Is the CWB $50M; a multi million $ "Break Fund"?

[TOM4CWB]

Incognito;

The CWB "contingency fund" has been topped up to $50 million from what I have heard. Why?

Should it be defined in the same terms as the AWB's break fee?

If CDN growers understood this has little to do with risk management, but is a tax on sales, would they approve?

I see many Aussie growers are unhappy that the AWB started building a $100 million Break fund in 2004 without telling growers.

Did the AWB know in 2004 the Oil for Food Investigation would find the $300 million in Bribes to Iraq?

Is this then; why the "break fee" was established?

Did AWB managers think they were at significant risk of loosing the "single desk" because of Oil for Food bribes... yet said nothing about the "break fee" because it would have let the world know they were in essence admitting and appearing to have full knowledge of wrong doing... while denying any problem existed?

Where is the CWB at in all of this, obviously they knew about the Oil for Food bribes, did CWB management discuss "break fees" with the AWB?

[TOM4CWB]

Mallee;

I see this report:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1739453.htm

"Wheat growers angry over AWB break fee"


The AWB "single desk" looks at risk even with the government, now.

Is the main issue the deception of AWB managers; a breach of trust and integrety?

[melvill]

My understanding is that the CWB has intentions of increasing the contingency fund based on advise that it is too small considering the total number of tonnes of grain in the various producer payment options.

[malleefarmer]

Tom the break fee could be the straw that breaks the AWBs back until now growers have still supported AWB claiming they have done nothing wrong just trying to get us the best price.I disagree of course.Maybe 75% still supported them now after 8 months of enquiry the support i would say at best is 40%.Deception plays a part but it is more the ongoing costs of enquiry,legal costs threat of legal action and now break fee which for those who deliver to the pool the cost could be as high as $15 to 18 per tonne so the pool will get deserted this year it would have anyway as crops are shockingly poor.
This monday a court judgement is getting handed down as to wether AWB have to disclose 2000 documents to the cole enquiry which they have been trying to keep out of the public eye.
So much for fully co-operating with enquiry, nobody is even game to have a guess whats in these documents

[Zaphod]

The contingency fund went over $50 million back in 2004/05 and the excess got dumped into the pools. I wonder what it will be like after 2005/06. They want to make the contingency fund even bigger so they can skim even more off the producer payment options.

[TOM4CWB]

Melvill

Since the contingency fund is constructed with the ability to carry a negative balance as well as a positive balance; why would we need to tax growers even more?

What kind of risk is the CWB creating... that would encourage this kind of recomendation?

In the life of the fund, it has not once drawn on the capital reserve we have invested in it... it is growers money... NOT the CWB's.

Wouldn't a capital fund with an ownership accountability structure better serve growers... if we are to amend CWB legislation?

[craig]

I would suggest that the conservative nature of both the PRO's and basis levels of producer options mitigates some of the risks involved. Without rules and guidelines this contingency fund is just another way for the board to manipulate the pool accounts. Craig