$1000 dollar bonuses for all CWB Staff

[BennyHin]

The cwb mandate is to "return all grain sales proceeds, LESS MARKETING COSTS to producers.

I have e-mailed my director, the cwb, and my mp, demanding a rebate on my grain sold, which has this NON_MARKETING cost tacked onto it. So far no one has had the guts to respond in one week. I let it be known I will not give up on this rebate, which also includes I must mention, a rebate for money spent on lawyers and court costs to fight Minister Strahl's effort in trying to limit the board from self promotion. That which the lefties call a 'gag order'.

We who want freedom must keep the heat on these poor "stressed" WESTERN cwb employees.

Can anyone here explain how the above are marketing costs? The cwb is obviously trying to find me an answer, and it's taking them some time!

[chaffmeister]

BennyHin:

Suggest you be careful with your “forward selling” – there are youngsters in the room listening. And we older folks need to provide good modeling for them!

Yes, you can sell wheat futures. But be very careful if you think this is forward selling the wheat in your bin or has anything to do with managing the price risk. If you sell futures thinking you are “forward selling”, you’ve just double sold – cuz the CWB is going to – or has already – sold the same wheat for you.

Since your wheat is tied up with CWB ribbons, selling any futures outside of the CWB programs is really just speculating – cuz your wheat marketing is already done.

Think of it this way: will your shorting MGEX wheat futures compensate you for poor CWB marketing? It might, and then again it might not – there is no correlation at all.

[chaffmeister]

Chuckchuck:
Apologies for taking so long to comment on your Dec 27th posting......

You say: “One has to wonder what kind a business person would make decisions without considering a full range of information and anlysis on any subject?”

The irony of this statement in support of the latest CWB-funded “study” is that the “study” actually does the same thing that you “wonder” about; it came to conclusions without understanding its subject.

The authors accept a previously flawed study – the KFT 1996 study – as gospel when it states that CWB grain cost less to market than non-CWB grain. (REAL data, current data, proves otherwise.) (FWIW – A number of years ago Dr. Kraft shared with me his feeling that the comparison wasn’t as “sound” as he would have liked….)

At the same time, they criticize other studies that do not support the CWB – without understanding them. For example, the following is a passage from the "study" that criticizes the Sparks Barley Study of 2003:

“Sparks contends that CWB barley prices in Red Deer AB are much lower than they are in the open-market prices (at times more than $1 per bushel lower). If this is true, we question why feedlots will not buy more barley from the CWB until arbitrage occurs between the CWB and the open-market barley prices.”

Schmitz, Schmitz and Gray clearly either did not read the Sparks study very well or did read it, but chose to misrepresent it anyway. The Sparks study was very clear – it took the CWB offshore selling prices (basis fob Vancouver) and adjusted (backed off) to places like Red Deer. These values were then used to compare to the local feed market prices. This was comparing CWB OFFSHORE selling prices – net to the farmer – to local non-CWB market prices, also net to the farmer. In no way was it indicated or suggested that the CWB was selling barley in Red Deer at those prices! (The comparison showed that the CWB was – year after year – selling barley offshore for much less than the domestic market was paying; the question that needs answering is “WHY?”)

This is an example of a closed-minded group of academics CHOOSING to misrepresent a reasonable COMMERCIAL (NOT ACADEMIC) analysis solely in the interests of promoting the CWB. (Being academics whose work is shrouded in theory, perhaps they didn't understand commercial analysis that is based on no models, no theories - just real dollars and sense.)

So, Chuckchuck, you say “One has to wonder what kind a business person would make decisions without considering a full range of information and anlysis on any subject?”

I concur and will add “One has to wonder what kind of business person would make decisions with a closed mind concerning their sources of information?”

Embracing this study without a critical review is nothing short of stupid.