Recent comments by: Brad Jones
Peter they're at the bottom end of commercial rates. It would be premature to release them now because we're relooking at our Proposal. All the detail will be in our complete proposal if the CBH board will let growers vote on it. I would respectfully suggest the much bigger issue is how Australia can stave off the inroads that the Europeans and the South Americans are making into our traditional markets.
Interested Party as you know WA is export focused and will always remain that way so the CBH supply chain will never cease to exist. Its structure will and should evolve and this an opportunity for growers to increase their wealth and improve their balance sheets. This would lead to confidence to invest in innovation and technology to drive costs of production down and enhance our ability to compete with the nthn hemisphere production systems. There are numerous benefits in having strong individual businesses that create a stronger industry.
Peter the shares we would be issued upon success would be all shown in the information memo given to growers prior to a vote, complete transparency. If you don't like it vote no: that's democracy.
RR the idea of shared storage would be linked direct to end user and have the ability to provide them with quality specs very close to what they require for their processing, it would have full traceability and the more efficient supply chain would be reflected in farm gate values. Not sure where you got the 15 km distance travelled from?
Half Cocked- We gave notice that we couldn't make the Tuesday and have offered to come down after Easter. Please contact me and arrange a date and we will come down.
Gerry Atric- We removed the exclusivity part of the process agreement and the board were well aware that a lot of information cannot be given until due diligence is done. The only approval we wanted was for them to enter into a process agreement so that an information memorandum can be accurately produced and you then get an opportunity to view it and vote on it, you can vote anyway you like.
D8- Thanks for your support
Sorry Rural Realist but by signing the process agreement we could put all in front of growers via an information memorandum so that they could make an informed decision on what best suits their individual business. If you don't like it vote no.
Please qualify the outlandish statements you are claiming that I make.
A cooperative is a very effective business tool to address market failure but when it has commercial value it needs to be tipped into the commercial environment. This is mainly because it subject to differing views from its members, some want their value, some want their benefits. It exposes co-op to politicalisation and that sees it nearing the end of its business life cycle. There are many case studies from around the world of disbanded coops and they all have a common theme, they reached the end of their life cycle. The trick is evolving into a commercial environment preserving its values.
You going to stand for parliament Jock?
Well said Top Ender. Understanding cost curves to determine profit relative to risk is a far more important metric then productivity with risk as a background.
CBH will be exploiting the same inefficiencies that led me to build a silo complex is 2012. At present I can receive a better farm gate price for transporting grain 400km to Bunge then I can for transporting 4km to a CBH site.
Unless they can invest wisely into this network and remove these inefficiencies competition is our only hope of creating value and having it returned to us.
We can only hope that the board is not hijacked by the corporate ego being displayed by the executive and if they have its a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Transformations often begin, and begin
well, when an organization has a new head
who is a good leader and who sees the need for
a major change. If the renewal target is the entire
company, the CEO is key. If change is
needed in a division, the division executive
is key. When these individuals are not new
leaders, great leaders, or change champions,
phase one can be a huge challenge. Is CBH ready for change?
Interested Party, if CBH are going to assist them to create their own co-op then how is that creating value and returning it to us as WA growers? Is it used as a throw away line to keep us happy? We have inefficiencies in our system over here that need to be ironed out. I just attended the GTA conference and the dispute is not about port capacity in the west, its how to get it there. The MD of Watco spoke about the infrastructure problems in Aust in rail, these problems didn't appear last week. Should the board not have thought the process through a little more before making such an investment?
Gerry Atric, this is not about selling CBH. I think you'll find that if a corporate raider approached the board with a hostile takeover then the board would legally have to pass that vote to shareholders. The co-op status does not protect against that. This was about a large part of my cost structure being used to invest on the EC and how will it add value to my $2 share. When on their roadshow CBH mentioned EC growers becoming shareholders but it was not explained. That would be a corporate raiders dream having new shareholders with no parochial ties asked to make a decision to sell.
Who is the middle man you are claiming takes all away Jock?
If I sell to CBH and they export it, or you sell to Graincorp and they mill or malt it through their assets who is the middleman?
First Jock you need to define the middleman if a grower is selling to an acquirer who has export capabilities?
Just in time supply chain models actually cut out the middleman Jock.
Phillip, they have different issues with storage to us, moisture in silos and heating problems that comes with that.
Their on-farm storage has grown dramatically in the last 15 years. I first worked in Northern Alberta in the 90s and after a revisit I could not believe the growth in on-farm storage. Growers deal with it, are happy to do it and use the flexibility of just in time supply chain models to suit their individual needs.
PGA shouldn't be at the centre of this argument but the value loss associated with competition and how CBH's current structure is equipped to compete with companies that have market caps 10, 20 even 30 times larger.
The PGA have always touted their belief in the free market, that is not a call for the demise of CBH. They did not create the concern of value loss that competition will bring but have been consistent in publicly saying that's its greatest value is while it holds a monopoly before the arrival of competition. Unshackle it from its present governance structure and let it prosper.
In a recent bin meeting, Kettle Black, when the idea of networking reshaping was discussed with us the question was raised about competition and the impacts it would have. One of the directors who was standing in the room said "bring it on". The context in which it was said hardly makes for an amicable commercial outcome.
With the market capitalisation some of these competitors have CBH is but a mere minnow!
The behaviour of 60 Minutes was reprehensible towards the Ford brothers. They did absolutely nothing wrong but were stood up on national television.
Poor form 60 Minutes and Michael Usher.
Yes a duopoly CMT like the Coles (WES- An iconic WA brand) and Woolies do in fact exercise market power. How then does CBH declare $131m net profit from S&H, is that not a cost that we as growers have worn.
This profit is providing free cash that the board and Senior execs feel obligated to spend. How about you ask your director about the ROI on the Newcastle facility. Empire building maybe?
Interested party are you implying that CBH is the victim here? With an 80 year monopoly headstart a well run organisation with clear focus and member engagement should be bulletproof to any competitor.
Interested party, CBH has to prove that legislated port terminal access undertakings are forcing it to box with one hand tied behind its back. It has an amazing amount of market intel to give it an advantage over competitors. How can we be assured as growers that we are not going to be left defenceless by monopolistic power?
Well Oakey you should be asking your grower director these questions. We need engagement from growers to ensure the attitude of "We're listening but not caring, we will do what we think best" is not running unchecked.
Have you been on your elected directors farm and had a look?
Oakey a question that every grower member of CBH needs to ask is 1) Is CBH growing in the best way possible? 2) Is it risking overextension in its quest for growth and exposing itself further by losing focus on its principle profit driver, that its existing network? Very different scenario to you on the Darling Downs that has a very large domestic off take.
CMT the AEGIC report has a few interesting points in it for sure."Using these cost comparisons to make judgments about the management and operation of grain supply chains in any
region is unwise. For a variety of reasons each region has unique cost structures, so great care is needed in drawing
inferences from any regional comparison" Kingwell R. 2014.
Give me a call I would like to discuss it further with you.
Dalby, my biggest cost on a per ha basis is S&H, the majority of this paid to CBH. Of the $162m profit they declared in the last annual report 80% ($131m) is derived from S&H. This is net profit so re-investment in the network has already been accounted for. Note 1 on p58 of the annual report under corporate information says that it is a not-for profit cooperative. If this is the case then how can $131m net profit be made out of its members. Bit of organisational slack in there somewhere??
Unfortunately this article on a vision for the future has been derailed by the polarised views on CBH. I agree with you Dalby that the problem is systemic and cannot be blamed on one specific part of the supply chain.