Task Force Report is out.

[rook]

I need to see some value creation and leadership if they want me to invest and buy shares. I support that idea, but I wouldn't invest in the current crop of foot-dragging directors.

[AdamSmith]

The only thing that keeps me from saying it’s a great report is the time line. I still want 2007 as the start up and I really don’t see any reason why 2007 can’t work. So I think we need to push hard for a 2007 startup.

The report shows the government how to create the conditions for the CWB II to survive and thrive. Not the guarantee. That will be up to the CWB II, but if the Model T CWB doesn’t have a paradigm shift and soon, it will be dead. But I guess that’s their choice.

And Agstar77, for what it’s worth to you. It’s my guess that the more you stick a finger in Stephen Harper’s eye, the more he’s willing to pay (in policy tradeoffs) to the opposition in order to secure the votes needed to get this thing done.

I agree with northfarmer Agstar77, if you think Toronto and Montreal voters are going to reward the Libs with a new rookie leader and the Bloc (from Quebec only) for hauling them into an election over the CWB, you’re even more narcissistic than I thought. Sure, you have Wayne Easter and Ralph Goodale foaming at the mouth, but that’s about as deep as it gets.

[chaffmeister]

The Canadian Wheat Borg has for years been saying that the CWB doesn’t cost anything to run because the net interest earnings cover the admin cost. Also – the Borg also adds the $66 million or so in net interest earnings as a pure net benefit to the CWB. Yada, yada, yada.

But take note of this little passage in the Task Force report:

“net interest earnings on money owed to the CWB by customers on past grain sales is declining from an average of $66.2 million in the five years ending July 31, 2006 to likely under $5 million for 2009/10.”

That's gonna happen even without a change to the CWB. So please, let’s stop using interest earnings as a benefit of the CWB going forward.

Also – would like to hear from the Borg on how they would defend the cost of the CWB in 3-4 years without the interest earnings to cover it…

[charliep]

When I just look at the $7 mln transfer from the wheat ex durum class, all farmers who use the program (just under 1.2 mln tonnes), each farmer contributed about $6/tonne over and above the other costs they paid to the overall pool account. Unless the contingency fund is increased quickly (maybe too late given the 2005/06 pools have been closed for along time), substantially more money will be transferred from farmers who used the programs to the overall pool.

I note these programs have been toted as symbols of change/a new CWB. The results show something different.

[craig]

Chaffmeister you forgot the contingency fund.All of us good soles who used FPC's and BPC's help build that nice 50 million dollar fund that must make some interest for the benefit of everyone.The CWB does call it a liability so maybe the interest goes down some hidden corridor no one knows about.

[WRAPper]

I wonder if the program couldn't be changed the board needs to be doing a few different things with these ppo's , but the producer has to to be responsible for thir marketing decisions in using these programs too exactly like they would be in non board grains. I would look at whether or not it makes sense to increase to cap to 60-65 million(or not) then at that point begin a program where the overage(if any) is returned to the producers and the pool using the PPO's on a sliding scale over time . starting at 75% to the pool 25% back to the ppo participants as a a"basis" adjustment payment. within 3 years 50-50. 6 years out I would do something a little different in that I would drop the number from 50 -50 to where the pool and the producer share in 75% evenly and the remaining 25% be used either for an investment in cereals research through the wgrf.OR the post secondary route for students. This money would be credited to the producer as a taxable deduction for income tax purposes less a administration fee.
These numbers can be played with, perhaps all the money(overage) should go to WGRF eventually or students.

By putting the overage in the pool it makes the pool sales look stronger which it shouldn't and conversely the free market wouldn't give the producer your money back. niether party here is really "entitled" to this money. Personally this year as it stands on the ppo thus far I'm ahead on some CWRS but behind on some CPS. So I see it as a saw off so far.

[craig]

WRAPper
I do not understand your logic.This is why the CWB continues to make Producers Mad. It is clearly stated that producers who use Producer Payment Options are not allowed to participate or receive further payments from the pool account. Under that senario I do not understand how you can suggest producers in the pool account should be entitled to any overage gained from PPO's. I guess the question that needs to be asked is where is this surplus coming from. It is my understanding that the contingency fund may now be capped at 60 million. If surpluses are created because of ridiculus basis levels then producers who use the PPO's should be entitled to that overage. This years annual report (05-06)should be interesting because with increased use of PPO's and the little room to the cap we could be creating a huge surplus with no where to go but the pool accounts.

[WRAPper]

I am agreeing with you the pools shouldn't get the funds but neither should the producer. There are no "do overs" in Canola basis's what is your solution then? I offered a solution you don't like it. Lets hear yours and it can't include giving all the money back to the ppo participants as they made that business decision.

[WRAPper]

read my first post more carefully you'll note in there I said perhaps all the overgae should be directed into the WGRF or bursaries with the produces getting the taxable benifit of their share. So I don't in fact think the monies should go to the pools because it distorts their performance and they need to stand on their own too.
Offer solutions Craig don't just offer problems only.

[TOM4CWB]

WRAPper;

THe CWB has NO Statutory mandate to steal money from any grower... the Contingency Fund can as easily operate at a ZERO fund level... as at a $50million level.

The CWB building a capital base at the expence of PPO growers... is not equitable, fair, and was never the intent of the CWB Act.

Transfer of PPO monies to the pool accounts is totally out of line...

Didn't the CWB claim for years the PPO's did NOT affect the Pool accounts?