I think the secular trend is people preferring less processing. You can buy a SAFM BS breast for 2 bucks a lb. or a bag of frozen reheat for $5-6 lb. Health wise and money wise less is more. Convenience and time is a factor but fast casual restaurant is a better deal than some frozen TSN meal, in my opinion
agreed, the beneficiary of record-high beef prices are poultry producers. Consumers have traded down to less expensive meats such as chicken. The USDA predicts the poultry supply will grow about 2.7 percent in 2015 and with consumption shifting away from high-priced beef, chicken demand will increase by at least 3 percent in 2015
Sentiment: Strong Buy
1987 to 2015 91% correlation
Current ratio : 21.22
to revert to the long term mean, either gold goes down or oil goes up, or both, I am betting oil goes up.
no, last time, in 2011 when they lost $6 a share vs. 2010 when they made $6 a share, Whole bird prices were up in 2011 vs. 2010. It was the price of corn and meal that caused the losses.
In addition, the third amendment to the December 2001 agreement provides for the regularization of the monthly flow of benefits. While we are liable for the monthly flow of benefits to the former employees of the state‑owned companies that merged to form our Company, the State shall reimburse us based on criteria identical to those applied when determining the Undisputed Reimbursement Amount. Should there be no preventive court decision, the State will assume the flow of monthly payment of benefits portion deemed as undisputed.
Finally, the third amendment to the December 2001 agreement established that the Public Attorney’s Office of the State of São Paulo, or the Public Attorney’s Office, would issue a revised interpretation of the calculation and eligibility criteria applicable to the Disputed Reimbursement Amount. At that time, we believed that the Public Attorney’s Office would issue a revised interpretation which would have helped us bring the negotiations with the State to a conclusion. However, contrary to our expectations, the Public Attorney’s Office interpretation of the calculation and eligibility criteria applicable to the Disputed Reimbursement Amount refuted the reimbursement of the largest portion of this amount. As of December 31, 2013, we had made a provision of R$1,780.3 million in our pension obligations accounts in respect of the pension benefit obligation of Plan G0.
On November 17, 2008, we, the State and DAEE entered into a third amendment to the December 2001 agreement, pursuant to which the State recognized a debt balance payable to us totaling R$915.3 million, hereinafter referred to as the “Undisputed Reimbursement Amount,” as adjusted based on the IPCA. We accepted on a provisional basis the reservoirs as part of the payment of the Undisputed Reimbursement Amount and offered to the State a provisional settlement, recognizing a credit totaling R$696.3 million, corresponding to the value of the reservoirs located in the Alto Tietê region. We and the State have agreed that the final offset will only be recorded when the effective transfer of the reservoirs is recorded at the Real Estate Registry. The outstanding balance of Undisputed Reimbursement Amount, amounting to R$219.0 million, is being paid by the State in 114 consecutive monthly installments, as adjusted by the annual IPCA variation, plus interest accruing at the annual rate of 6.0%. The first installment was paid in November 2008.
In addition to the Undisputed Reimbursement Amount, there is an outstanding balance relating to the Disputed Reimbursement Amount. As of December 31, 2013, the Disputed Reimbursement Amount, plus the reservoirs mentioned above, amounted to R$1,412.5 million, but due to the uncertainty regarding the recovery of the amount our management decided not to recognize the reimbursements. See Note 9 to our financial statements as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 regarding the Disputed Reimbursement Amount. We and the State have agreed that the dispute relating to the Disputed Reimbursement Amount will not prevent us from carrying out the commitments made in the December 2001 agreement.
From the latest 20-f:
On March 26, 2008, we entered into a commitment agreement (termo de compromisso) with the State with the purpose of finding an alternate solution to the deadlock related to the amount owed by the State to us in connection with the supplemental retirement and pension benefits we paid from March 1986 to November 2001 on behalf of the State to former employees of the State‑owned companies which merged to form our Company. In this agreement, we and State committed to hiring specialized companies to carry out new valuations of the amounts owed to us by the State and of the reservoirs. An independent consulting firm, FIPECAFI, has been retained to resolve the disagreement and validate the amount we paid from March 1986 through November 2001 on behalf of the State to former employees of the State‑owned companies that merged to form our Company, which the State has not yet agreed to reimburse us hereinafter referred to as the “Disputed Reimbursement Amount.” In addition, FIPECAFI performed, together with another independent consulting firm, a new evaluation of the reservoirs that might be transferred to us as amortization of the reimbursement payable by the State to us.
why is 2016 estimate $7.40 vs. 2015 $11.38? with flat revenue, how could margin contract that much? Corn and beans would have to skyrocket for that to happen
good point, they are refilling faster than i thought, i use accuweather for radar and monthly amounts and jundiai for the location, not sure what the best location point is for estimates