• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History Shows Dual Market Works

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    History Shows Dual Market Works

    This was posted in the Western Producer
    By Craig Docksteader

    During the federal election campaign,the Conservative party made no secret of its position on the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. It's in plain English on page 19 of its platform:
    "A Consrvative goverment will...give western grain farmers the freedom to make their own marketing and transportation decisions. Western grain farmers should be able to participate voluntarily in the Canadian Wheat Board."
    The immediate response from the CWB was predictable.
    "By backing voluntary participation in the CWB, a scenario has been put forward that cannot occur." CWB chair Ken Ritter insisted. "You either have a single-desk marketing system or you have an open market system. Those are actual choices."
    According to Ritter, the voluntary option is not an option because it will not work.
    But Ritter is wrong.
    Not only can it work,but it already has worked. Twice. First in the 1920s when the prarie wheat pools were established. and then later in 1993 when Mulroney's Conservative goverment removed barley destined for the United States from the CWB's monopoly.
    Neither of these experiences was without its challenges. But in both cases producers were given the choice of either selling on the open market or through a voluntary pooling agency. And in both cases the dual market worked. The resulting historical record provides us with clear answers to a number of objections that are commonly raised about dual marketing.
    Objection: A dual market system cannot work because the CWB owns no grain handling facilities.
    Answer: When the wheat pools opened for business in the 1920s, they had noi elevators and no terminals. Although this was not the preferred arrangement, it did not stop prarie farmers who were determined to esablish a voluntary pooling option. The pools simply made arrangements with exsisting elevator companies to receive deliveryof pool wheat. They then began deducting two cents per bushel until enough money was raised to acquire grain handling facilities.
    Objection: Dual marketing would create marketing chaos. Producers would opt into the pool when open market prices drop, and opt out of the pool when the open market price goes up.
    Answer: In the 1920s, those who wanted into the pool had to sign a five-year contract. Once in, you couldn't get out for five years.
    Furthermore, alhtough anyone could sign up to get into the pool,you could only enter at the end of the crop year. This provided the stability necessary fot the wheat pools to operate.
    Objection: Under a dual market system, wheat board would ahve no assurance of wheat supplies in order to make foward sales.
    Answer: The five-year contract provided a significant amount of stability for the wheat pools and the basis to make marketing plans.
    There was no problem projecting available wheat supplies because a contract included a record of the number of acres involved. Growers could not split their acreage between pool and non-pool, but were either in the pool or out.
    Similarily, after the continental barley market was announced in 1993, the CWB eased the concerns of farmers in a summer edition of Grain Matters by explaining that,"In a multiple-seller environment, the CWB needs a firm commitment from farmers who wish to paticipate in the feed barley pool." The unceretainty of supply would be resolved through contracts.
    Objection: The CWB would not be able to guarantee its initial prices in a dual market. Farmers would be forced to accept much lower initial payments on their grain.
    Answer: Under the dual market system of the 1920s, the wheat pools were authorized to offer an intial price of up to 85 percent of the going market price. It was a simple business arrangement with the banks based on the agreement that the grain storage would provide security to banks and that its market value would at all times exceed the banks' advances by a minimum of 15 percent.
    Advancing payment for future sales always involves risk. The degree to which this risk is managed properly is the degree to which the initial payment can approach full market value.
    At the end of the day, a failure to gurantee initial prices evidences a failure in risk management, not an inherent weakness of a dual market system.
    There was more to this article but I didn't want it to get to long. Moral of the article being dual marketing can work.

    #2
    Laughing out Loud!

    Toughgoofit... your a good sport!

    As long as those who dream dreams... who take living breath into their lungs... and spirits...

    They will not bow to the fears of those who are cowards!

    Comment


      #3
      Isn’t it interesting that the CWB always says pooling won’t work in a dual market (perhaps it should be called an open market including the CWB as an option). But who says the CWB would have to pool?

      I could see a CWB active as an exporter, paying “market prices” to farmers (through the elevators). It would negotiate handling agreements with the grain companies who would be anxious to get the volumes. At the end of each year, any profits made by the CWB would simply go back to the producers that sold to them.

      And if they for a second think there’s no money in exporting grain without facilities, they should be reminded that Cargill was operating in Canada for many years before it bought National Grain with the profits it made on trading grain from Canada as an Accredited Exporter.

      Comment


        #4
        I know the writing is on the wall for the end of the board. one way or another ill get used to it.
        but before you jump too high . go to the board site and look at the historical charts.
        Eg. the 2004-05 minn. futures vs no.1CWRS 13.5 pro. in cdn.$/tonne

        in both cases you would have to take off frt.&hldg
        the last pro on the chart is really the only important one.
        another thing to consider is didnt the US have the 14%tarrif on cdn wheat that year. ( so no cdn. grain to depress Minn, prices)
        to beat the pro you would have had to lock in your entire 04 crop between feb and may of 04,
        on durham , the results seemed even better( just from memory , i didnt print it off) i dont grow any

        the boards performance on CPS wheats didnt look quite so hot ( again just from memory)

        go thru the charts and ask yourself honestly ,how you would have fared.How you would have marketed.

        Comment


          #5
          sawfly

          Not wanting to move away from the topic but a couple of questions.

          Do you or anyone else in this chat area understand how the daily prices are calculated? I don't except to compare the the Montana prices AAFRD has collected for years.

          How well do farmers understand the pooling system and how money is distributed by the CWB from its (and highlight the CWB's) earned revenue? Are the payments you recieve an accurate reflection of the value of the wheat/barley you deliver? I note grain selling prices are pooled across time, class, grade, location of customer and to a certain extent your delivery point.

          From a movement side, are you happy with the current situation with wheat (not including durum)? Deliveries 630,000 tonnes below a year ago (first six months crop year)? Elevator and terminal inventories up by 220,000? Exports 923,000 tonnes (20%) below the first six months in 2004/05? See CGC website.

          You understand the CWB pricing tools and the use in your business. Wouldn't it be nice to have some competition in offering these products? If you grow a specialty wheat/barley that involves additional effort/risk, wouldn't it be better to enjoy the benefits of this effort without having to share with the pooling system? Are you comfortable with having one agency in control of your delivery opportunities for the export/human food markets and making decisions on your behalf when you will market/carry between crop years?

          Comment


            #6
            sawfly,

            If you actually see nothing good in what the CWB does... then it will be gone in 5 years.

            However... are you willing to support the CWB; if it will be co-operative and share marketing revenue with your farm... and others across Canada... and around the world?

            In edible beans, Agricore United pools many different kinds of beans... contracts acres, and is VERY good at what they do.

            Other bean marketers are allowed in Alberta as well. The "dual market" if this is what some want to call it... is working perfectly well.

            Hog Boards in western Canada deregulated... with out even a hickup.

            Talk to Ed Schultz from Alberta Pork Producers, the manager. He has told me personally that they can grow the market... and do very well as an industry while allowing the grower marketing choice (the "dual desk" if that's what it is to be called).

            Claiming the "sky will fall" is a silly, some what mean spirited fearmongering attitude by the CWB.

            Of course they like it the way it is...

            If I were you Sawfly... If you do infact appreciate a co-operative spirit in marketing: would talk to your freinds and nieghbours... and tell the CWB to get over it; and get on with EARNING our collective respect?

            Comment


              #7
              charlie

              i cant say that i understand the priceing structure, that well. only that protien pays.

              on movement im happy , only because im hopeing that cwb held off sales in the first 1/2 season and may capture higher prices in the last .

              gotta run for now sorry

              Comment


                #8
                In aust for barley 1 state has dual marketing the 3 other states are fully deregulated and here in South Aust we still have regulation for export barley .
                But in the fully deregulated markets the Pooling system still actually takes in 8O% of the barley and 2 companies run export pools so it does work, and in the West Aust where they have a export liscense system where companies apply to export barley pools still take in 85% there, so its all scaremongering that it doesnt work

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanks for that post. of course it is scaremongering.

                  IF the CWB does a good job and swallows a truth pill every morning, they will have those faithful CWB supporters joined by newfound believers.

                  Parsley

                  Comment


                    #10
                    charlie

                    my last post i was in a hurry , and didnt read your posts well enough.
                    charlie
                    Im just learning most of this stuff this winter ( fpc epo basis etc.)from the board site. I understand the reasons for adjustments,protecting the pool on the basis contracts i have been dealing with. but the daily price contract ill have to learn.
                    i know the barley pool in the past benifitted from earned revenue.if there is earned revenue on wheat ill take that too. Explain the sources amounts if you can.
                    As for payments being an accurate reflection of values, that should be the responsibility of the elected directors. I would hope so
                    Regarding movement, its a judgement call, if capacity was there,were the markets or the price.

                    I finnally can see where your going with your excellent questions and just clued in to why your asking them.
                    How can i go along with this, or support the board without knowing the answers to all these questions?

                    its the basic division between board supporters and critics.
                    trust, people like myself generally trust the board .

                    others question , rightly so in some cases, other times looking for conspirosy or someone to blame.

                    Charlie in your last paragraph , specialty wheat bly etc. Sure benifits should flow to their producers.

                    One enity "properly "manageing deliverys ,exports,and carries between years. i would consider a benifit. even if i lose some control.

                    Lets look at canola right now. The market will pay bottom doller most of this year. Why because they can. not that oil values are so low they couldnt pay a doller a bushell more.

                    Its because no one has control over deliverys exports and carries. Thats all it would take,the same amounts of product would flow, just they would have to pay for it.
                    When they come in the canola store, you just say were overstocked and haveing a sale $6.50/bushell .

                    All this is really meaningless any way Board ,daul market, open market, with the subsidie differance. Can. vs the US and EEC our future is dependent on ottawas willingness to have us exist. simple as that.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Thanks for your comments. I encourage you continue working with the CWB tools. During any given day, I can be working on Alberta governments market choice policy, providing my thoughts to the CWB on the mechanics of the pricing tools and/advicing farmers how to use these tools. So if I seem like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, there is a reason.

                      I just want to explore you comments on the CWB's control of delivery opportunities and comparison to canola. The situation this year for most crops is large supplies with quality challenges (at least on the cereals). At the same time, world crop production was large in 2005 and other factors such as currency have not worked in Canada's favor. There are lots of challenges this year and we can all look at the impact on price.

                      I will raise the question as whether farmers can manage inventory decisions on their with price as a signal or do they need an agency that makes decisions for them using canola and wheat as examples. I will note that the situation is canola exports/crush are moving at levels above last year. Basis have been narrow at times which is a sign of good movement/buyers that require immediate supplies. Wheat exports are behind last year.

                      Facts in grain movement.

                      The grain industry system (handling and logistics) is based on flow. You can't have a system that does minimal business one month (perhaps when prices are poor) and expects to make up volumes the next month (perhaps when prices are high). There are other tools to manage price risk versus holding in the system.

                      The industry also needs to think about customer needs (particularly those that pay the premium prices). Customers like Japan come in for constant amounts every month. You either meet these needs (with logistics in a just in time world critical) or they take their business elsewhere. You are then stuck with customers whose only criteria is price and we are at a competitive disadvantage with most other exporters just because of distance from port and ocean freight.

                      Finally, you need to consider farmer needs. These include cash flow, profitability and storage (including issues around tough and damp grain stored in piles. Every farmer has different needs. I will comment that non board crops carry the weight these days on cash flow - a farmer needs money in the fall and canola/domestic feed grains/pulses carry the weight (acknowledging there are cash advances).

                      I will agree that the CWB pricing tools have answered some of the issues around profitability/risk management with some discussion around mechanics/lack of competition. Both crops currently have depressed prices so neither system (pardon the expression) can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

                      On the storage side (at least here in Northern Alberta), there is a big need to get grain into the elevator system to get it dried/moved. Farmers can move this grain into the feed system but it would be nice to have competition from an export market opportunity (particularly if the farmer thinks it will grade better than feed). The system decision about whether to accept has a major impact on that farmers viability.

                      I raise these issues because the single versus open market is more than just price. There also needs to be discussion about all issues of CWB operation and the impact on the whole grain marekting system of living in a more "deregulated" environment.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        yes movement is important, considering our system.
                        what you are suggesting is,(OR AT LEAST HAVEING THE OPTION OF) is to move it anyway, whatever price and buy a futures position.to carry the priceing forward. Whether this being the board doing this or a farmer in a open market system.

                        im not gonna say i understand the mechanics of all this but.

                        lets assume this fall/winter we are pushing wheat out the door, does it all have a home. If we push too hard arent prices are bound to suffer.
                        the buyer has locked in a low price.
                        hes done.
                        X amount of grain and demand is off the market,but with a price dropping effect in the near term cash,
                        then you buy the futures to replace your sale what happens?
                        what effect does all this have on the futures price and your ability to recapture losses on the low price sale.

                        Taken to extreme does all the demand get filled at rock bottom prices and the futures positions become worthless.

                        i know your suggesting the farmer should have more control in this area ,to get his pile off the ground ,but every action has a cost/benifit

                        i dont know if a every man for himself is the best way to go or not

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Sawfly;

                          Grain is sold now, for next fall... if a farmer and a marketer/handler have a plan.

                          It is not all sold on a daily base in the fall.

                          The simplistic CWB explanation does not hold water... except if we don't have a marketing plan.

                          Grain is sold and bought all year long.

                          We sold the majority of our 2006 crop of Canola in the SPRING and FALL of 2005.

                          I hope you understand what I mean now.

                          Further much of the 2006 crop will not be sold into the market until the spring/summer of 2007.

                          THis attitude that everyone will commit marketing suicide on the 31st of October 2006... if we have marketing choice is fearmongering.

                          Much like we were told (by Liberal fearmongers) that the sun would not rise on the morning of Jan. 24/06... if the Conservatives were elected!

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...