In an article in this weeks Western Producers there was reference made to protecting the pool account. A serious question needs to be asked and that is what does protecting the pool accounts really mean? On the surface you would assume that the board directors are making sure that other programs offered by the board do not impact the returns of those producers who use the pool accounts. However there is another plausible thought and that is the need to make sure other programs offered do not offer too high a premium in relation to the returns of those who use the pool accounts. Maybe it's time for someone from the board to step up and set the record straight.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Protecting the pool account
Collapse
Logging in...
Welcome to Agriville! You need to login to post messages in the Agriville chat forums. Please login below.
X
-
Excellent thought.
The early FPC's tracked MGEX wheat - basically. In theory. But were never allowed to be higher than the PRO on PRO-release day. In fact, there were times when the FPC price dropped significantly the day the new PRO came out. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Protecting the pool has always meant to protect the returns in the pool. In other words, any activity outside of the pool (like FPCs) was managed to not be a draw on the pool. That's why they needed a contingency fund.
The only way the Contingency Fund would protect the pool from the "vagaries" of the PPOs was to build up a positive balance in it from the start (otherwise, the first year would have been a "draw" on the pool.) The poor buggers that got into the early FPCs were doomed to have their pockets picked. From my perspective, the fleecing of the lambs is continuing.
Also, break-away rebel groups like Prairie Pasta Producers were not allowed to do their own thing (outside of the pool) because it was thought by the CWB that these "few" farmers would get exclusive access to some of the high-priced "premium" North American market - at the expense of the rest of the farmers left in the pool.
-
Would the pasta plant have to pay more than what the board charges them?
All they would need to do is exceed what the board pays the farmers.
Big difference.
Comment
-
The Canadian Wheat Board's ONLY real objective is to try and keep the single desk.
Pooling doesn't matter.
Farmers don't matter
Grain companies don't matter.
MAINTAINING SINGLE DESK means Power for the Board, and money for the Board, for staff, and for supporting a political viewpont.
Probably none of you remember, but the CWB even had the unmitigated gall to enter the amount of grain a FARMER COULD GET MILLED FROM HIS OWN BIN FOR HIS OWN FAMILY!
These people have absolutely no shame.
Parsley
Comment
-
Benny:
I am now convinced that you are unclear about grain trading and even more unclear about how the CWB works.
Let me help:
North America = premium market for durum
North Africa = not so premium market for durum
Algeria = even lower
CWB pool price to farmers = weighted average of all sales to all buyers (the good, the bad and the Algerian)
Prairie Pasta members = sell their own durum to their own pasta plant (for premium North American market prices)
Pasta Plant would happily pay "North American" price (remember - it's a "premium") to its members.
PPP members = premium market returns (not pooled)
CWB Pool = rest of the market MINUS the amount PPP has tied up. (Means they get a lower average price.)
At least that's the CWB's argument. There's a counter argument that refutes the CWB's simplistic calculation, but I won't bore you with it because you wouldn't find it credible anyway.
Comment
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment