$.5B per year... lost to CWB single desk...

[wilagro]

Well...I read that "informafinalreport.pdf" and boy is it just what the AB gov't WANTED to hear. What a load of doodoo. The whole report is from an American perspective and is anti-CWB from the start. WE as Albertans should tell our gov't to quit spending good money on these American companies and their pro-American and anti-Canadian reports. This government likes to interfere in all kinds of marketing when it benefits certain "special interest" groups.

[chaffmeister]

"Special interest" groups like <b>70%</b> of Western Canadian farmers?

[chaffmeister]

What part is "doodoo"? Specifically.

Did you know that Informa Economics is owned by a UK-based company with global interests? Not very American from that perspective.

Data and information is from non-American sources such as the UN, the Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Quorum Corporation (a Canadian firm that monitors the grain industry for the government, and so forth. And, oh yeah, the CWB.

And just so's ya know - the authors of the study are Canadian (born and raised), working in the Canadian office (in Winnipeg). I've known them personally for years. If the results favoured the CWB, they'd say so.

[bucket]

The words co-operation and being a good neighbor are crap. If the cwb served a purpose like that and trying to pool results it would only seem logical that the cwb would pay for the spraying of wheat midge as that would effectively help all western canadian farmers - right?

When my expenses are pooled I will start believing in the communist wheat board, which, by the way is more of a reality than I thought.

[wilagro]

Interesting is the fact that MOST if not all of "informafinalreport" conclusions are based on or consist of ESTIMATES, ESTIMATES and more ESTIMATES.

Could be, should be, might be, maybe will be AND gawd-only knows what...conclusions tailor-made for the purchaser of the report.

Brrraaaccckkkkk!!!!Puke.

[Fransisco]

Name one specific conclusion, chart, or data set that you think is not accurate Willagro?

Just one.

Have you even really looked at it?

[Fransisco]

Here is some information about Informa.

http://www.informaecon.com/About_Us.htm


Does anybody really believe that these guys can be bought off? That they would be willing to risk their reputation and their whole business just to make the CWB look bad. Companies like this do not become this successful by falsifying data.

So if they are really on the take Willagro, agstar, Vader and all you other die hard monopolists who I know are reading this, start pointing out where their numbers and analysis is wrong.

[wilagro]

Fransisco: Nobody said that they could be bought off except you...but it is easy to selectively pick chunks of data here and chunks of data there and conclude what might have happened IF this had happened and/or IF that had happened or had not happened and draw conclusions based on ESTIMATES and GUESSES.

It is pointless to reconstruct what SHOULD have transpired given the circumstances at the time of the past commodity sales and state of the international trading climate.

Computer spreadsheets are pretty good at "what if" scenarios, but one has to use the proper data and formulae.

[kryger]

Could be, should be, might be, maybe will be AND gawd-only knows what...conclusions tailor-made for the purchaser of the report

I think you said they could be bought off, Wilagro.

The CWB does that on a regular basis.

[charliep]

As someone involved in review of the study, Food and Agriculture Organization data is real and collected for other purposes than this analysis. This regularly and consistently collected data at actual delivered importer port position and shows Canada sells for lower values than other exporters. It is history and is a measure of performance. I also note the comments that Canada is a relatively minor provider of wheat and barley to most customers and these customers can easily switch their purchases to other exporters if prices fall out of line.

Will note there are also a review of Canadian prices relative to the US. The study also looks at Quorum data (highlighted previously in these threads) and the interest costs of the pooling system to individual managers.

[chaffmeister]

OK – here’s another for all you who defend the CWB (by attacking any logical anti-CWB argument) at any expense, even if that includes your own rationality.

The CWB has a pricing model it follows for sales in the wheat pool. It’s called the Wheat Pool Pricing Model. It goes something like this:

The Wheat Pool Pricing Model establishes the pace for pricing the wheat pool. This pace is denoted as the target pricing pace. Pricing within the model is a combination of actual cash sales activity and derivative trades. Pricing more or less than the daily “target” amount is regarded as discretionary trading activity. Daily sales and derivative transactions are benchmarked to the current futures market prices at the end of each day. In a rising market, as was the case in the summer and fall of 2007, results will be negative if the actual amount of wheat priced exceeded the amount to be priced established by the target pricing pace. Tonnage priced at the earlier lower price levels will produce negative results when those positions are closed out at market prices above the level at which they were initiated.

This is word-for-word from page 43 of the 06-07 CWB Annual Report under the heading “Measuring Success”.

The way I read it, it means the model sets the amount to sell <b>each day</b>. If they don’t sell the daily allotment of wheat to customers, they sell futures to meet the daily pricing obligation.

The model also allows “discretionary trading”.

In my posting above I note that the average CWB selling price during the crop year was $100 ABOVE the pool final. It was $27 above the final if you use the 18 month average ending at the end of the crop year.

Wilagro – this is all CWB price data and the CWB’s own words describing how they sell. I’m not making any of this up; no judgments, no estimates.

Can you explain why your Final Pool Return (actually the latest PRO) is between $27 and $100 LOWER than the average selling price?

<b>Why did the CWB make you between $362 million and $1.33 billion LESS than the description of the CWB Wheat Pool Pricing Model would suggest? (I’m assuming the 07-08 pool size will be 13.3 mmt – the size of exports and domestic sales) </b>



Oh yeah – one more thing. What ever happened to the idea that the CWB supports prices by unilaterally holding grain off the market (not selling)? The Wheat Pool Pricing Model blows that idea all to hell. Either they’re selling wheat or they’re selling futures. Every day.

[Fransisco]

Here is what Chaff was talking about earlier. Now who was it again who sold to early?

<IMG SRC=" http://www.siemenssays.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/card-price-vs-pro.PNG " width="500" height="400"

[Fransisco]

Both lines are the CWB's own numbers, their asking prices throughout the year and the PRO.

Looks an awful lot like they just sold everything off the combine now doesn't it?

[wilagro]

So would you have the CWB sell only when the price was highest? What would they be doing for the other 11 months?...sitting around twiddling their thumbs and risk losing sales?

Looks like the pool price evened out the highs and lows like it was supposed to do.

Do Cargill or ADM sell only for one month of the year and only at the top price?

[chaffmeister]

You don’t get it. No one said anything about picking the top.

The CWB’s model says it sells evenly throughout the year, selling the same amount every day. The CWB’s own price data shows that if it actually did that, your final would have been much higher.

In other words, if it had evened out the highs and the lows like it was supposed to do (as you put it), why is your final so much lower than the average selling price?