Rayglen Malt Wanted

[kamichel]

Charlie I am not sure I understand your question. I have been dealing with an Agricor United elevator for the majority of the malt I have ever produced. one reason I like them is that I feel more secure when I deliver there that after they get done checking every load I unload there I have more security that I will not get rejected. They are good at it in my opinion and they are very capable of making malt sales overseas.

[charliep]

In talking with the domestic maltsters and brewers, the CWB has already began the process of contracting (including price) malt barley for 2007/08 with them. NO idea on volumes. Indications are the CWB has indicated they will not honor these contracts if the CWB looses single desk status. I am not sure whether the same process has occurred with the exporters.

Interesting in how everything is politics and spin. No one knows the plebliscite outcome or for that matter how the federal government will launch something different. The CWB is having conversations with their customer base which highlight some pretty dire consequences. The issue of how transition occurs is never talked about. I can't guess but I my guess an evolutionary transistion is much better than a revolutionary one. Hope that helps clarify.

[charliep]

If the CWB wants to grow and add value to western Canada - its value added sector and producers - then it must adapt and change into an entity where by it can. The Task Force set out the guide lines for such a process, you are going to loose your government garuntees, sooner or later, so change is enevitable. By adapting and restructuring you may be able to aquire assets if that is the wishes of the share holders, whom as the task force set out would be western Canadian farmers. Being totally free of the federal government it could finally be run as any Canadian corporation does - directors working on behalf of the corporation work with the CEO who has the sole responsibility to run the affairs of the corp.
My main point on assets Vadar is the fact that we are not the exporting nation we use to be. Your records at the CWB clearly show declining exports year after year. We need to add value to what ever we grow in some fashion here at home. By allowing freedom of choice to producers that will grow. THe CWB can continue to play a role in this, once change and restructuring has happen. Is it going to be the same CWB we know today? no, yet if it wants to be a true corporate entity then it must make the necesary changes to become one.
Malt barley is just the start, our industries here in the west need choice to survive that is a fact!!!

[TOM4CWB]

Vader,

The CWB, is not authorised to sell grain it has not been offered by section 32 of the CWB Act. I sure hope the single minded directors have their liability policy dusted off and ready to be claimed against!

No wonder the credit rating of the CWB was downgraded... by S&P... if they only knew the other half of it... what would it be?

[wedino]

What are you thinking Tom4? Class action by malt barley producers?

[TOM4CWB]

wedino,

If the CWB costs growers in the barley system, those responsible have an obligation to PAY the loss.

CWB management KNEW there was a "CHOICE" change comming in barley marketing... the CWB Directors/Managers who caused losses should pay.

Pre-selling the malt barley pool early not only hurt the barley growers who must sell through it... it looks from the outside like a Measner suicide "poison pill" move.

A strategic move CWB Managers implemented meant to stop CWB Minister Strahl from barley marketing reform? Early presales and contractual liability on CWB barley sales to stop Minister Strahl?

A Forensic Audit would be in order... to find out for sure.

[charliep]

Perhaps it may be the beginning of a new CWB. No reason the CWB couldn't convert these contracts on behalf of the overall pool account into cash contracts offered to specific farmers. The CWB could easily work with farmers and the maltsters to make this happen. I assume that these contracts are at favorable prices - $4/bu plus - so many farmers would be more than willing to participate.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,
If the sales levels are at high enough levels... on a spot sales base... it may work.

Hold good Malt barley to the next crop year, is this an option as well?

[kamichel]

We and the CWB must remember that even if the vote does favour the CWB monopoly, the Federal government may still create an open market for barley, with the CWB able to market barley from producers , that is what our federal government wants. They claim they will move swiftly so they must have some plans for this. The must move swiftly because the vote tally will not be known untill end of march. Prices must be given to producers before that date. Measner was fired because he would not co-operate. Would be sad to see the CWB not try.

[charliep]

Tom4cwb

I have to go along with rain on another thread. I am a barley seller including malt. Everyone has to their own numbers on the malt versus feed decision but if you have malt and prices are competitive, I would fulfill existing contracts and contract more. The logic is not to look a gift horse in the mouth - adding to existing malt barley sales will increase the current PRO rapidly. From a long term perspective, it also shows our customers that western Canada has a commitment to meeting their needs. As indicated before, western Canada must look pretty foolish when our customers are banging at our door with high prices and the CWB has nothing for sale.

[charliep]

Back home after a few days away and pick up my western producer/read. Some good editorials/articles. Also noted the "CWB Ponders Barley" article (page 43/Feb. 15 edition). Maybe Vader can help us understand implications. May explain some of other CWB actions/communications with customers and partners.

[chaffmeister]

kamichel said:
Since when does a malt company source barley? Monopoly = only CWB is responsible for sourcing barley. CWB responsible to ensure supply.

REPLY………..The malt company is responsible for sourcing – through selection process. It really is stupid……..the CWB sets the PRICE to the maltster. And that’s it. The CWB plays absolutely no role in sourcing. The maltster must somehow compete with the local feed market to source / select the barley it’s already bought. There is absolutely no connection between the contract price with the CWB and the realities of dealing with the farmers.


Evader said:
Big difference sourcing through the trade (brokers or grain companies) when you have a monopoly versus when those same companies are your competitors in an open (dual) market!

REPLY………Evader has missed the point altogether in order to slap us yet one more time with his trite rhetoric. He’s right – there’s a big difference between sourcing through the trade (brokers or grain companies) that stand behind their contracts and dealing with the CWB which doesn’t even assist in sourcing at all – you’re on your own, buddy. WHAT GOOD IS THE MONOPOLY IF IT DOESN’T EVEN STAND BEHIND ITS CONTRACTS? THE MALTSTERS ARE FORCED TO PRICE THROUGH THE CWB BUT THEN ARE LEFT ON THEIR OWN TO ACTUALLY GET THE BARLEY. WHAT A BLOODY MESS……


Evader said:
What makes you think that the CWB is not getting the same high spot prices you are referring to for sales they are putting on the books today.
We all get an average price for the year whether we sell through the CWB or not.
Let's have some honesty here on Agri-ville!

REPLY………Evader doesn’t get it – again.
Someone should tell him that the CWB is not selling malt barley right now because they have too much on the books and they know they can’t compete with the feed market.
And yes, we all get “an average price for the year” – just that some get a more average price than others. And there is a genuine concern for the malting industry when the CWB is so dysfunctional that malt barley is moving into the feed market and the only one to blame is the CWB.



Evader said (a few more things):
1…The malsters are free to introduce these incentives anytime they want to.

REPLY………..It’s still a sign of a dysfunctional market.

2…What they did in 02/03 proves to me that they can take advance deliveries and pay storage.

REPLY………..The maltsters did not “take advance deliveries” and “pay storage”.

3…The CWB has no storage unless we make producers pay for it.

REPLY………..The CWB pays grain companies for storage; why couldn’t they pay farmers?

Egad. What will it take……



Even more Evader nuggets:
1…If you want the CWB to be a broker thats fine. That won't be the same CWB we have today.
REPLY………Perfect. Now we’re talking. If you haven’t noticed, the ones you’re arguing with don’t want the “same CWB we have today”.

2…It won't be any different than a hundred other brokers. It won't add value to farmers.
REPLY………If it’s the same as other brokers it WILL INDEED add value to farmers. Why do you think farmers (or anyone else) deal with brokers? It’s because they can get them something better than the farmer can get himself. If all it does is reduce the search cost for the best deal, then THAT is the value it has added.

3…If it is there at all it will be to add profit to its own bottom line. It will have a limited ownership structure who may or may not be farmers. (probably not).
REPLY………Very, very narrow thinking. You guys at the CWB really do need an “attitude adjustment”.

4…The CWB must be able to expand its business to remain strong. It must be allowed to market other grains and it must be allowed to own assets. There is not another major grain company on the planet that is not allowed to make capital investments.
REPLY………The CWB is not a grain company.

5…The interest earnings on the foreign debt would have been a great way to start an equity base for the CWB if the legislation permitted that…
REPLY………The feed barley interest certainly is going into the Contingency Fund – a fund set up to manage the risk of the producer payment options. If the legislation doesn’t allow starting an equity base, better tell the CWB.