Evader:
Interest from the feed barley pool was diverted into the contingency fund in 01-02, then again in 02-03.
Big numbers too.
01-02 saw $130.85 per tonne (just over $7 million) diverted to the C-Fund.
02-03 saw $127.89 per tonne (just over $5 million) diverted to the C-fund.
According to the 01-02 CWB Annual report, "This was done to avoid distorting the price relationship between feed and designated barley."
Gotta admit that there was some logic to this - the CWB couldn't have left that amount of money in the pool - the price would've been so terribly out of whack. I can see that. But it shows just how bad the pool account is at providing price signals. It's dysfunctional.
But I'm wondering about the logic in latter years. Take Pool A of 04-05 for example. Total interest "earnings" allocated to Pool A was $85.55 per tonne, but $51.34 per tonne was diverted to the C-Fund, leaving $34.21 per tonne in the pool account.
That's much more interest than usually left in the pool account - typically it's been less than $10 per tonne, even when the CWB diverted interest out before.
But Pool B is even stranger.
Total interest allocated to the B Pool was $4.83 per tonne. $4.83 is quite small and can be argued has little if any distortion effect on the pool price.
Here's the question: Why then did the CWB divert $1.69 per tonne (about $794,000) to the C-Fund, leaving $3.14 per tonne?
Remember the original reason to divert money from the feed barley pool into the C-Fund was to avoid price distortions.
Did the CWB think that $4.83 was distorting but $3.14 wasn't?
Now fast forward to 04-05. Same kinda thing in Pool B.
$10.60 allocated to feed barley - but $6.19 per tonne diverted to the C-Fund, leaving $4.41 in the pool account.
Why divert anything at these levels? What is the current strategy or policy. There was no mention of it in the last couple of annual reports.
Evader? Agstar77? Any comments?
Interest from the feed barley pool was diverted into the contingency fund in 01-02, then again in 02-03.
Big numbers too.
01-02 saw $130.85 per tonne (just over $7 million) diverted to the C-Fund.
02-03 saw $127.89 per tonne (just over $5 million) diverted to the C-fund.
According to the 01-02 CWB Annual report, "This was done to avoid distorting the price relationship between feed and designated barley."
Gotta admit that there was some logic to this - the CWB couldn't have left that amount of money in the pool - the price would've been so terribly out of whack. I can see that. But it shows just how bad the pool account is at providing price signals. It's dysfunctional.
But I'm wondering about the logic in latter years. Take Pool A of 04-05 for example. Total interest "earnings" allocated to Pool A was $85.55 per tonne, but $51.34 per tonne was diverted to the C-Fund, leaving $34.21 per tonne in the pool account.
That's much more interest than usually left in the pool account - typically it's been less than $10 per tonne, even when the CWB diverted interest out before.
But Pool B is even stranger.
Total interest allocated to the B Pool was $4.83 per tonne. $4.83 is quite small and can be argued has little if any distortion effect on the pool price.
Here's the question: Why then did the CWB divert $1.69 per tonne (about $794,000) to the C-Fund, leaving $3.14 per tonne?
Remember the original reason to divert money from the feed barley pool into the C-Fund was to avoid price distortions.
Did the CWB think that $4.83 was distorting but $3.14 wasn't?
Now fast forward to 04-05. Same kinda thing in Pool B.
$10.60 allocated to feed barley - but $6.19 per tonne diverted to the C-Fund, leaving $4.41 in the pool account.
Why divert anything at these levels? What is the current strategy or policy. There was no mention of it in the last couple of annual reports.
Evader? Agstar77? Any comments?
Comment