• 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.

CWB answers misleading public statements with their own misleading statements

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

    #13
    Are we all in agreement with Mr. Macklin that an audit by the Auditor General in 2001 addresses the questions with respect to the contingency fund balance, transfers from pool accounts, and discretionary trading results in 2007/08?

    Mr. Macklin is hanging his hat on an audit that was done, in his words, just "a few years ago" when he was on the Board. But Mr. Macklin is no longer on the board. So unless someone is leaking information to him, he has no knowledge of current operational or financial matters. I have to wonder what basis he has to form this opinion.

    Comment


      #14
      As an interesting note, the $90 mln got turned into a loan on the CWB books of
      $29 mln (how is was done is documented in the audited statements.

      stubblejumper - are you comfortable with where the other $60 mln came from that
      financed the deficit on the 2007/08 contingency fund - this includes cash selling
      feed barley at extreme profits? Can you guarantee the $18 mln direct from the
      pool accounts (no where to be found in the financial statements other than the
      reconciliation note (I think 22)? Note I am not including the surplus transfered to
      the pooling system in 2004/05 ($7.5 mln). How will the $29 be distributed down
      given the allocation provided at the end of each pool statement? Should it be kept
      corporately when repaid or returned to the farmers who delivered to the 2007/08
      pooling year?

      Comment


        #15
        On the $18 mln, the board needs to be clear whether the loss has been
        incurred by the pool and a commitment this liability will not be transferred
        forward. If the BofD does expect this debt to be repaid, then it should
        show up on the 2007/08 balance sheet and not some internal transfer
        approved at some point in time by in camera BofD decision outside any
        type of external review.

        I find it interesting that most corporations with shareholders would have
        to present financial information at an annual meeting with the auditors
        present to answer questions and where this the report would be debated
        and passed. Farmers are provided an opportunity to read the financial and
        maybe ask a question at a district meeting but little else. Even the federal
        government does seem to be able to ask for more detailed information.
        This in an organization transfers money here, there and everywhere with
        little process or documentation.

        If you want to do some interesting math, look at the real pool returns to
        the wheat pool accounts ($3.1 bln) not including PPO portion ($1.8 bln)
        and compare that to the losses on both the discretionary trading of $226
        bln and losses on PPO trading (exclusively wheat) of which $25.5 mln has
        been written off and $29 mln is on the books as debt to be repaid) and
        this would suggest the CWB lost 10 % of the value of value for farmers who
        delivered wheat to the 2007/08 crop year. May your numbers are
        different.

        Comment


          #16
          Access to Information should provide motions passed and their recorded votes, by the B of D, for approving shifting around moneies. Pars

          Comment


            #17
            What I find interesting is how quiet the single desk
            side is on their transfer of payment to the
            contingency fund. The $29 mln is pulling close to
            $3/tonne out of the pockets of anyone who
            delivered to the 2007/08 wheat ex durum pools
            (look at the wheat ex durum table annual report). If
            you include the $18 mln which (I think) has been
            written by the CWB board of directors.

            I would feel some sympathy for anyone
            complaining about the above but will note that
            anyone who uses the PPO products will endure an
            extra $10 to $20/tonne of extra pain in basis (read
            wider) for 3 to 5 years as the CWB learns to deal
            with risk and repays the contingency fund back to
            $60 mln plus (with a risk the money could be
            pulled out into a bigger CWB contingency fund
            down the road). Neither of the above are winners
            in the final analysis.

            Comment


              #18
              Last sentence first paragraph should be

              "closer to $5/tonne if you include the $18 mln transferred from the
              pools to cover the contingency deficit".

              Comment


                #19
                Charlie,

                This is all a shell game. The books on PPO contracts and pool hedges are not here to actually tell the story of what the CWB actually did.

                Until the CWB accounts for all PPO hedges on an accountable basis... both positive and negative hedge reconciliations transparently forthcomming... with true basis charges that reflect the market that the individual grower sold the PPO grain into (ie. West Coast basis margin for west coast shipped produce)

                There are so many ways for the CWB to fudge/distort the books... in favour of the pool sales... it staggers that imagination.

                Give us a complete transparent, properly weighted PPO sales records... with seperate fair west coast and eastern basis levels... and then perhaps we will be able to actually START to fix this system!

                Comment

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