Thai Govt's Rice Pledging Scheme To Be Evaluated

[NeverSure]

All of the scamming about covered up sales prices to other countries comes from the Thai law that banks can't sell collateral for less than what's owed on it. This law is why there are still empty and deteriorating condos from 1997 while new ones are being built. Thais won't take a loss even when it's good for them.

This is why the rice is rotting rather than being sold at market value. The Agricultural Bank made the loans to pay for the rice and any attempt to sell the rice for less than what was paid for it would be corruption. Any attempt to hide the disaster at the Agricultural Bank would be is corruption.

They also won't tell the truth even when the truth would clear the air.

The depth to which this goes can't be known because it isn't admitted. But I believe it has bankrupted the Agricultural Bank. Of course the Agricultural Bank's books don't show that because they are still carrying the rice on their books as an asset at what the government paid for it.

If the Ag Bank was required by best banking practice to do what is called "mark to market" the rice, then the loss would be admitted. "Mark to market" is a common banking term which simply means to "erase" a value on the books, and mark the value to what the real market is.

[chiangmaikelly]

All of the scamming about covered up sales prices to other countries comes from the Thai law that banks can't sell collateral for less than what's owed on it. This law is why there are still empty and deteriorating condos from 1997 while new ones are being built. Thais won't take a loss even when it's good for them.

This is why the rice is rotting rather than being sold at market value. The Agricultural Bank made the loans to pay for the rice and any attempt to sell the rice for less than what was paid for it would be corruption. Any attempt to hide the disaster at the Agricultural Bank would be is corruption.

They also won't tell the truth even when the truth would clear the air.

The depth to which this goes can't be known because it isn't admitted. But I believe it has bankrupted the Agricultural Bank. Of course the Agricultural Bank's books don't show that because they are still carrying the rice on their books as an asset at what the government paid for it.

If the Ag Bank was required by best banking practice to do what is called "mark to market" the rice, then the loss would be admitted. "Mark to market" is a common banking term which simply means to "erase" a value on the books, and mark the value to what the real market is.

Libel is, " A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."

Do you have any facts to back up your claim that, "bankrupted the Agricultural Bank."

[NeverSure]

All of the scamming about covered up sales prices to other countries comes from the Thai law that banks can't sell collateral for less than what's owed on it. This law is why there are still empty and deteriorating condos from 1997 while new ones are being built. Thais won't take a loss even when it's good for them.

This is why the rice is rotting rather than being sold at market value. The Agricultural Bank made the loans to pay for the rice and any attempt to sell the rice for less than what was paid for it would be corruption. Any attempt to hide the disaster at the Agricultural Bank would be is corruption.

They also won't tell the truth even when the truth would clear the air.

The depth to which this goes can't be known because it isn't admitted. But I believe it has bankrupted the Agricultural Bank. Of course the Agricultural Bank's books don't show that because they are still carrying the rice on their books as an asset at what the government paid for it.

If the Ag Bank was required by best banking practice to do what is called "mark to market" the rice, then the loss would be admitted. "Mark to market" is a common banking term which simply means to "erase" a value on the books, and mark the value to what the real market is.

Libel is, " A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."

Do you have any facts to back up your claim that, "bankrupted the Agricultural Bank."

You don't know anything about economics or the law. "I believe" is not a statement that it's true. I believe I'll go have a beer.

[Robby nz]

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

The big difference Kelly is that the previous Govt actually sold the rice

[chiangmaikelly]

All of the scamming about covered up sales prices to other countries comes from the Thai law that banks can't sell collateral for less than what's owed on it. This law is why there are still empty and deteriorating condos from 1997 while new ones are being built. Thais won't take a loss even when it's good for them.

This is why the rice is rotting rather than being sold at market value. The Agricultural Bank made the loans to pay for the rice and any attempt to sell the rice for less than what was paid for it would be corruption. Any attempt to hide the disaster at the Agricultural Bank would be is corruption.

They also won't tell the truth even when the truth would clear the air.

The depth to which this goes can't be known because it isn't admitted. But I believe it has bankrupted the Agricultural Bank. Of course the Agricultural Bank's books don't show that because they are still carrying the rice on their books as an asset at what the government paid for it.

If the Ag Bank was required by best banking practice to do what is called "mark to market" the rice, then the loss would be admitted. "Mark to market" is a common banking term which simply means to "erase" a value on the books, and mark the value to what the real market is.

Libel is, " A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."

Do you have any facts to back up your claim that, "bankrupted the Agricultural Bank."

You don't know anything about economics or the law. "I believe" is not a statement that it's true. I believe I'll go have a beer.

As a matter of fact I do. Chapter 3 Sections 326 up to 333 of the Thai Criminal Code. And Thai Civil and Commercial Code Section 423.

[rametindallas]

To Chiangmaikelly. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. You keep asking questions as though I will come to the same conclusions as you but, maybe I'm a little slow, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. How about instead of asking questions, you make a statement, backed up with a few agreed on facts and I will give you feedback. As it stands, I don't know what you are trying to say so I can't comment.

[Thai at Heart]

All of the scamming about covered up sales prices to other countries comes from the Thai law that banks can't sell collateral for less than what's owed on it. This law is why there are still empty and deteriorating condos from 1997 while new ones are being built. Thais won't take a loss even when it's good for them.

This is why the rice is rotting rather than being sold at market value. The Agricultural Bank made the loans to pay for the rice and any attempt to sell the rice for less than what was paid for it would be corruption. Any attempt to hide the disaster at the Agricultural Bank would be is corruption.

They also won't tell the truth even when the truth would clear the air.

The depth to which this goes can't be known because it isn't admitted. But I believe it has bankrupted the Agricultural Bank. Of course the Agricultural Bank's books don't show that because they are still carrying the rice on their books as an asset at what the government paid for it.

If the Ag Bank was required by best banking practice to do what is called "mark to market" the rice, then the loss would be admitted. "Mark to market" is a common banking term which simply means to "erase" a value on the books, and mark the value to what the real market is.

Ah, but if they had passed the subsidies directly to the farmer, it would have been legal under wto rule.

Instead, they have just overpaid, and so can't dump it

Edited May 14, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[chiangmaikelly]

To Chiangmaikelly. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. You keep asking questions as though I will come to the same conclusions as you but, maybe I'm a little slow, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. How about instead of asking questions, you make a statement, backed up with a few agreed on facts and I will give you feedback. As it stands, I don't know what you are trying to say so I can't comment.

If you want to slam me or flame me or correct me it is best to quote me because I have no idea what you are writing about. Use the quote function at the bottom of the post.

[AleG]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

[slapout]

You can beat a horse to death, you can even beat a dead horse, but this government scam (rice program) has reached the point of decay, that the stench will even keep the carrion vultures away.

[Thaddeus]

You can beat a horse to death, you can even beat a dead horse, but this government scam (rice program) has reached the point of decay, that the stench will even keep the carrion vultures away.

But the rats still think its good eatin'

And babble on about how good it is without giving one simple reason as to why.

[rametindallas]

To Chiangmaikelly. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. You keep asking questions as though I will come to the same conclusions as you but, maybe I'm a little slow, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. How about instead of asking questions, you make a statement, backed up with a few agreed on facts and I will give you feedback. As it stands, I don't know what you are trying to say so I can't comment.

If you want to slam me or flame me or correct me it is best to quote me because I have no idea what you are writing about. Use the quote function at the bottom of the post.

OK if you want to ask leading questions instead of making a point. I'll just ignore you. Also, many who did use the quote function were not able to get any kind of direct response from you to specific questions on what they thought you were saying. I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Goodbye. Edited May 14, 2013 by rametindallas

[chiangmaikelly]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

Yingluck’s Cabinet last month approved plans to spend another 100 billion baht to buy rice from farmers. The government puts its overall losses at 80 billion baht, but Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party and former finance minister, says the loss for the first year alone was 200 billion baht.

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

[apetley]

If they were allowed to sell at a loss they would do. There was suggestion some time ago that they tried to sell at a loss to China with false invoicing to cover up losses. Other countries may provide subsidies to rice farmers, but this is not the same as buying up stock and then wanting to dump the stuff (can't).

No they didn't. If some time ago they tried to sell at a loss to China please provide the link.

http://oryza.com/content/thailand-sell-20000-tons-fragrant-rice-china-discounted-prices

http://oryza.com/content/thailand-plans-release-7-million-tons-rice-stockpile

Edit. Second link didn't appear for some reason.

Think this is the deal that attracted the attention of those suspicious of selling at a loss as no figures were given.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 14, 2013 by apetley

[hellodolly]

To Chiangmaikelly. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. You keep asking questions as though I will come to the same conclusions as you but, maybe I'm a little slow, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. How about instead of asking questions, you make a statement, backed up with a few agreed on facts and I will give you feedback. As it stands, I don't know what you are trying to say so I can't comment.

If you want to slam me or flame me or correct me it is best to quote me because I have no idea what you are writing about. Use the quote function at the bottom of the post.

OK if you want to ask leading questions instead of making a point. I'll just ignore you. Also, many who did use the quote function were not able to get any kind of direct response from you to specific questions on what they thought you were saying. I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Goodbye.

He sounds more like one of Thaksins lawyers.

I like the part about expecting all foreign news services to include the percentage of corruption. If they don't his innuendo is there is none.

Money going into corruption is a loss as it is coming out of the tax payers pocket with no benefit what so ever to the Kingdom. I wonder if he really thinks there is no corruption. Thaksins lawyers think if it is PTP related there isn't.

[chiangmaikelly]

To Chiangmaikelly. Sorry, but I still don't get your point. You keep asking questions as though I will come to the same conclusions as you but, maybe I'm a little slow, I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. How about instead of asking questions, you make a statement, backed up with a few agreed on facts and I will give you feedback. As it stands, I don't know what you are trying to say so I can't comment.

If you want to slam me or flame me or correct me it is best to quote me because I have no idea what you are writing about. Use the quote function at the bottom of the post.

OK if you want to ask leading questions instead of making a point. I'll just ignore you. Also, many who did use the quote function were not able to get any kind of direct response from you to specific questions on what they thought you were saying. I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Goodbye.

I honestly don't know what you are writing about. What leading questions did I ask you? Who used the quote function that I did not respond to?

[AleG]

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

Yingluck’s Cabinet last month approved plans to spend another 100 billion baht to buy rice from farmers. The government puts its overall losses at 80 billion baht, but Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party and former finance minister, says the loss for the first year alone was 200 billion baht.

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

Of course they mean loss not cost, what part of "TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht" leaves room for doubt?

[waza]

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

Yingluck’s Cabinet last month approved plans to spend another 100 billion baht to buy rice from farmers. The government puts its overall losses at 80 billion baht, but Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party and former finance minister, says the loss for the first year alone was 200 billion baht.

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

Well I am no financial guru like CMK was before he broke his calculator but these losses are unsustainable and PM's Office Minister Nawatthamrong Boonsongpaisan agrees with me. He has announced that, "The government will have to sell off its rice stockpile amassed under the rice pledging scheme at market prices.......The government will have to take a big loss on the sale, because pledging prices were set much higher than the market price."

Now there is a backflip, after Thaksin stated, "the Yingluck government's rice pledging scheme will reap economic gains three times its costs in a matter of a few years."

Now why would they do that?

Nawatthamrong explain this is necessary to keep the costs of the scheme under 500 billion baht per year.

“The main-crop round of the scheme finished with close to 13 million tonnes of paddy absorbed and an additional 7 million tonnes are expected to be mortgaged under the April-launched offseason round. Indications by Thai officials that large government stocks sales were forthcoming and needed so as to fund the continuation of the program have not materialized, as substantial stock releases for export have yet to take place.”

Thailand is still forecast to end its 2012/13 marketing year with a record reserve of 16.3 million tonnes, most of which is held in government storehouses as a result of the paddy pledging programme.

RMM warns that “much of the market and competitors’ attention will focus in the coming months on Thailand. Indeed, the Thai government’s reticence to release large volumes of supplies from stocks at prices below purchase levels may be outweighed by the need to secure enough storage space and finance for the continuation of the programme beyond the 2012/2013 season.”

Edited May 14, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

Of course they mean loss not cost, what part of "TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht" leaves room for doubt?

You are absolutly correct.

[chiangmaikelly]

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

Yingluck’s Cabinet last month approved plans to spend another 100 billion baht to buy rice from farmers. The government puts its overall losses at 80 billion baht, but Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party and former finance minister, says the loss for the first year alone was 200 billion baht.

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

Well I am no financial guru like CMK was before he broke his calculator but these losses are unsustainable and PM's Office Minister Nawatthamrong Boonsongpaisan agrees with me. He has announced that, "The government will have to sell off its rice stockpile amassed under the rice pledging scheme at market prices.......The government will have to take a big loss on the sale, because pledging prices were set much higher than the market price."

Now there is a backflip, after Thaksin stated, "the Yingluck government's rice pledging scheme will reap economic gains three times its costs in a matter of a few years."

Now why would they do that?

Nawatthamrong explain this is necessary to keep the costs of the scheme under 500 billion baht per year.

“The main-crop round of the scheme finished with close to 13 million tonnes of paddy absorbed and an additional 7 million tonnes are expected to be mortgaged under the April-launched offseason round. Indications by Thai officials that large government stocks sales were forthcoming and needed so as to fund the continuation of the program have not materialized, as substantial stock releases for export have yet to take place.”

Thailand is still forecast to end its 2012/13 marketing year with a record reserve of 16.3 million tonnes, most of which is held in government storehouses as a result of the paddy pledging programme.

RMM warns that “much of the market and competitors’ attention will focus in the coming months on Thailand. Indeed, the Thai government’s reticence to release large volumes of supplies from stocks at prices below purchase levels may be outweighed by the need to secure enough storage space and finance for the continuation of the programme beyond the 2012/2013 season.”

The deputy director-general of the Foreign Trade Department said that Thai rice exports in January to February 2013 stand at around 1.04 million tons, ahead of India (with about 960,000 tons) and Vietnam (with about 750,000 tons) in the same period. The official added that average export prices have increased to $711 per ton in January to February, 2013, up about 3% from around $688 per ton recorded during the same period last year. http://oryza.com/content/thailand-sell-20000-tons-fragrant-rice-china-discounted-prices. Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.

Also don't forget that when the rice gets old one can sell it for animal feed rice. See the same article above for rice feed sales from 2003.

Edited May 14, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[waza]

Please stop the obfuscation, can't you read the OP?

"He said that the subcommittee would also discuss the Commerce Ministry's plans to pay back the Bt500 billion loan it borrowed from BAAC to run the pledging scheme. Most of those funds had now been spent on the scheme, he noted."

Last year:

"Budgetary spending on the rice scheme for the past full year stood at Bt337.24 billion"

The 115/140 Billion is estimated losses, if you can't defend this idiocy without resorting to BS you should reconsider your position.

Yingluck’s Cabinet last month approved plans to spend another 100 billion baht to buy rice from farmers. The government puts its overall losses at 80 billion baht, but Korn Chatikavanij, deputy leader of the opposition Democrat Party and former finance minister, says the loss for the first year alone was 200 billion baht.

The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into

account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

The above from Bloomberg, "http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/"

Maybe you are right and the Nation and Suphannee Pootpisut are more accurate than Bloomberg and maybe Bloomberg means loss when they write cost.

Well I am no financial guru like CMK was before he broke his calculator but these losses are unsustainable and PM's Office Minister Nawatthamrong Boonsongpaisan agrees with me. He has announced that, "The government will have to sell off its rice stockpile amassed under the rice pledging scheme at market prices.......The government will have to take a big loss on the sale, because pledging prices were set much higher than the market price."

Now there is a backflip, after Thaksin stated, "the Yingluck government's rice pledging scheme will reap economic gains three times its costs in a matter of a few years."

Now why would they do that?

Nawatthamrong explain this is necessary to keep the costs of the scheme under 500 billion baht per year.

“The main-crop round of the scheme finished with close to 13 million tonnes of paddy absorbed and an additional 7 million tonnes are expected to be mortgaged under the April-launched offseason round. Indications by Thai officials that large government stocks sales were forthcoming and needed so as to fund the continuation of the program have not materialized, as substantial stock releases for export have yet to take place.”

Thailand is still forecast to end its 2012/13 marketing year with a record reserve of 16.3 million tonnes, most of which is held in government storehouses as a result of the paddy pledging programme.

RMM warns that “much of the market and competitors’ attention will focus in the coming months on Thailand. Indeed, the Thai government’s reticence to release large volumes of supplies from stocks at prices below purchase levels may be outweighed by the need to secure enough storage space and finance for the continuation of the programme beyond the 2012/2013 season.”

The deputy director-general of the Foreign Trade Department said that Thai rice exports in January to February 2013 stand at around 1.04 million tons, ahead of India (with about 960,000 tons) and Vietnam (with about 750,000 tons) in the same period. The official added that average export prices have increased to $711 per ton in January to February, 2013, up about 3% from around $688 per ton recorded during the same period last year. http://oryza.com/content/thailand-sell-20000-tons-fragrant-rice-china-discounted-prices. Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.

Also don't forget that when the rice gets old one can sell it for animal feed rice. See the same article above for rice feed sales from 2003.

"Thai rice exports in January to February 2013 stand at around 1.04 million tons, ahead of India (with about 960,000 tons) and Vietnam (with about 750,000 tons) in the same period."

Luckily we have more truth full sources than The deputy director-general of the Foreign Trade Department.

Indian exported 2 million tons in the first quarter 2013 a main supplier to China who imported 700,000 tons in the same period. World waits to learn the impact of China and India’s rice market surge

(Thai) Rice exports are projected to plunge to only 6.5 million tonnes this year, the lowest volume in a dozen years, because of uncompetitive prices. http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/Int%20news/News_2013/int_news_090513-1.html

Overall Thai rice exports fell 18% on year in March to 493,457 tons while parboiled rice exports fell 65% to an eight-month low of 94,325 tons, the Thai Rice Exporters Association said Tuesday. http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/04/23/thai-rice-exporters-hit-by-domestic-shortage/ Thailand imported 900,000 tons in the same period

"The official added that average export prices have increased to $711 per ton in January to February, 2013, up about 3% from around $688 per ton recorded during the same period last year."

For instance, 5-per-cent Thai white rice is quoted at $550 a tonne, while the same category of Vietnamese rice goes for $375 a tonne. Thai jasmine rice is quoted at $1,200 a tonne against Vietnamese fragrant rice's asking price of $500 a tonne.

Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.= big loss

Also don't forget that when the rice gets old one can sell it for animal feed rice.= even bigger loss

Edited May 14, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.= big loss

How big is the discount? The discount was 2%.

[waza]

Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.= big loss

How big is the discount? The discount was 2%.

2% off market price?

Edited May 14, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

Thailand to Sell 20,000 Tons Fragrant Rice to China at Discounted Prices.= big loss

How big is the discount? The discount was 2%.

2% off market price?

2% off the market price that day.

The Thai government has approved a proposal by the Public Warehouse

Organization (PWO) to buy about 20,000 tons of fragrant Hommali rice for

exports to China for an export price of $1,100 per ton, down about 2%

or about $20 per ton from around $1,130 per ton quoted today. The

fragrant rice will be packed in 5-kilogram bags for sale in China, said

local sources

http://oryza.com/content/thailand-sell-20000-tons-fragrant-rice-china-discounted-prices

Edited May 14, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[rubl]

20,000 tons of rice sold in 5-kilogram bags? Isn't rice normally sold in bulk and packed for sales in the importing country?

[Thai at Heart]

20,000 tons of rice sold in 5-kilogram bags? Isn't rice normally sold in bulk and packed for sales in the importing country?

Nope.

[rubl]

The TRE Organisation has

Remark : 1. FOB Prices quoted include a single white woven polypropylene (PP) bag each of 50 kg.
2. Thai Hommali Rice bulk in container plus 15 USD/MT.
http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/price_eng.html

[apetley]

How much is 20000 tons as a percentage of that in stock? Not even a quarter of one percent by my reckoning.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[OzMick]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

i know that you don't answer questions, but I will - the pledging scheme in its earlier incarnation was widely reported as having less than 37% actually being paid to farmers.

You make a great point though. they are about to reduce the amount paid to farmers. As it has reported that farmer's incomes have increased by 5% on average, and this is about to be reduced, why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

[chiangmaikelly]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

i know that you don't answer questions, but I will - the pledging scheme in its earlier incarnation was widely reported as having less than 37% actually being paid to farmers.

You make a great point though. they are about to reduce the amount paid to farmers. As it has reported that farmer's incomes have increased by 5% on average, and this is about to be reduced, why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

I always answer questions! I was just out getting some rice from the family. I have not bough rice in a store in years. I don't think I could. I have to know when it was harvested to cook it properly and I won't eat anything but brown rice grown in Surin. If I get your question right the idea behind the rice pledging scheme is to get elected again. So it makes no sense if the farmers don't get the money.