10-31-2013 02:56 PM
..... that farmers need market information that is not from the buy side. Without that producers are definitely at a disadvantage.
I once refused to cooperate with gov surveys until I realized all I was hurting was myself and other farmers. The government figures, such as they are, substantially level the marketing playing field.
10-31-2013 04:07 PM
These reports do nothing more than let the ambulance chasers have fodder for the next race
At some point they would be starved for info to the point they wouldn't know up or down and be forced to leave or go do some real homework
At which time they would realize that maybe a 1B carry out isn't a bad thing and we might rewards overproduction instead of failure
10-31-2013 08:03 PM
I don'ty buy that for a second. The insiders have more info than the farmer. Grain trading corps have always had their intelligence operations and it was always considered 'privilaged' information for the company.
Farmers had rumors and they were often not timely or true. I've seen buyers put out rumors I knew were untrue because I had good sources. Counter intelligence becomes the game when the other side can't keep up. Farmers are a diverse group without a central floor for information or operations. I've seen this kind of thing regularly in the regional market I'm in. And there are times I hear farmers discussing information they think is the gospel truth when I know it's false.
I'm absolutely positive the market would have been more dynamic and some farmers may have made different decisions had the quantity of foreign sales of corn and beans had been known during the shut down.
There is no substitute for information sources and reporting by sources that are reasonably reliable.
10-31-2013 09:23 PM
Generally speaking over time
There has been a cycle of demand out stripping supply
30's 70's 90's 00's 10's
Cycle keeps halving itself to the point we likely cycle up and down in much shorter waves
That's about 5 times in the last century. All those years in between we have had a huge pile of grain. Like years worth. So the precision of the reports didn't matter one bit. The trend was we have a pile of grain for years on end. Burry this thing
Bigger demand tighter supply. Less room for error. Reports and info are exposed for their weakness.
There are some of us that are very well informed. Don't pigeon hole those that know a thing or two and are well traveled
If the market and it's intelligence and the reports are so dam good
Then explain to me what happened the last 5 years. Simple question. Explain what happened. Market and it's smartazz advisors said 14B plus. What happened. Seriously explain to me what happened and I will maybe listen.
O that's right, they didn't have a clue or a cushion of error to hide the bullshat and were exposed
10-31-2013 11:42 PM
Any one producer or 300 , not participting in a survey does not effect any USDA outcome.
Stats. You might get psychic reward. "" that farmers need market information that is not from the buy side. Without that producers are definitely at a disadvantage. I once refused to cooperate with gov surveys until I realized all I was hurting was myself and other farmers. The government figures, such as they are, substantially level the marketing playing field""
If you follow exports over time, you will see there is little to glean to put to use. **bleep** matters some. We export a lot, sometimes front loaded sometimes back loaded. Any weekly # is ramdom to price over time. Run the stats. See the early, 1st of the mkting yr headline you posted, excellent, exports high- catching up - so get some sold. or if there is some outsized export deal, a GOOD marketer will assist , help, by upping his sales.
Or when exports are high do you sell or hold off?
Farmers should keep the big picture in mind and their role. IE wheat and especially wprld wheat is in a fundamental bear trend.
11-01-2013 12:26 AM
I agree that the dynamics of the market have changed - and that change has mainly been the conversion of developing countries (that used to mean 'poor') to rapidly expanding economies and expertise and the improvement of diets as much or more important than growing populations.
Production has raced forward too but, between ethanol (an industrial operation) and improvements in diet the increase has barely kept up. Wheat is a good example. inventories have risen and fallen but mainly just kept even with occasional ventures into the danger zone where weather becomes more important than acres in finishing out a year and the final outcome in the market.
Price doesn't always represent the balance between production/consumption/inventory/production predictions. It's not a straight math problem.
This year and then years leading to 2007 (wheat) are great examples. The trend for falling inventories of wheat were pronounced before 2007. Yes, they were government figures and described the global situation. We were heading into the 'danger zone', meaning that acres were not going to be enough if there was drought or other problems within the norms of any given year. The market did not encourage more production in the face of those trends and the banner term of the time was 'just in time delivery' - great idea, unless you don't have the stock to deliver. By the time the market reacted it was far too late to do anything about supply. Rationing was all that was left. And the market went parabolic. The old timers here will remember i warned for more than a year before it went parabolic. But, I also was ready to capitalize because I felt the general trends were represented correctly. A trend continues until something changes it. A one year countermove isn't always enough to change it for more than one year.
Switch to today. You have to admit the USDA projections for corn seem pretty accurate so far. I have plenty of contacts in corn country and I know which are reliable. They are getting better than expected yields over a large area, even if not every area. The USDA's initial projections depend more on potential and acres early on. But they DO adjust. This year they surveyed like crazy compared to last year. The result seems reasonable in the market so far. Now the trend to watch is demand. It's not just cattle and ethanol now. China is huge and there is every reason to believe that demand will be good.
So, the price goes down. Normal. But I think the demand will go up. The dynamics continue and the game changes. It could have been different this year but it wasn't. The USDA predictions aren't the culprit. And the USDA (or anyone else) doesn't have a crystal ball.
11-01-2013 12:33 AM
You are right. Any given number on exports at any given time aren't helpful w/o a frame of reference and an idea of the trend. That's why a producer should always pay attention to the larger trends. If you can't tell when the trends are deviating then you are helpless in making decisions regarding marketing, and strategy depends on each person's needs. A single trend is often meaningless. Several trends compared can be a useful picture.
11-01-2013 07:14 AM
Go back and find the usda's march and heck even mid summer numbers and compare them to final for the last 5 years
I wait can't even do that now because they go back and changes those a year later just to fit their agenda and make a balance sheet work
Add a few hundred million here take a few hundred million there
Again I say, prior to new dynamics the accuracy of these reports didn't matter because we had more than enough to cover up errors and ignorance. Not so anymore
If you wanna tell me I'm wrong cause corn is 4 and not 8 that's fine
But don't under any circumstance tell me we need any government reports