cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Esteemed Advisor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

IN/OH probably have to import 500 mil is my guess. Lots of trains of it. Probably should buy freight and resell it later but I suspect the BIG C thought of that a long time ago. :-)

 

btw...these yield numbers are just bizarre, especially the bean one, most irrational numbers I have ever seen, and I've been doing this for a long time.

 

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

It appears Iowa better get used to being a "second class corn growing citizen"

 

Iowa               183

 

Mn                   184

 

Nebraska        187

 

oh my.....

0 Kudos
Senior Contributor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

Yeah but as I recall he said you had inside information so the bet wasn't fair. I never could figure that logic out. You were right and he was wrong. Regardless when and how you got the information, he still lost the bet!

 

 

0 Kudos
Veteran Advisor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

Hey Don.....good to hear from you....hope things are well in Broken Arrow....I have family there and in Muskogee....been quite the wet summer for your part of the world this year??

 

Yeah, I had a flashback to ole Gfarmer when I got involved with this thread, and just knew it would turn out in similar fashion...

 

maybe these guys are cousins....

 

Ray J

0 Kudos
Veteran Contributor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye


@IllinoisSteve wrote:

Look, you've known me long enough to know that I don't make Internet bets.  It doesn't accomplish anything.  Only Internet cyber bullies seem to thrive on throwing bets out when things don't go their way.  I see you are already covering your ass by stating that the USDA won't print a number lower then 12.5.  A convenient way for you to be wrong yet again and claim that you were right and the USDA was fudging.  Some things never change.


I see no problem with Mizzou's explanation... He personally thinks the national yield will be 12.2.  Yet he does not believe usda will ever print a number below 12.6.  How is that hard to understand?

 

If you don't want to take the bet, fine too!  But at least Mizzou has the ability to put forth something for discussion.

Veteran Advisor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

I offered to trade at 12.5 byn on the Jan report

 

no counter, nothing but radio silence

 

most markets have a bid/ask allowing for negotiation

 

I kinda doubt anyone wants to play now that the numbers are out.....

0 Kudos
Esteemed Advisor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

I'd still say there is no way the final is over 161 and 41, but hey I'm apparently an idiot.

Veteran Contributor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

161 is the number I have in mind too.  Have to wait it out, January or later...

0 Kudos
Senior Contributor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye

It's just more of the same BS.  Instead of admitting that a person is wrong about their perception of the crop size let's just blame the USDA and yell conspiracy to cover our tracks.  I understand it perfectly well.  Instead of dealing with reality let's blame the USDA.  Much simpler that way.  Eh?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: Marketeye, Marketeye, Marketeye


@IllinoisSteve wrote:

It's just more of the same BS.  Instead of admitting that a person is wrong about their perception of the crop size let's just blame the USDA and yell conspiracy to cover our tracks.  I understand it perfectly well.  Instead of dealing with reality let's blame the USDA.  Much simpler that way.  Eh?


No, I do not think you get it...  Because Farmers question the numbers, based on what they see in fields and know from experience is not just blaming usda.

 

In 2012 Farmers were disputing usda as they hung on to 168 for a long time, only to drop a 123 bomb in January 2013.  Where is usda accountability there?

 

usda also moves around 300 mbu like ping pong balls.  And its a well known fact they will never drop a soybean carryout below 100.

 

Every year usda puts out a high number based on a trendline, and it does not hold to the 5 year average!  That is not blaming, that is fact!

 

Personally, I see a 161 final in January.  That is not trendline.  It is higher than Mizzou Tiger , but in line with many posts on this site. 

 

So I don't believe the 168.8 is accurate, and will not be the final number in January 2016.  But like Mizzou says that is what will get traded.  And to whose benefit?  Its a discussion board, and thats what happens; we question and debate numbers!  But go ahead and just say we are blaming usda, eh? LOL! 

0 Kudos