CWB star on Larry Weber Show

[parsley]

Is Cuthbert the best star the CWB has?

Bob Cuthbert claims the CWB doesn't like websites and media quoting the high spots bid, which poor old Cuthbert whined, are "making the PRO not look very good",

No kidding.

Bob Cuthbert was dipassed (from sitting at the computer all week)from spending all his time accessing USDA numbers so he could articulate this little gem for DA farmers, "Don't be fooled by high spot bids."

CWB using AMERICAN WEBSITES. Now there was a confession.

This went over Cuthbert's head:

1.First of all the USDA actually supplies the numbers to everone, including farmers! Open transparent, available. Serving the CWB itself in a timely, orderly and accessible fashion.

2. Now, go to the CWB website and research their farmgate numbers. DA farmers...wait...wait....wait...wait...
Access to Information will come in April so you can actually GET some numbers. In the meantime, it is none of your business you stupid yahoos.

3. Cuthbert touted CWB numbers Alan Oberg would use to peacock the single desk.

The only problem is, what if Cuthbert dreamed the CWB data? What if Cuthbert read the secret CWB numbers, and got it mixed up with,say, Indonesian data?

How cn farmers verify what comes out of Cuthbert's mouth about what the CWB is pricing, or was pricing or might be pricing, AT THE FARMGATE?

Farmers need to analyse farmgate data, but it is all scribbled on a hand napkin in the garbage can in the Wheat Board's exercise room.

But notice Weber actually gave Cuthbert the time of day. "Equal opportunity", Weber called it.

With unverifiable credibility like the CWB sports, the CWB deserves to be shown any radio station's door.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Sorry Bob but comparing spot prices to the pro is valid and you are right the pro's look terrible. You can try to substitute a different measuring stick or try to make the measuring stick disappear but its not going to happen.

The farmgate returns are the farmgate returns no amount of spin is going to change that.

[parsley]

Cuthbert is also in the Western Producer with his dog-breath claims about both John DePape's Spark's paper and Frontier Centre speech.

Two points:

# 1. It's the CWB that has the signing authority on farmer's pooling accounts, not DePape. The CWB has funded countless studies, but they have NEVER looked at the basic problem...the returns at the farmgate. Until they do, they have NO credibility, and had best be prepared to:
1.take abuse or
2. plain shut up

#2. The CWB should refute some of Mr. DePape's specific comments made at the Frontier Centre, on Agri-ville. I'm interested and I'm sure the rest of the readers are. Cuthbert will probably opt to hide under the bed. Maybe someone can send him an e-mail

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Common Bob why don't you come out and play?

What have you got to lose?

[JohnDePape]

I think it’s about time I waded in here.

(1) Bob Cuthbert tried to interrupt my presentation at the Frontier Centre and was asked to wait until after the presentation to ask his questions. It had nothing to do with the fact that the presentation was being videotaped – it had everything to do with respect, Bob.

(2) The Sparks barley study (which I wrote) was received and praised widely. The ONLY criticism came from the CWB and it wasn’t public. In a letter from Adrian Measner to the Sparks CEO, the CWB threatened to publicly refute the study if Sparks did not retract the study. Sparks did not. The CWB never went through with its threat and has never issued any formal comment about the study (unless you count the recent barley study by U of S). EVER.

Bob, this is what I meant when I wrote in the Producer that you could not argue my points, otherwise you would have.

(3) Measner mentioned in his letter to Sparks that if the plants being built in the US were being built for offshore markets, then Alberta would have been a better choice. IMC is on record that their plant in Idaho Falls was built to service offshore markets. The CWB should talk to these people; I did.

(4) Regarding Bob’s comment that the Sparks study was never critiqued by impartial agricultural economists – how about a handful of senior PhDs at Sparks? All highly regarded ag economists and considered as impartial as they come. I guess they don’t count in the CWB’s eyes because they don’t work out of the U of S.

And no, it was never published in any professional journals because it was not an exercise in theoretical econometric modeling – ON PURPOSE. It was a business analysis – not an economic one.

(5) The U of S barley marketing study “assessed” my barley study and missed the mark by a wide margin:

- They had their facts wrong concerning the importation of malt barley from Europe in 02/03 (not poor assumptions, just plain wrong). I talked about it directly with the maltsters who did the importing – back in 2003 and again recently. Clearly, Schmitz and Gray didn’t.
- They chose to misinterpret the word “efficiency”. I had said the CWB comes with a high cost; they argued that the barley market arbitrages with the US corn market. Go figure.
- They questioned my comparison of CWB sales prices to domestic feed prices, arguing that the feed industry doesn’t buy from the CWB anyway, so why compare. The comparison was to show that the CWB is providing returns well below available domestic values, a point they chose to avoid.
- My analysis showed clearly that removing the CWB from barley marketing would remove the high cost structure, which would then allow the system to provide better prices. They misinterpreted this to mean that export prices would go up – which they disagreed with.

Regardless of this criticism, Schmitz and Gray chose to COPY large sections of the Sparks study. Their Section II “The World and Canada’s Barley Markets” is taken almost word-for-word from Section I “Global Barley Market Overview and Outlook” from the Sparks study.

(6) When I presented in March 2004 the result of the Sparks barley study, Bob Cuthbert was in attendance. At a break, he approached me to discuss the results. At that time, he said directly to me “We do struggle with barley”, agreeing with the evidence presented.

It would be appropriate to see some of that honesty publicly.



I would be happy to debate one-on-one with Bob Cuthbert about the CWB’s role in barley marketing, its history and where it could go in the future in choice market.

Anytime, anywhere, Bob.

[parsley]

Thanks for that John DePape!

I listened to you on the Larry Weber 980 show, and found your comments precise, pertinent to these barley-vote-days, and above all, a glimmer of hope to the farm community, that first of all there are some suggestions out there for improvement of our bottom line, and secondly, there is an academic who has even considered examining farmgate returns.


I listened for the 980 show on Saturday, but it wasn't on, hoping their would be some more discussion about barley marketing in a choice environment.

Thanks so much for your comments.

Parsley

[hoppsing]

Dear Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme,

It seems my comments went right over your head. I was in fact comparing the CWB PRO to average U.S. farm gate returns. And lo and behold, they are actually very close for malting barley. So no, I won't shut up. Not in my nature! This is too much fun anyway!

[charliep]

hopsing

Is this the table you are referring to?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/feedgrains/StandardReports/YBtable10.htm

I always like to read the fine print in the bottom.

Weighted average is the U.S. season-average price based on monthly prices weighted by monthly marketings. Prices do not include an allowance for loans outstanding and government purchases. Latest data are from World Supply and Demand Estimates.

I would suspect the prices are monthly elevator posted prices and not necessarily contracted/delivered values. It will also be a blend of 2 and 6 row malt barley with a higher weighting 6 row.

[parsley]

All Agri-villers will be so very relieved the pooling accounts are also paying CWB employees to e-harvest blogs and agricultural forums, fighting against farmers, because I thought the pooling accounts were simply there to pay for Liberal fundraisers, and Alumni Dinners in Edmonton, and say,Indonessian schmoozing!

How many CWB trolls on hired to troll this site? 10?

Squint your eyes and read my comment again, hopssing:


"The CWB has funded countless studies, but they have NEVER looked at the basic problem...the returns at the farmgate. Until they do, they have NO credibility, and had best be prepared to:
1.take abuse or
2. plain shut up"


Rejecting #2 means lost jobs, so I am not surprised at the CWB welcoming #1

FARMGATE RETURNS.
FARMGATE RETURNS

Does the CWB even know what that term implies? The CWB cannot possibly employ any crebible economists, because true economists' studies would focus upon actual farmers' returns.

Parsley

[winwin]

Parsley;you are always talking about SPOT PRICES.You can't look at that.

Naturally pool prices will be lower if you compare ANY SPOT BETWEEN SEPT 1943 AND AUG 1,2007.

Outside those spots the cwb prices will be the same as other buyers.

[Incognito]

Thats it. I'm buying insurance for my keyboards - they just cant seem to take coffee expelled from my nose.

LOL

[BobCuthbert]

Hello John,

Always with respect, John. We have known each other for some thime and I am sure that you and I can keep this on the high road. We can agree to disagree with courtesy and professionalism. I was not suggesting that I should have had the right to interupt you repeatedly at the Frontier Centre breakfast. And it simply was not worth it to launch into a major debate in front of that small audience of commited anti-CWB lobbyists.
You basically glossed over your paper and did not really present much for facts and data. In March 2004, when you presented the paper in full in Calgary, we asked for a copy before the meeting and were refused. At the break during your presentation, I asked the moderator if I could have some time at the end to respond. This was refused. Then in the second half of your presentation, I did comment on every second or third slide
because frankly, the errors were astounding! I did not enjoy doing that but I had no choice. And I certainly did not agree with your "evidence". John, you've said yourself that you are not an economist. Anyway, I want to be clear on something. Are you asking me to post the significant errors in the paper? There are a quite a number. I doubt that you want to go there.

Respectfully,
Bob Cuthbert

P.S. old "Farmgate" Parsley's comments do not deserve a reply as they are sans respect,professionalism and in many cases, common sense. But winwin does have a sense of humour! I like that!

[charliep]

Bob

Just curious as to why the CWB never responded formally to the study. You have responded formally to other studies including the George Morris Center one.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/studies/pdf/morriscentre.pdf

What is important now is the results of the barley plebiscite and the the federal government's next steps.

[parsley]

No. What is important is that once again, Canadian Wheat Board employees brush off farmers.

It is much easier to claim Parsley does not deserve a reply, rather than to respond to Parsley's complaint that farmgate studies are lacking.

No wonder you don't want to reply to farmers, Cuthbert.

FARMGATE RETURNS... a nasty little phrase if you work for the CWB.

How do CWB economists respond to a valid complaint? They don't. They shoot the messenger.

Cuthbert digs up all kinds of reasons why Parsley doesn't deserve an answer, but Agri-villers will note that Parsley didn't get that answer from Cuthbert for the biggie:

"How come hotshot economists working for/at the CWB don't do studies on farmgate returns?"

Cuthbert will acutely remember when Ken Ritter rittered on every radio station he could squeeze, claiming that it was good business to take money out of the pooling accounts to pay for Government appointed Directors plus CWB staff to go to Liberal fundraisers. It was, a public relations fiasco, indeed. And the CWB rescinded their policy after farmers took a round out of them.

It's bloody farmer money.

CWB employees need to EARN respect from farmers,Cuthbert,you've got it backwards, and judging by the lashing the CWB often gets from every direction...MP's Ministers, farm organizations, trade organizations, farmers, business organizations...and on and on, and the fact that the staff needed stress bonuses,.... screams a lack of respect for the CWB et al.

I've observed that the CWB staff have a real problem....because a good number of the people they are supposed to work for don't respect them and don't want the CWB as a business partner.

Parsley

[charliep]

Bob

Just curious how much 2007/08 crop has been forward sold to the domestic maltsters? Always curious about the difference in philosophy on risk management between producer contracts ($21.80/tonne discount for malt barley fixed price contracts with logic hard if not impossible to manage price risk relative to the pooling system) and signing forward contracts with maltsters (can forward price to domestic maltsters with the knowledge that farmers grow 6 to 7 MMT of malt barley varieties out of which the CWB only needs 2 MMT so who cares if the you short the market without having the supplies to back up the contracts - farmers are going to deliver to the CWB/malsters regardless of price). Perhaps a change that has to occur is the CWB should not be allowed to forward contract without having farmer physiscal delivery contracts in place.

Irrelevant to the thread and don't expect an answer but a question that remains on my mind.