• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does the CWB understand grain markets?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Does the CWB understand grain markets?

    I don't like getting personal, but sometimes it's the only way...

    Adrian Measner spoke at the Starbuck Producer Seminar on Friday, March 2 in Starbuck Manitoba. Among other things, he told the crowd that grain companies charge up to 40% more than their “actual handling costs” on canola. Further, if the CWB were to lose its single desk, then these companies would charge that much on CWB grains. Going this way would cost farmers about $115 million annually, according to Measner.

    A related item: In a letter to the special task force (signed by Measner), the CWB accused the grain companies of the same thing. (No surprise here.) It explained how they compared the grain companies’ tariffs (their “handling costs”) to the street price basis and since the basis is larger than the tariffs (costs), the companies must be charging more.

    <b>I can’t believe what I heard that day in Starbuck nor what I read in that letter to the Task Force (available on the CWB website).</b>


    CWB supporters take note:

    1……<b>Tariffs on canola are meaningless.</b> Companies are required to post them but they’re not used to price grain. Companies “merchandise” canola – they buy and sell at prices they expect to be competitive and be able to make money. They don't handle canola on a toll basis like they do with CWB grains so they don’t charge the tariffs. Again, the tariffs are meaningless.

    2……<b>Tariffs are not the company’s “actual handling costs”.</b> Grain handling is a fixed cost business. The cost of operating an elevator is pretty much the same whether it handles 100 tonnes or 100,000 tonnes. The cost of handling grain is not fixed on a per-tonne basis. For anyone to suggest that the tariffs reflect “actual handling costs” like Measner did in Starbuck and in his letter to the Task Force, shows either (1) the extent to which some people will go to sway (deceive) a crowd, or (2) a severe and unfortunate lack of understanding of how the grain industry works.

    3……<b>Actual canola handling costs (borne by farmers) are much less than the total being charged for CWB handling.<b/> Not the other way around as suggested by the misinformed ex-CEO of the CWB.


    Adrian Measner is a bright guy. He was a dedicated and highly respected employee of the CWB and worked diligently for the cause. But when it comes to what he presented on the canola market, we have to assume one of two things. Either he's deceptive and disingenuous (he's a liar), conspiring to convince you of how great the CWB is for you, or he doesn’t understand even the basics of how the grain handling system works or how grain markets work. I'd rather believe he's misinformed than an outright liar, so I'm going with the latter. (When challenged and corrected by the other speaker he didn't defend himself at all).

    Measner's criticisms and concerns of the evils of the open market is reflective of a view he holds without understanding it – even at a basic and fundamental level. It’s like my 6-year old who is afraid of “something” in his closet – it’s evil and it’s going to get him, but he has no idea what it is nor can he describe it.

    I’m very concerned. Although Measner is no longer at the CWB, I'm sure there are many other just like him that are still there – including about 8 directors – who have an equally shameful lack of understanding of the industry in which they work or are willing to lie and deceive in order to keep the status quo. I’m concerned that the people operating this institution and fighting for its survival are doing so without a hot clue of what they are fighting against. Or they will stoop to unsavory tactics to get their way.

    Take your pick. Neither one is pretty.

    #2
    If handling costs are the same for a 100 tonne handle as a 100,000 tonne handle, why do we have these huge inland terminals? Aren't large handle terminals more efficient? As for canola handling costs being less , is it cleaned or blended as much ? Is there as much segregation? Since the grain companies actually own the canola product, handling costs can be buried in their selling price or in the profits of a crushing plant they own.

    Comment


      #3
      Agstar77

      The CWB does itself a great disservice to make this comparison.

      AGAIN this is about risk management, and in case you forgot, and I know I am will state the obvious here... all of these points on non-board grains are AFTER they leave the growers hand... and are 100% at the Grain Co.'s owners risk...

      Compared to CWB grains... even those priced through the diversion of PPO's are still at the risk of the pool... right out onto the boat... and sometimes the risk extends until the Board grain is in the port of the enduser in a country 1000's of miles from Canadian Ports half way around the world.

      And you compare the costs and risks like they are the same between Board and Non-board grains?

      I can't even do a producer direct buyback with out participating in CWB imposed risks being placed on my farm!

      Comment


        #4
        Well, it’s clear I’m right about the lack of understanding.

        Agstar77 asks: If handling costs are the same for a 100 tonne handle as a 100,000 tonne handle, why do we have these huge inland terminals?
        <b>You’re confusing “handling costs” on a per unit basis with “operating costs”. Assume a 20,000 tonne elevator costs about $1.2 million per year to operate – whether it handles 100 tonnes or 100,000 tonnes. If it can make $10 per tonne revenues, breakeven is about 120,000 tonnes – or about 6 turns. Put a different way, if it handles only 10,000 tonnes, its unit cost (handling cost) is $120 per tonne. But if it can handle 200,000 tonnes, its unit cost is $6.00 per tonne.

        The more you push through it, the better it is (cost-wise). That’s why we have high throughput elevators (not to mention that the railways gave the incentive to build them in the first place).

        Agstar77 asks: Aren't large handle terminals more efficient?
        <b>Yes.</b>

        Agstar77 asks: As for canola handling costs being less, is it cleaned or blended as much?
        <b>Grain companies don’t charge farmers for blending. The costs we are talking about are the costs charged to the farmer – not necessarily out-of-pocket expenses. As for cleaning, yeah, its cleaned as much.</b>

        Agstar77 asks: Is there as much segregation?
        <b>No. But more importantly, the manner in which the CWB “manages” the flow of grain into the system is a burden on the system at times – it shows up in storage charges paid by the CWB (farmers).</b>

        Agstar77 states: Since the grain companies actually own the canola product, handling costs can be buried in their selling price or in the profits of a crushing plant they own.
        <b>Canola prices are more transparent than CWB prices. Anyone can find out the current price (basis) of exported canola and the crusher bid is as transparent as you can get. From this you can figure things out pretty well. Also, you’ve got the Federal Grain Monitor to go to – they’ve got actual costs as charged to farmers.

        Costs are higher on CWB grains because the grain companies charge tariffs for cleaning and elevation (primary elevator and terminal) for CWB grains – higher than what they earn for canola because there is no competition to drive these down. (Why would you drop your prices if it doesn’t translate into more business?) In addition, the CWB’s own costs are in addition to the actual grain handling costs.

        The CWB promotes itself as the great “equalizer” with countervailing power against the grain companies. Actually the opposite happens. The CWB system removes any ability to effectively compete for your grain – beyond the odd trucking premium.

        Comment


          #5
          Caff makes a great point here. This is not just the guys at the local coffee shop he's talking about here. <b>It's the friggin CEO</b>(former) the guy who worked his way up through the ranks, and has been there for years.

          If he doesn't know what is actually going on or how things work who there does?

          Comment


            #6
            Looks like agstar just got his butt handed back to him on a platter.

            Who's next? Vader are you in the house? Care to do some splan'en?

            Comment


              #7
              I would like Mr Measner to explain basis levels on FPC's. My what a good deal we get from the Board.

              Comment


                #8
                How these guys can not know the difference between handling costs and operating costs is beyond ridiculous.

                Comment


                  #9
                  this isn't just one meeting we're talking abotu either. it seems mr. measner is on a speaking tour across western canada these days. wonder who's paying his costs. do you know if he got paid to speak in starbuck chaff, and if so how much?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    He is certainly not spending a lot of time looking for another job now is he.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Or is he???

                      Comment


                        #12
                        In France, from 1792-1794, the guillotine was used 100 times per day by a professional executioner called a BOURREAUX.

                        His job was to chop off heads.

                        Does the CWB have a secret tribe of borreaux travelling the West chopping off marketing choice opportunities? Lying, half-truths, deception, slyness, hidden facts, stilted charts, doctored figures?

                        Chop. Chop. Chop.

                        If they do, marketing choice farmers, in one way or another, will be paying for the Board borreaux.

                        Parsley

                        Comment


                          #13
                          In France, from 1792-1794, the guillotine was used 100 times per day by a professional executioner called a BOURREAUX.

                          His job was to chop off heads.

                          Does the CWB have a secret tribe of borreaux travelling the West chopping off marketing choice opportunities with lying, half-truths, deception, slyness, hidden facts, stilted charts, doctored figures?

                          Chop. Chop. Chop.

                          If the CWB does, marketing choice farmers, in one way or another, will be paying for the Board borreaux.

                          Parsley

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Off topic but interestingly the CWB posted responses to 2 of the 3 papers today.

                            http://www.cwb.ca/en/hot/producer/pdf/penner.pdf

                            http://www.cwb.ca/en/hot/producer/pdf/cooper.pdf

                            Always intersting when a response takes more space than the original article. Perhaps meant to be warm and fluffy like a down quilt on a winters afternoon where you can sleep knowing the rest of the world is passing you by and you are in no danger.

                            For those of you who are sitting on the fence, read and decide.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Doesn't relate the thread theme but perhaps to the title.

                              I note the CWB holds the barley producer pricing options as their answer to a new world.

                              If the CWB is confident in their pricing options, why are the FPC contracts (and from there basis levels) so poor relative to the PRO. $23.48/tonne under for both 2 row and 6 row?

                              Why is the basis so ugly on feed barley (what amounts to $40/tonne under delivered Saskatoon area)? If you can vote to retain barley in the CWB, I suggest you sign up on this contract. You can deliver feed barley at $40 under and allow the CWB to turn around/deliver against futures in the range of $15 to $20 under with an additional $20/tonne being added into pool returns.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...