vader's good barley ideas

[sask]

Vader, on another thread, you mentioned all the great
ideas you have had for barley. What are they? Why
have they not been implementd in the 5 years (or is it
6) that you have been there? Show some leadership
and lead this organization in the barley industry

[Burbert]

Here's one.
Like to hear Evader's thoughts on it.

Problem:
Pooled prices (PRO) always lag the spot price in a rising market, making it less attractive to farmers.

Solution:
If the CWB feels to have a pool is the only way, then the pooled prices should be unpriced - basis only.
The CWB could offer an initial payment of say $25 over WCE futures for feed barley basis instore Vancouver. As the market rallies (reflected in the futures), the net payment from the CWB pool will also rally.

Farmers would price at their own discretion (just like non-CWB crops). CWB could also provide the option of a fixed price initial (like they have now) for those that want it.

Could also have shorter pool periods.

[chaffmeister]

Here's one.
Like to hear Evader's thoughts on it.

Problem:
Pooled prices (PRO) always lag the spot price in a rising market, making it less attractive to farmers.

Solution:
If the CWB feels to have a pool is the only way, then the pooled prices should be unpriced - basis only.
The CWB could offer an initial payment of say $25 over WCE futures for feed barley basis instore Vancouver. As the market rallies (reflected in the futures), the net payment from the CWB pool will also rally.

Farmers would price at their own discretion (just like non-CWB crops). CWB could also provide the option of a fixed price initial (like they have now) for those that want it.

Could also have shorter pool periods.

[Vader]

Yes I support shorter pool periods. This would bring us closer to a cash pricing model.

Perhaps everyone who stays in the pool should be on a 100% EPO. No initial. No waiting for interim payments. Just a top up at the end if the pool exceeds the 100% level.

I would support a no cost export licence for producers shipping containers offshore to end users. No grain company involvement. Strictly for niche marketing. Same for wheat.

I would support the CWB being a selector of malt barley. The risk of germination going off during winter and spring could then be absorbed by the pool. Perhaps this would need to be a separtate pool so that this risk management strategy would not impact on the traditional pool.

You guys on here should be lobbying with Strahl's appointees for changes to the way the CWB handles barley in case the Minister cannot deliver on his dual market promise. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I haven't seen any sign of innovative thinking from these guys since they have been on our board. All they want to do is be Strahl's enforcers.

I'll say again. Get your applications for access to information in and see how directors vote. You'll be surprised.

[chaffmeister]

Would've been nice to get a response about the basis pool. The shorter pool periods don't solve the problem - just makes 'em smaller.

[chaffmeister]

<i>I would support a no cost export licence for producers shipping containers offshore to end users. No grain company involvement. Strictly for niche marketing. Same for wheat. </i>

How 'bout organics? That's a niche market, no?

[sask]

shorter pool periods just make the problems shorter.
That's it?

[AdamSmith]

Vader said,

"...in case the Minister cannot deliver on his dual market promise."

Vader, if the Minister makes the necessary regulatory changes to remove barley from the cwb's jurisdiction he will have fulfilled his promise.

This is going to happen.

Should the CWB successfully block these changes in court, not one farmer will blame him for failing to honour an election promise. The blame will lay squarely on the shoulders of the CWB BOD's.

A majority of farmers don't want the CWB to have a monopoly in barley, you can rationalize the outcome all you want, but it is what it is, and the more the CWB BOD's fight this the more the CWB loses.

Have you guys even considered the negative side to your position? Think of wheat. Now if I was PMSH or Minister Strahl and I knew that when it comes time to tackle wheat the outcome of a plebiscite would only lead to court action and still wouldn't achieve their desired outcome of a free market, what are the odds that they will go down that road? I'd say close to zip. If I were them I'd just kill the CWB Act altogether. You kill the Act you kill any law that requires a plebiscite.

The odds of a Conservative majority are greater today than they've ever been, what are the odds of a Conservative majority government continuing to put up with an agency that trashes them at every opportunity?

You may say there is no certainty in what the election outcome might be, and you would be right but to ignore the risks and to chart a course that will almost guarantee the total demise of the cwb as you know it seem to me to be the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber.

But let's say every court action you attempt is successful and the election outcome goes in your favour, the CWB still has to deal with the 62% of farmers and probably 85% of the grain who don't want the CWB to have a monopoly in barley. We don't want the CWB to have a monopoly Vader, and how long do you think the cwb can continue ramming something down farmers throats, for God's sake man, you've admitted that ten years of propaganda and rearranging the deck chairs has done nothing to change how farmers feel about the cwb.

Vader, In the last ten years, I suspect that yourself and Ken Ritter are the only two farmers in the three prairie provinces who have changed their position from advocating a free market to supporting the monopoly. How many millions have been spent of farmers money Vader in trying to change opinions? How many millions more are you guys planning on spending? Can you not see how futile that process is? Can you not see how immoral that is?

Vader the opportunity to fix the cwb came and went a long time ago. The issue today is either exist in an open market or don't exist in an open market. And soon enough, this is what the end play will be and please don't kid yourself because the more games the CWB plays and the more time and money the CWB spends trying to avoid the unavoidable, the greater the number of people there will be that will accept concept of no cwb at all.

[AdamSmith]

Come to think of it, not only will they accept the concept of no cwb at all, THEY WILL DEMAND IT.

[AdamSmith]

Vader, I probably asked way too many questions in above post and obviously some of those where rhetorical but I am serious about the first question I asked, so I'll re-ask it.

Have you guys (the CWB BOD's)even considered the negative side to your position? ie the "down side" if your strategy doesn't work the way you hope it will. And what are they as the CWB BOD's see them to be?

[chaffmeister]

sask:
Shorter pool periods have been the only answer to the PRO "market-lag" problem that the CWB seems to even consider. Evader says he supports the idea:<i>This would bring us closer to a cash pricing model.</i> But it won't eliminate the problem, just make it smaller(or shorter, as you say).

And, yes, that's it. That's all a shorter pool period would do. The CWB currently has shorter pool periods in feed barley and they're still fraught with pricing problems - I won't bore you with the details.

So why not run an unpriced pool?

Vader?

[kamichel]

Why have a barley price pool? Why not just have one fixed price that changes every ten minutes of the day. That is what I would like to see. That gives the best market signal and makes buyers bid for farmers grain. The pools in my opinion only let buyers purchase below market value. You see most farmers that locked in fixed prices did so because the price was right in their opinion. And they also locked in better than pool prices 99 percent of the time in my opinion. Perhaps an average pool price could be offered that is an average of what farmers have priced not what the CWB gives the grain away for. That may work out better.

[craig]

Vader
You make suggestions on changes to the board that you would support. If the board had got with it and made some changes to it's operations maybe you wouldn't be in the position you are in today. There are a number of producers who have looked to the board to show some flexibility and a willingness to address the concerns of those outside the inner circle. What we have got instead was maintain the status quo at any cost. The attitude seems that only we know what's best for producers. If you want the respect of your peers you need to realize we don't all share your views. If you had addressed those concerns maybe we wouldn't be where we are at today.

[just_wondering]

Vader I would ask you if you have all these good ideas what is the hold up it can't be Strahls appointees as they are only 4 it can't be the elected choice directors as they are only 2 not the chair only 1 vote as I see it we have 8 monopolists holding up all of the designated area.
Too put it very simply earn my business.
I have no probeblem with dealing with voluntary gov't agencies, FCC is my lender of choice.

[chaffmeister]

Kamichel: <i>Why have a barley price pool? Why not just have one fixed price that changes every ten minutes of the day. That is what I would like to see. </i>

What you just described fits with my idea of an unpriced pool. One that will change in price every time the futures price changes.

Let’s remember that there are some out there that may still want a pooled price to manage their risk. But the problem with a voluntary pool (according to the CWB) is that it can’t be competitive. If the CWB offered a pooled basis, this would solve that problem.

If the CWB is providing any benefit, it would show up in a basis – not futures.

Pricing performance would be your own – at the market – through pricing orders like you might do with canola. Responsive to appropriate price signals. And would allow the CWB to be competitive with other buyers.

The CWB could offer 5 pools – one for each futures contract:
Aug-Sept delivery basis the Oct
Oct-Nov delivery basis the Dec
Dec-Jan-Feb delivery basis the Mar
Mar-Apr delivery basis the May
May-Jun-July delivery basis the July

The CWB says that without the single desk, they can’t offer anything the grain companies can’t offer. How about risk management through pooling?