Price transparency IS relevant. Although it's better now than it was under the CWB, it still needs improving and at least now, there are things we can do about it. So, yeah, I'm trying to improve things.
As for corruption, here's an example. The CWB used to demand "CWB load terms" on vessel loading which extended the days to load in contracts, almost guaranteeing to "earn" dispatch (a credit paid for quicker loading - the opposite of demurrage). So they would pay, say, 6 days of vessel time (to load) and use only 3, meaning they would get 1/2 of the cost back in dispatch. (Dispatch is typically paid at half the daily rate for the vessel.) So essentially they would pay for vessel time they wouldn't use - and knew they wouldn't use. To earn $1million in dispatch means you spent $2million in excess freight, so dispatch is actually a cost. So when they said they "earned" dispatch, it actually came at an unnecessary cost - to farmers. And why did they do it? So they could brag about "earning" dispatch; "earning" dispatch looks a lot better than paying demurrage.
But it gets worse. CWB senior management got bonuses that were at least in part based on dispatch they "earned". So there was an internal incentive to "earn" dispatch even though it meant an added cost / lower grain prices to farmers.
The year after I brought my analysis to Ian White's attention, demurrage and dispatch were hidden in the Annual Report and bonuses were no longer based on dispatch.
Either they were ignorant or they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
So ignorant or corrupt. You tell me.
As for corruption, here's an example. The CWB used to demand "CWB load terms" on vessel loading which extended the days to load in contracts, almost guaranteeing to "earn" dispatch (a credit paid for quicker loading - the opposite of demurrage). So they would pay, say, 6 days of vessel time (to load) and use only 3, meaning they would get 1/2 of the cost back in dispatch. (Dispatch is typically paid at half the daily rate for the vessel.) So essentially they would pay for vessel time they wouldn't use - and knew they wouldn't use. To earn $1million in dispatch means you spent $2million in excess freight, so dispatch is actually a cost. So when they said they "earned" dispatch, it actually came at an unnecessary cost - to farmers. And why did they do it? So they could brag about "earning" dispatch; "earning" dispatch looks a lot better than paying demurrage.
But it gets worse. CWB senior management got bonuses that were at least in part based on dispatch they "earned". So there was an internal incentive to "earn" dispatch even though it meant an added cost / lower grain prices to farmers.
The year after I brought my analysis to Ian White's attention, demurrage and dispatch were hidden in the Annual Report and bonuses were no longer based on dispatch.
Either they were ignorant or they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
So ignorant or corrupt. You tell me.
Comment