Net CWB revenue is dominated by market prices/returns of which the CWB cannot take credit. CWB performance should not be measured in market value terms, rather in terms that reflect how well the CWB <b>captured</b> what the market was providing. In 2007-08, the CWB’s final pool price for #1 CWRS 13.5 (in Sask) was $1.70/bu below the average US street price for similar wheat. In 2006-07, the CWB final was $1.17/bu below. And in 2005-06 the CWB fell short of the US average street price by about $0.70/bu.
By this measurement, 2007-08 was the CWB’s worst year in the last three.
And I don't like the look of the trend either.
One last thing - not that I care to defend Minister Ritz - but he's been criticized in the media for ignoring the record returns of the CWB and focusing on the <b>relatively smaller losses.</b> When looking at the pros/cons of the CWB Ritz is right to ignore the market returns and focus on what the CWB did or didn't do.
Using the logic that we should be applauding the CWB for $7 billion in sales, what sales number in 2007-08 would have been considered a failure on the CWB's part?
This organization is a master of spin - and any farmer that isn't incensed at being manipulated in that way, deserves what he/she gets.
By this measurement, 2007-08 was the CWB’s worst year in the last three.
And I don't like the look of the trend either.
One last thing - not that I care to defend Minister Ritz - but he's been criticized in the media for ignoring the record returns of the CWB and focusing on the <b>relatively smaller losses.</b> When looking at the pros/cons of the CWB Ritz is right to ignore the market returns and focus on what the CWB did or didn't do.
Using the logic that we should be applauding the CWB for $7 billion in sales, what sales number in 2007-08 would have been considered a failure on the CWB's part?
This organization is a master of spin - and any farmer that isn't incensed at being manipulated in that way, deserves what he/she gets.
Comment