US Co-operative

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Good points.

We have a good base of well managed producer owned terminals.

The CWB is a political organisation... governed by politics and power plays... the exact way Ralph Goodale set it up as.

To expect anything else from it... without real leadership from Ottawa (GOC)is unrealistic.

Personal responsibility for local decisions... with coordination for good information flow... will be the most responsive and allow change to best be implemented.

The CWB often fails in its' command and control management... to meet the needs of the commercial grain growers who it actually must exist to serve... to survive.

Obviously the CWB Elected Directors... on the whole... have not figured this out. President Ian White is a follower... not a leader that will stick his neck out on principal.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

'what do you mean by commercial farmer'?

GRAIN Farms that actually produce a sustainable profit... and have a long term focus to exist, 10 or 20years/to next farm generations, ... without planned outside jobs or Governemnt bailouts to keep them viable.

[agstar77]

So how many commercial farmers are there? Which ones have never taken government subsidies or supported their farm income with other sources of revenue?

[silverback]

Can you please just try and make your point as.

Have you got nothing to say other than to try and debate the definition of "commercial farmer" ?

[parsley]

One thing I do know.

The Canadian Wheat Board will not fix or improve any of their hedging or contingency fund or financial activities until they are forced to make changes by farmers themselves.

In my humble opinion, they will avoid change because change indicates something NEEDED changing.

NO ONE else is going to do it for us folks. No one. And few that you depend upon to help farmers or seek advice from, will help either. Period.

So demand some action. I am speaking to an MP's office tommorow.

What shall I say? Pars

[charliep]

My definition of farmer fits with tom4cwb - a farm
with a size and potential for profit that is able to
provide the needs of providing a farm family either
currently or down the road. Would not include
whether has used government programs - that is a
matter of need/qualifying.

Agstar - What is your definition of a commercial
farm - particularly as applies to a cooperative form
of ownership (perhaps new gen). The old coops
were based on the purchase of a share for minimal
value. Benefit was paid in terms of patronage - not
investment. The new world requires investors to
put up real money and take a risk position - hence
the need for bigger farmers/access to investment
cash.

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

Just mention that the CWB DID not meet their budget on hedge profits...

That the CWB had a massive gain on basis profits at the expense of growers who were forced by the 'single desk' to use PPO contracts...if they wanted to manage price risk....

That the CWB ran an export license program that stopped all 'designated area' producer direct commercial trade to the northern US... of un-priced 'designated area' wheat... while those US prices were the most profitable in recorded history.

That this 2007-08 year was obviously all about maximising; the CWB's power... not 'designated area' wheat growers' financial returns.

[agstar77]

Income- expense = profit, equates to commercial , not what your politcal philosophy happens to be, defines a commercial farmer as opposed to a hobby farmer. The point is do you believe some of us are more equal than other based on their political persuasion?

[charliep]

From a social standpoint, you are likely right. From a business standpoint in a cooperative or almost anything, a persons say in decision making/proportionate say should reflect their investment and risk stake in an organization.

Interesting, a concept I have often thought about is that the CWB really should have a bigger contingency fund and from there be a new generation cooperative with equity ownership by farmers based on their equity. The hedging/risk management losses make ask the question even more.

Perhaps you are right that the performance measure on page 45 is hedging loss/lost opportunity - a shouda, couda, wouda if you like. The loss on the producer pricing options is real in that it will be paid for by these programs for years through higher CWB adjustments in spite of the fact farmers made good decisions/basis levels covered costs (annual report) in 2007/08 (even endured some pain given 89 % priced below $7) and the losses were really the same as those described page 45. The losses in general should be a draw on the equity fund from all farmer stakeholders and the CWB operations held accountable - my two bits.

[charliep]

in the second last sentence, should read hedging losses on futures transactions. Hedging PPO risk by matching farmer pricing/deliveries against sales would be so much easier/less risky but wouldn't fit the CWB B of D philosophy.