something to think about

[wd9]

rbrunel: re Ok, so the market is open, is there a need for continued funding to things like CIGI,

You already fund as a farmer CIGI and it is seperate and can continue like the CCC and canola. It is not mutually linked or exclusive to the CWB and would easily continue and run effectively.

re: who is going to replace the CWB in working on trade disputes.

Wow, where does one begin. CAFTA for one but what was more disturbing in Geneva was the CWB lobbying government saying no deal is the best deal. Exporting 80% of our product we produce into non parity on tarrifs and obscenely high tarriffed countries costs growers over a cool billion a year. Do you really think having the CWB say no to any trade resolution was the best answer for you as a farmer. Elmer Fudd lobbying on trade would be a drastic improvement.

As chaffmeister wrote in great deal and eloquence, don't follow the rhetoric, find out what you can with an open and business like mind. There is plenty of proof out there to make a business decision. Or just make a phylisophical decision and save yourself a bunch of research.

[rbrunel]

Hi folks

I am glad to see some of the comments posted on this. I was in Winnipeg yesterday of the MB chamber of commerce luncheon with Minister Strahl. In your comments I have heard more inteligent comments and openmindedness then alot that was said there. My fear is that we have polarized farmers more and no one is left with an open mind. I will not deny that I am a pro monopoly supporter. But one that is willing to look at the whole picture and move forward for the better. I applaud the constructive comments that were given.

[craig]

I would like to pose the question. How would the Fixed Price Contract or the Daily Price Contract fair( get used) in an open market environment.If the answer is it wouldn't get used, then the next question is if or how could it be changed so that would be used. .

[TOM4CWB]

Craig;

For growers who are loyal to the CWB... we would expect the NEW CWB to do the best it could.

Not at all like CWB Management does today. Measner must be fired before he totally destroys the growers good will towards the CWB.

I am having calls from growers who NEVER would have... even 3 months ago... questioned CWB motives.

THe fact that 20,000 growers are using... and watching FPC and DPC's... proves the COnservative plan has already worked.

THe growers have awakened to the fact that the CWB are stealing from PPO's and padding the pooling accounts.

On your question in a new CWB;

We buy a large % of supplies from UFA. But not all supplies... We will buy from line co's, Independants... to be sure we have a choice into the future.

The same will go for the CWB in the future.

I need a choice... and competition to get the best deal possible for our families farm. Inputs are no different from marketing services.


We are called to Judge the FRUIT... if the actions don't match the claims...

All it is, is another telemarketer calling!

[chaffmeister]

Craig - I doubt that the current CWB PPO contracts (FPC, etc) would be used - too complicated and not viable in a competitive environment.

In a previous thread I described a basis idea for the CWB in detail - someone recently told me I get too "complex" so I'll make it less complex this time.

The CWB's initial payment on pooled grain could be based on a fixed basis (initial basis, or pooled basis). Grain would be priced at the farmer's discretion (just like a basis contract on canola - the difference is that here, there would be a final payment). The CWB would manage basis risk by offering an initial basis - fixed for the year; flat price risk would be for the farmer to manage based on his own risk appetite.

At the end of the crop year (or pool period), the CWB would pay a final payment based on profits made beyond the initial basis level.

Any futures rally (like the one we've seen this year) would directly impact farm prices on CWB grains - no lag, no dilution, no profits held back and shifted around.

There would be no need for all the complicated CWB contracts based on the PRO - there wouldn't be a PRO - except maybe to say what the final pooled basis might be (initial basis plus final payment).

[wd9]

chaffmeister re: Any futures rally (like the one we've seen this year) would directly impact farm prices on CWB grains - no lag, no dilution, no profits held back and shifted around.

But given the dollar cost average of pooling for everyone, predicting what the long term pro would be is difficult or as slow to react as it is now because of the length of time to realize all the sales. There is a lag now because pooling 'smooths the rally' so to speak. I see the CWB 2 having the same issue.

[wd9]

Also, could the CWB 2 run in the form of no pool at all? By only having contracts if a grower wishes to pool they can on their own by DCA. The single only reason for the CWB to exist would be the single seller and in effect wouldn't even be doing the marketing decisions or pooling for that matter of the product.

[TOM4CWB]

WD9,

The CWB selling system is backwards... to extract a premium for grain growers.

Sales staff need to be the brokers for the growers... not the enduser buyers.

I smooth talking enduser can talk the CWB out of millions... in minutes... if the buyer knows what they are doing.

And there is no grower to worry about, no bin door to pry open...

no bidding up of prices to fill the big volume sale.

India loved it...

when they locked the US out of sales...
because the Ausies, CWB, OWPMB, take pricing signals from the US futures...

the US were locked out...

which artifically lowered values... and presto...

why would India want the US to spoil it all by having the expectation of sales push the price of wheat higher?

Talk about a grain robbery... close to the early 70's and the ruskies!

If the single desk were reversed... and couldn't sell unless "designated area" growers released the grain... THEN we would be doing something!

The CWB is supposed to be our sales facilitator... not making the sales themselves!

[chaffmeister]

wd9 –
You’re right about the difficulty in predicting average price over a whole crop year. I’m suggesting a basis locked in for the whole year as the initial – but not the flat price. All the CWB needs to do is to predict a basis level – should be a lot easier than predicting the whole flat price (and more accurate). Think about canola – which would you be more comfortable predicting – average farm price over the year, or average basis over the year. I’d take basis anytime.

In my concept, the only “dollar cost average of pooling” is in the basis; everybody’s flat price would be different, based on where they price it. Let’s say the basis is 70 over (cents per bushel) but at the end of the year, the CWB figures there’s another 10 cents to distribute – then the final payment will be 10 cents a bushel.

wd9 – could you clarify your last post. I think you’re saying that unless the CWB is pooling, there is no need for it to exist.