gain agstar:


1987..Total receipts from Producers in tonnes 28,195,489 and 504 employees.


1999..Total receipts from Producers in tonnes 19,616,132 and 554 employees.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

AGSTAR77;

NEED for change = attack?

You have many nightmares?