northern edge of north central Missouri | w1891 - 8/27/2024 10:26
Would guess a 75 cents to a dollar higher. Would need to see demand at the higher price. But you can’t assume that the trade would be trading a 181+ and not catch on prior to the USDA report if it came in that low. That’s where our differences lay(possibly). You seem to want to assume the markets only information is USDA and USDA can then manipulate them. Traders don’t study USDA reports like farmers do despite have as more skin in the game when trading.
I disagree on traders reliance on USDA reports to determine their actions. Gobs of orders are placed and lifted based solely on USDA report releases. Easy to see.
I do not claim USDA is actively trying to manipulate a market by putting out a certain number to get a certain response in the market (however they could and we wouldnt know. It is a possibility with no checks on them other than themselves)
Lets keep it to what we both know is and avoid conspiracy type talk.
The USDA premature made up numbers combined with unregulated volumes of "spec" trades results in market fluctuations and action that would not exist otherwise.
It turns marketing into guessing what the government will say next. Since i dont like much of government intervention to begin with, I most certainly dont like them affecting our markets. Things should be modified in that regard with the goal being to have a price that is more closely attached to supply and demand of physical corn
IMO
|
But Joe said the crop is made
