CWB conference call on contingency fund

[charliep]

Kind of weird but I note the performance measures knocked off $61 mln on
the discretionary trading losses ($169 mln reported versus $226 mln actual
because of quote "losses that were not truly achievable in the marketplace"
- page 45. Perhaps the $18 mln reduction in the PPO losses was apart of
the $61 mln - the PPO program would face similar pressure/problems in
managing risk. Hopefully the losses were not double counted or even worst,
applied to the PPO as a cost and really reflected to the overall pooling
system as an offset to their losses.

[chaffmeister]

How can you have "losses that were not truly achievable in the marketplace"?

Do they realize they aren't supposed to try to "achieve" losses?

[parsley]

"$169 mln reported versus $226 mln actual"


I have difficulty with this charliep.

This smells.

Pars

[parsley]

ANCILLARY

If you want to see where people are headed, examinbe their choice of words:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_revenue


Can't you just picture scheming legal beagles' clutching fingers looking for additional sources of income? Yes, I can. ......Pooling accounts. Yup

And there are a trio of reasons why it happens. In Canada. In 2009.

1. Fancy words
2. Complicit accountants
3. nonproducers@progesteronefreezone.ca

[parsley]

"ALLOCATE REVENUE FROM THE POOL"

Breach of trust, charliep?

Pars

[charliep]

to be fair, this is the full quote from page 45.

"Note that the methodology used for benchmarking discretionary activity can result
in the measurement of gains or losses that are not truly achievable in the
marketplace. In 2007-08, of the $226 million below target, $61 million was
determined to fall into this category."

If this is the out for discretionary trading, what are differences in the PPO accounts
on their losses outside normal hedging activities?

[parsley]

Doesn't benchmarking any discretionary activity, actually mean, the CWB meaning 'making it up as we go along'?

I cannot reason it. Can you?
Pars

[charliep]

Parsley

No answers to your questions. I can only note that all that is being discussed is in the first 72 pages of the annual report - the unaudited portion in the annual report that reflects the reporting of CWB operations to the board of directors and ultimately farmers. The financial results/audited statements start on page 73 and back.

[parsley]

One of the reasons why I have tried, in my own small way, (zealously, as some describe it), to nurture participation on this website for so many years, is so that farmers would become more aware, and be reminded, that they create massive wealth, and retain little.

This site is an opportunity for farmers to examine and exchange information, and discover where their money is leaking out and why it is leaking out, and who is opening the valve.

This CWB annual report should have brought indignation. It has not.

I note the absence of farmers calling for the resignation of the B of D.

They raided your pool accounts with a motion, and not one has resigned.

I note the absence of farmers calling for the resignation of the CEO

I note the near absence of farmers interested in "following the money" although, for example, Fransisco did and is.

The Wheat Board was very clear about telling farmers, that they would not touch the pooling accounts. The CWB took money from them. Openly. Few farmers noticed and fewer cared.

Raiding the pool accounts is now the norm.

And many AV farmer participants seem technologically adept, articulate, clever, and fit the role as farm managers. Many seem satisfied with the Board accessing your pooling accounts without advance notice, without notification.

I do note keen interest in poking burbert with a stick.



Parsley