Spending Less

Spending less is more valuable than earning more….

/3 Comments/in , , , /by

Let’s start with a handful of truths:

  1. You need to spend more to earn more, but it is incremental such as…
    • When you go beyond the exponential benefit (spending $1 extra to earn $2 more,)
    • When you move into the realm of linear benefit (Earning $1 for each $1 you spend,)
    • When you push on and find yourself in a negative benefit (each $1 spent earns less than $1 return)……we may have reached the beginning of the end.
  1. Earning more leads to spending more.
  2. In what is our “consumer society,” we are driven to spend more.

 

Ok, so let’s expand a bit for some clarity.

Spending more to earn more applies to your crop inputs.
Does investing in a $200/ac fertility plan earn you more than $200/ac above what you’d earn without any fertilizer? Of course it does. How much more…have you figured it out?
If spending $20/ac on fungicide can earn an extra $60/ac in revenue, it’s a no brainer. Can it? If you expect to yield 40bu/ac on a wheat crop, will that $20 fungicide earn you a $1.50/bu premium? What’s the spread between #2 and Feed? If it is $1.50/bu or less, why invest in the fungicide?

When we earn more, we spend more. It’s just the way it is. Does it have to be this way? No, of course not, but in our consumer society where we need instant gratification, usually achieved with retail therapy, our consumerism appetite is nearly insatiable. We’re all guilty of this to some extent…even me.

The title, “Spending less is more valuable that earning more” is a line I read in an Op/Ed piece and that line is attributed to Andrew Tobias from his book The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need. I have not read Tobias’ book, so I cannot offer anything on his intention or his message. What I can do is share some of my perspectives on the realities of how we spend.

  • “I just got a raise, so let’s go out for supper. I’ve never had escargot before, but hey, I’m earning more now, so why not?”
  • “We just closed that deal and it will put me over the top for the bonus I’ve been waiting on. I’ve had my eye on that Ferrari for so long…paying off my line of credit can wait until next bonus!”
  • “Wow, we’ve had a banner year! We’ve never seen this kind of cash flow before! Interest rates are so low. I bet I could get a deal on a new <shop/tractor/combine/etc.>

From my days at the bank, I saw a client pay approximately 10-15% more than market price for land, and then 1 year later, pledge to buy a brand new combine with cash. At the time, their working capital was adequate, not especially strong, but it was adequate. They were prepared to use up all of their working capital to buy this new combine because they had a strong year (and felt that many strong years were to come.) I gave them good advice: do not use up your cash to acquire a depreciating capital asset. As a thankyou, they didn’t even give me the loan (they went to another lender.) The very next year, they got hammered with excess moisture and were a breath away from getting all their loans called. Imagine if they hadn’t taken good advice!

Early in my banking career, I heard a grizzled old banker say “Farmers hate having money in the bank; as soon as it’s there, they spend it!” Recently, I listened to a very progressive farmer admit to keeping a set balance in his operating account by shifting excess cash out to a savings account. His rationale: if I don’t see it I won’t spend it; I know it’s in another account, but I don’t track it like my operating account so it’s not available to spend on something I really didn’t need!”

Beautiful!

In our chase to “earn more” we can easily get caught in a cycle of working harder & longer, and investing (spending) more in our business in an effort to boost revenues. Yet the tradeoff of return versus investment must be considered. Investment isn’t just monetary.

Just the other day, I was talking with a client who is considering adding an enterprise to his farm. (For the sake of confidentiality, I won’t give more detail than that.) This new enterprise would very likely bring significant positive cash flow to his farm and family, with very manageable new debt required for equipment to perform the work. He is a strong relationship marketer from previous work outside of farming, so “business development” isn’t a risk for him. The question I asked, the question he couldn’t yet answer, was, “How much time are you prepared to take from your farm and your family for this venture?” His investment wildcard is “time.”

Direct Questions

We’ve discussed ROA and ROI in the past. How are you implementing a reasonable “return” for your investment in inputs, assets, and time?

How would you feel to have 1/10th of your net worth sitting in the bank as cash? That’s $1million in cash on a $10million net worth. Would that burn a hole in your pocket, or give you a calm and serene sense of security?

Where is your mindset when it comes to generating profit: is it from increasing revenue or decreasing expenses…or both?

From the Home Quarter

Andrew Tobias has received many accolades for his writing, and he was the one who wrote “Spending less is more valuable than earning more.” If that applies in a practical sense or not, we could argue all day by bringing up economies of scale, leverage, and tax rates. I am contending that it applies to a mindset of earning a profit and hanging on to it, building those retained earnings, establishing that “war chest,” and setting yourself and your business up for riding out the rough spots in the economic cycles.

Taking all your profit from the last go-round and reinvesting it all on the next one has a place.

It’s called a casino.

 

 

Renting Farmland

Are You Renting Farmland?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

An online article published by Country Guide about land rent contained some points that many of us have pondered. Much of the article centered on a lack of useful data on rented land, such as recent crop rotation & yield, pest pressure and pest management, soil type, residual fertility, or recent rental rates.

While this poses a challenge to those who insist on making the most informed decision possible, recent history indicates that the appetite for more land to increase a farm’s size and scale has grossly overshadowed rational analysis when making a decision whether or not to rent a piece of land. The article quoted a 2012 survey that was funded by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture which tabulated approximately 2,000 cash and share rent agreements. The article reads, “The company hired to do the survey found an astonishing range of rental rates, ranging from an almost unbelievable low of $6.25 an acre to a high of $140.60 an acre.” It’s probably fair to say that $6.25/ac isn’t “almost unbelievable,” but straight up unbelievable. My vote is that some wise-guy wanted to skew the data and provided a false figure. It’s the high figure, the astronomical $140.60/ac, that is the head-scratcher. I have lost count of the number of pencils I have used to try to pencil out a profit at that rental rate. It requires the perfect storm of yield and price to marginally make it work. The guys paying this kind of rate must have some sort of magic pencil I have yet to find.

Here’s where it really gets good. Another excerpt in this CG article reads, “In the short term, taking on more land that won’t necessarily pay for itself might still be a winner in the farmer’s eyes in that light, especially if it allows them to spread fixed costs and labour costs over a larger land base.”

So let me take a shot at paraphrasing:
“Our fixed costs are really high, so in order to justify the bad decisions we made when we took on too much debt and allowed other fixed costs to rapidly increase, we will make another bad decision by overpaying for land that won’t make us any money so that it makes our fixed costs look better by spreading them out over more acres.”

What?

OK, that was wordy, let me shorten it:
“We’ve got all this equipment so we need to run it over more acres to justify having it.”

Still too long and soft? Alright, one more try:
“Pride is more important that profit.”

Eww, ouch! That stings!

But if the thinking is that we must take on more land in order to justify high fixed costs (usually for shiny new equipment) then it is clear that the pride of possessing such equipment and the pride of farming “x” number of acres is more important that being profitable!

Here are my 3 “Growing Farm Profits” Tips for renting land:

  1. Know your costs.
    By knowing your costs, you can easily determine what is or is not a reasonable rent to pay and still remain profitable. Without knowing your costs, you’re shooting from the hip…in the dark.
  2. Invest in assets in the correct order.
    Taking on more equipment than you need, then frantically trying to “spread it out” over more acres to justify the decision is backwards. It’s like buying a seeding outfit before buying a tractor: you might end up paying more for the tractor you need, or buying more tractor than what is required because of a lack of available selection. Secure your horsepower first, then find the drill to pair to it.
    Secure your land base first, then invest in the iron to work it.
  3. Nurture your landlord relationship.
    Let them know how your year was. Explain your farming practices. Help them understand how profitable their land really is. This goes a long way to establishing goodwill at renewal time.

Direct Questions

How much at risk is your working capital if your fixed costs are too high?

What steps are you taking to ensure your investment in rented land accentuates your profitability and not diminish it?

Is the goal to be the biggest or the most profitable?

From the Home Quarter

“Better is better before bigger is better” is a phrase that I hang my hat on quite regularly. While I cannot take credit for coming up with that one, it is so remarkably accurate in its simplicity.

If we can all acknowledge that threats to working capital should be our greatest concern in the short-to-medium term, then we must also acknowledge that adding unprofitable land in an effort to justify fixed costs will only accelerate the bleed of precious working capital.

farming should be like baseball

Farm Management Could Take a Lesson From Baseball

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

If you love statistics, then you probably love baseball. Where else can you know with certainty that your starting pitcher has a propensity to throw more fast-balls than breaking pitches to left-handed batters at home during afternoon games in June under sunny skies with a slight north-west wind? While this is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek poke at the nauseating volume of stats that originate from the game of baseball, such statistics and the subsequent use of those statistics have real world applications.

I’m sure many of you have seen the movie Moneyball. (I’m sure most of you have because I watch VERY few movies, and even I’VE seen it.) As the story unfolded, there many beautiful examples of how the management team of the Oakland Athletics baseball club used statistics to improve their team. In this specific scene (I can’t recall who the player was) Assistant GM Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) explicitly instructs the player to “take the first pitch” during every at bat.  The reason was because through the use of statistics, and tracking the data, management knew that this player got on base more often when he took the first pitch. In the movie, it worked, and this player’s on-base-percentage increased almost immediately.

What would have happened had this team’s management not had, or used, such important information? The player may have been released, sent down to the minors, or traded to another team, the manager (bench boss) may have been fired.  Spread those “uninformed decisions” across the entire roster, and failure is sure to proliferate.

Livestock and dairy farms have been heading down the road to improved data management for years already. Average daily gain is not a new concept in beef operations. Robotics in dairy parlors bring a whole new level of data management. In conversation with a farm family that is investigating the benefits of robotics in a dairy parlor, I’ve learned that through RFID technology and a robot milker, they will be able to record and monitor milk volumes and milking frequency (a cow can come to the robot for milking whenever she chooses.) The management team can then compare results across the herd to determine which cow(s) is producing more or less than others cows under similar conditions. Informed decisions can then be made.

Grain farms having been catching up in recent years. With field mapping technology we can create yield maps; overlay that with crop inputs applied and we can tell which areas of each field are more profitable than others.

But that is way ahead of where most of the industry is generally at. By and large, many farm operations still don’t know the true profitability of a specific crop on their whole farm, let alone any given field.

The progression of profitability management, which requires stringent data management, begins at the crop level, advances to the field level, and reaches the pinnacle at the acre level.

Imagine:

  • determining which crops to exclude or include in your rotation by clearly understanding which crop makes you money and which one doesn’t;
  • deciding which fields to seed to which crop, or even which fields to renew with the landlord or which to relinquish based on profitability by field;
  • controlling your investment in crop inputs by acre to maximize your profit potential of the field, the crop, and your whole farm.

None of this is new. All the farm shows and farm publications dedicate significant space to all the tools and techniques available in the marketplace to facilitate such gathering of useful information. Equipment manufacturers and data management companies have invested enormous volumes of time and capital into creating tools and platforms to collect and manage your data. But like any tool, its value is only apparent when it is used to its full potential.

Almost all of the farms I speak with achieve greater clarity in the profitability of each crop in their rotation. I have a 13,000ac client that has taken several major steps toward measuring profitability by field. They have found that the extra work required to COLLECT this information is minimal. The extra work required to MANAGE this information is greatly offset by the benefit of clearly understanding that some of their rented land is just not profitable under any crop. Do you suppose they are looking forward to relinquishing some $90/ac rented land that just isn’t profitable enough to pay that high rent?

Direct Questions

Which of the crops in your rotation are profitable? Which are not? How profitable are they? Do they meet your expectations for return on investment?

Collecting the data is easy; managing the data takes some effort. What effort are you prepared to invest to make the most informed decisions possible?

How are you fully utilizing the tools available to you? If you’re not, why would you have them?

From the Home Quarter

Baseball collects gargantuan volumes of data on players, plays, games, and seasons. Much of it seems useless to laypeople like us, but to those who make their living in “the grand old game,” the data is what they live and breathe by. Agriculture should be no different. We should be creating consecutive series’ of data on our fertility, seed, chemicals, equipment, human resources, etc, for each year we operate, for each field we sow, for each person in our employ. Management cannot make informed decisions without adequate and accurate information. Now, with all the tools, techniques, and support readily available to help farmers collect adequate and accurate information, the last piece that may be missing is, “What to do with all that data?” While it can be boring to analyze data and create projections, I can assure everyone that the most profitable farmers I know all share one common habit: they spend time on their numbers, they know their numbers, and they make informed decisions based on those numbers.

You collect the information. I can help you use it. I’ll make tractor calls (as opposed to house calls) during seeding…as long as you have a buddy seat. Call or email to set up a time.

asset rich cash poor

Asset Rich, Cash Poor (Kim Quoted in the News)

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by

A tweet led to an email, which led to a phone call…

It was back in March that I tweeted the following:

This, and the short Twitter conversation that followed it, garnered an email, and then a telephone interview with Jennifer Blair from Alberta Farmer Express.

Below is an excerpt of what she wrote. For the article in its entirety, click here.

” ‘The funny thing about prosperity and successive years of prosperity is it allows people to form some really bad habits,’…

…And for those producers, being ‘asset rich and cash poor’ isn’t going to cut it anymore.

‘When you look back over the last two generations, it seems like the mantra has been that farmers are ‘asset rich and cash poor.’ It’s almost worn like a badge of honour,’ said Gerencser… ”

Direct Questions

What do you think? Have assets, especially equipment, been increased too fast to the detriment of cash holdings and future cash flow?

What is a reasonable level of investment in assets relative to your net profit? Are you earning an adequate return on your investment?

From the Home Quarter

Bad habits can form easily, but like any habit, bad ones can be broken. Chasing equity is something we’ve always done and that may have worked a generation ago, when the risks were as they are today but the volumes of cash at risk each year were far less. We cannot do what we’ve always done and expect a result different from what we’ve always gotten.

Asset rich and cash poor will not suffice through the next business cycle.

I’d like to hear your thoughts; leave a Reply below.

old school farming

Social License and Its Impact on Farming

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Last week at our local CAFA chapter meeting was the second time I got to hear a presentation from Shelley Jones. Shelley is the Manager of Agriculture Awareness with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. Her topic, both times, was Social License. Social License is becoming as much of a buzz word in agriculture as it is becoming a major issue not to be ignored. I’ve blogged in the past (a couple years ago now) about how I feel that agriculture is “under attack” from well funded activists and industries whose gain would come at the expense of conventional agriculture. While I hoped that the activism was a fad that might fade away, clearly it hasn’t; we as players in this most remarkable and diverse industry need to understand the impact of social license, recognize our role in the discussion, and enthusiastically take action.

We in agriculture are not alone. The oil & gas industry and the coal industry, among others, are also under attack. Those industries are putting together plans of action to deal with the activism. Sadly, it seems none of us were prepared for this ahead of time, and now feel like we have to “catch up” in getting our message out.

We had a great discussion at CAFA during Shelley’s presentation. Opinions were varied. One in particular suggested that we as farmers need to take that nobility we so proudly hold and check it at the door. The mind set that we “feed the world” and the never-ending gratitude that we are entitled to because of it is actually causing us harm, said this one opinion. His point is well taken: the consumer hasn’t always been our focus because we know we produce safe quality food. We know we farm in the most sustainable manner we can. Isn’t that clear to everyone? Why would the consumer put up any resistance?

What we’ve forgotten, or maybe it is that we just haven’t taken notice, is that our population is no longer ag focused. It was said today in the meeting that “years ago, no one planned any major events in May or late August through October because of seeding and harvest respectively. Now, there is little concern to planning weddings or vacations during those times because fewer people are affected; a wedding on September long weekend might only exclude one family from the long list of guests.” Translation: fewer people are farming.

Of course we know that fewer people are farming today than 10 years ago, than 20 years ago, etc. And while we feel we’ve reacted to that trend by farming more acres and increasing yields, what we haven’t done is anticipated how severe the disconnect between John Q. Public and primary food production actually would become. The average non-farming person has almost no clue where food comes from or how it is grown.

In fact, most still sadly believe:

  • that farmers are overall wearing, pitchfork carrying, laborious people;
  • that the proverbial “little red barn” and an open tractor are normal;
  • that any farm that is bigger than said red barn and open tractor must be a “corporate farm” owned by some large eastern Canadian corporation or a US conglomerate;
  • that chocolate milk comes from brown cows.

How did this happen? How did our society swing from a primarily agricultural base to what it is today? Without getting onto a tangent of socio-economic trends, which have been debated feverishly through the 80’s and 90’s, what I’m really asking is “How did such a disconnect come about?”

It comes from taking things for granted for too long. Farmers took for granted that they were trusted, that they produced safe food in a sustainable fashion. Non-farmers took for granted that the food they purchased from their grocery stores was abundant, safe, and cheap. The internet has changed all of that by giving a platform to activists.

I felt so completely naive over the winter when on the agenda at a conference I was attending was a man who’s business it was to lobby the federal government. Wait, lobbyists are for hire? They’re not just people with conviction and a drive to change something they passionately believe in? Nope. You can hire a lobbyist. You can hire a person or firm to grind on the government, get face time in the media, and generally cause a ruckus…all for a fee, of course. These lobbyists, or activitsts as it were, represent their employer, the entity that hired them to promote a specific agenda. Fact, rationale, residual effects begone! These activists don’t need to be in Ottawa, or any provincial capital. They have the internet; where anyone can be a celebrity, spew rants of blatant falsehoods with an abundance of sensationalism to garner enough of a following that uninformed people simply believe that “it must be true.”

Combine this with how it is common among marketers to no longer promote what the consumer wants, but to promote what the consumer doesn’t yet know he wants, and we have a perfect storm. Consider technology and gadgets. Before HD television, did any of us know we wanted a 720p or a 1080p or now a 4K television? I still don’t know what the hell any of those are, but darn it all, the consumer now expects it! Did the electronics manufacturers build a few 4K TVs first to see how they’d sell, or did they go full out into producing 4K TVs and let the marketing look after creating a demand? We all know it is the latter.

Back to farming, we now have well funded activists with a platform that knows no bounds, who are free to generate as many half-truths, cherry-picked facts, and blatant falsehoods as they like in order to advance their agenda. Do they give a rat’s keester about how it affects you, your family, your community, or your industry? Nope. I believe that you or I do not matter to these activists. They don’t care one iota how you farm or if you’re still farming next year. They are only here to stir up a ruckus and gather “followers,” uninformed people who latch on to these revocable fallacies, minions who are intended to carry the momentum that the activists have started. Poor sheeple, if only they knew they were nothing more than pawns in a game.

The danger really comes into focus as the sheeple begin to do the activist’s work for them, shouting their “truth” from the rooftops and gaining more followers and momentum, convincing other people to “vote with their wallet.” I vote with my wallet regularly in how and where I chose to spend my money. We’ve been groomed to live by the old adage that “the customer is always right.” But, what about when they’re not?

Readers who have followed my writing have read it several times and will continue to for a while yet: you don’t know what you don’t know. These consumers don’t know what actually happens on your farm, in your pastures, or in your barns. They get their education from the University of Google where facts are not checked and reality is whatever you want to believe.

Are these activists, and their loyal followers, getting in front of legislators? Yup.

Will they influence future laws and regulations that will affect how you run your business? They might – – they’re sure trying!

Does getting into a fight with any of them online help? Nope.

What “we” can do in this has been well documented already in many different places. Farm & Food Care Saskatchewan is a great place to start: https://farmfoodcaresk.org/. There is also Farm & Foodcare Ontario: http://www.farmfoodcare.org/ Both of these entities are focused on informing the consumer and would benefit from your volunteerism. If you haven’t yet watched License to Farm, do it soon: http://licensetofarm.com/. The list of “to-do’s” for what you can do in this situation does not need any additions from me.

Direct Questions

How would your farm be different if the laws forbade you from using certain (or all) pesticides on your crops, certain (or all) vaccines on your livestock, or mandated how and when you managed your production?

We talk regularly about financial risk in these articles. You consider market & production risk regularly. Currency risk  and interest rate risk will become more dominant in future conversations. How will socio-economic risk affect your farm?

From The Home Quarter

One of the greatest benefits of farming is the independence, the connection with the land, and contributing to society in a way that few others can. For any of us to think that the independence we enjoy, and maybe even take for granted, is safe for us and our future generations is a bit naive. There are major factors at play, any or all of which could affect your future in this dilemma we call social license. You, me, and everyone in the industry can step up and make a positive impact. Or, we can take our way of life for granted and risk getting trampled by a stampede of sheeple.

 

ROI and ROA equipment

Farm Acronym Challenge: ROI and ROA

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

ROI (return on investment) is a metric I lean on heavily when working with clients to illustrate an expectation of profit. Each farm deploys (what feels like) unprecedented volumes of capital every year in an effort to grow a crop; there should be an expectation of profit for doing so, and I expect my clients to demand an ROI that reflects the risk they take. Accepting lesser returns is insufficient and could be realized with less risk by deploying said capital elsewhere.

We can break down ROI by measuring a return on various aspects: crop inputs, investment in equipment, annual cash costs, etc. Some of the many options against which we can measure ROI are highly useful, others less so. We try to decide which metrics to measure based on which gives us the most useful information. Of course, the ability to have an accurate measurement of ROI depends entirely on quality information and your ability to collect it.

ROA (return on assets) is a measurement I will be using more in the future than I have in the past. More and more I am finding that there are excess assets on farms, especially equipment, that are using good capital yet providing an inadequate return.  Here is what I mean.

ROA is defined as a company’s net earnings relative to total assets. By dividing net earnings by total assets, we see how efficient management is at using assets to generate profit. A company that generates $1,000,000 in net earnings on $5,000,000 in assets has a 20% ROA. A similar company generating $1,000,000 profits with $10,000,000 in assets has a 10% ROA. It’s simple math. And the question begs: if you had invested $10,000,000 elsewhere, could you get better than a 10% return on those assets?

Before the argument about land values is thrown out there, let’s just curb it right away. Yes, ROA can be manipulated (as can ROE – return on equity) by owning fewer assets. Banks do it all the time: they sell their owned real estate such as stand alone bank branches and ivory office towers in order to lower their total assets, thereby making their profitability (when measured as ROA) look fantastic.

Today, let’s focus on the asset that gets much love: farm equipment.

How would we measure ROA when it comes to farm equipment? I prefer to use Fair Market Value (FMV) because that figure represents both what it would cost you to acquire said asset and what you could reap should you sell said asset; it is arguably the asset’s intrinsic value. Online searches and blue book values are great ways to validate FMV. I summarize it as “when the auctioneer’s gavel drops, what would you get for that piece of equipment?”

Focusing on ROA as it pertains to equipment only, and excluding land, levels the playing field so to speak. All things being equal, this approach will clarify which farm management team is efficient with how it invests in equipment, and which is not.

Direct Questions

How do you measure the effectiveness of your investment in assets, specifically equipment?

Are you over-invested or under-invested in equipment? What evaluation methods do you use to validate your position?

If you were to invest your capital elsewhere, what return would you expect? What return do you expect from your farm? Is there a difference? Why?

From the Home Quarter

When calculating ROA, consider multiple criteria: all assets (land, buildings, equipment;) land and equipment only; equipment only. The ROA will obviously be much lower when including more assets, but don’t let that sway you into selling land to improve your ROA. Land ownership has been, and will continue to be, the anchor of a farm’s wealth.

What is a target ROA? The jury is still out. Simply put, there isn’t a large enough sample with adequate accurate information available to draw from.

So let’s find out!

With the utmost confidence and maintaining your privacy always, I am proposing an experiment: Email to me your net earnings, your cultivated acres, and your fair market value for each of land, buildings, and equipment for 2015. I will compile the data with no identifying criteria so that you maintain privacy. The compiled data will be available only to those who take part in the experiment. Include 2014 and 2013 as well if you’d like to see how you are trending.

As a thank you for taking part, Growing Farm Profits will offer an analysis with feedback on your ROA  and ROI calculations and trends at NO CHARGE! (Normally a $470 value!)  – Offer expires April 20

 

 

Shaking Hands

The Farmer-Banker Dating Game

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

When I went back to college in my mid-20’s, a mature student by definition, it was because I found a course and career path that would allow me to bridge my passion for agriculture & farming with my finance minded brain. My goal, as my friends and family will attest, was to be the kind of ag-banker that was a partner, not a foe, of the farmer.  My view at that time, which was a time that we were in the depths of a very real farm crisis at the end of the 1990’s, was that farmers “generally” had a poor view of bankers. I aimed to change that perception.

Now as a management advisor, I still aim to bridge that gap. I invest myself into building good relationships with bankers so as to have a list of qualified partners whom I can refer in to my clients for financing requirements. Here are the top 3 points to remember when considering a new bank relationship.

 1. Perfection is Not Required on the First Date

The initial meeting is a first date. Think about it: you’ve met someone you’re interested, you’ve had an interesting conversation that identifies some common interests, and you eagerly and excitedly agree to go on a date. On that first date, it’s a lot of “what do you do for fun?” and “what kind of music do you like?” If you’re really getting into it, you might discuss your date’s political views! You aren’t deciding on the first date if you will or will not marry this person; you’re just hoping to learn enough about him/her to decide if you want a second date.
The initial meeting with a new prospective banker is a first date. You’re getting to know each other. The banker wants to know how your farm is doing financially, how you manage & make decisions, and what you vision is of the future. You want to know how the banker manages his/her client relationships, how the bank would deal with a farm like yours, and how everyone would expect to work together should you take your relationship “to the next level.” On a first date, no one expects perfection. Each person on a first date easily overlooks the little nuances that may, or may not, become an issue later on. No one needs to be perfect on a first date with a banker.

 2. Be Aware of Where You Are At, Where You Have Been, and Where You Are Going

The greatest risk to derailing any chance of a second date is for you, as the borrower, to not have an adequate grasp on the effects to your business from past issues & business decisions. Bankers appreciate accountability when it comes to “what happened” in the past. Own your choices, both the good one and bad ones. Describe what you are doing to rectify your poor decisions from the past and what you are doing to ensure those same choices aren’t repeated. Have an idea (at least) of a vision for what you want your business to look like in 5 years, recognize what it will take to get there, and understand what you need to do in the near term to take positive steps towards that vision.

 3. A “Partnership” Mindset

While taking your relationship with your banker to the next level has been described by some as a “marriage, I agree in figurative terms only. Your relationship with your lender is a partnership, however, and proactive & productive efforts must be initiated by both parties.
While I believe that your banker relationship is akin to marriage figuratively, I do believe that it is a partnership literally. In almost every presentation I’ve made through the winter and spring, I have described the partnership as follows:

“If you have a Debt to Net Worth figure of 1:1, that means your debts are level with your net worth. At that point your creditors have equal skin in the game as yo do; your lender’s ‘investment’ in your business is par with yours. You have a 50/50 partner.”

There are many farms with Debt to Net Worth figures that are 1:1 or higher. Where do you stack up? Do you have a “partner” by the definition of equal investment in your farm? It is only decent and respectful for both parties to behave in the relationship like a partnership.

Direct Questions

What is your mindset with it comes to your relationship with your lender? Is it friend or foe? Necessary evil or business partner?

How prepared are you, as the CEO of your company, to discuss your current situation and share your vision of your farm?

Are you excited for a dance or two on a first date, or are you expecting your date to be on bended knee by the end of the interaction?

From The Home Quarter

This is penned in large from the message that my old boss from my banking days used to lean on: early interactions between bankers and borrowers are like courtships; everyone spends time getting to know the other(s) and jostling for position to make the best impression. It takes time to build a trusting relationship, and like any first date, if either party pushes too hard too soon for too much, a second date is unlikely.

grain terminal

Outlook for Cash

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

The biggest issue that I am working on with clients right now is cash. Cash continues to be tight at the farm gate, and our ability to predict cash flow is, as it always is, difficult. Even when we can contract grain sales with an adequate price and delivery date, the likelihood of actually being able to deliver as per the contracted date is often low. The challenges of managing debt and payables under those type of situations can be debated for days. We won’t berate it now.

As we look back over the last few years, we can identify what led to the current cash shortages. There is no point chiding anyone for those past decisions. What is in the past cannot be changed; we must acknowledge it and learn from it. After all, if we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it.

Here are 3 strategies for managing cash as developed from my years in commercial lending and working with farmers on financial management:

Be conservative with projecting cash inflow.

Cash outflow has been allowed to increase lock step with, and sometimes outpacing, increases in cash inflow. This despite everyone knowing that farm cash inflow can be as unpredictable as the weather. Now we see many operations that are facing cash inflows like 2008 on required cash outflows of 2016. Calling the situation “tight” is at times an understatement.

Consider your lowest profit year in the last 10 years, and use your cash inflow from that year to compare it against your required cash outflow for 2016. How does that make you feel?

Protect working capital.

Recently, I tweeted, “Asset rich and cash poor will not suffice through this next cycle.” Many farms have squandered their opportunity to fill their working capital war chest because of large assets acquisitions and taking on significantly more debt for those acquisitions. Now, many of those same farms are borrowing every penny needed to operate the farm through a growing season. Working capital will be the greatest source of opportunity in the coming years. Access to adequate working capital could be the most limiting factor.

I read a piece recently that interviewed Dr. David Kohl (who I’ve quoted in the past.) Dr. Kohl says that his belief is the 60:30:10 profit plan. Of your farm’s profits, he says that 60% should go to growing the farm and making it more efficient, 10% to dividends, and 30% to working capital. Considering the general lack of working capital on currently on the farms, I suggest that the rule, in the short term anyway, be more like 80/20 with 80% of profits going towards building working capital and 20% going towards growth and efficiency; dividends might just have to wait.

Actually create and maintain a running cash flow statement.

Going through the exercise of constructing a monthly cash flow statement is often an “A-Ha” moment. Being able to clearly identify where and when your cash is flowing helps you understand how and when to best use operating credit, plan grain sales, or structure payment dates. While it is not new news anymore, it is worth repeating: set your payment dates for when you’ll actually have cash!

This is also a beneficial step to improving the relationship you have with your lender. When you can look your lender in the eye and tell them exactly how much operating credit you need, when you’ll need it most, and when you’ll pay it back shows that your focus on management is meeting their expectations.

Direct Questions

What changes would you make to your 2016 plans if you knew your cash inflow would be similar to your worst year in the last 10?

How have you invested your profits? How will you invest future profits?

What does your 2016 monthly cash flow projection look like?

From the Home Quarter

The outlook for cash will reach critical importance in the near future. Working capital will be the fuel for your growth in the coming years. Equity is the backstop. Equity does not pay bills, cash does. When cash is gone and unlikely to return, tapping into equity can replenish working capital, thus the “backstop.” The chase for equity over the last several decades in an effort to be “asset rich and cash poor,” like it was a badge of honor or something, has created a generation of farmers who would prefer to be rid of debt to the detriment of working capital.  It might be possible to finance growth and expansion without cash, but it is not possible to operate it.

4 R's of Fertility

Easy, Efficient, Effective, or Expensive?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Let’s get it right out of the way first: I am not an agronomist.

I do, however, have a solid base of understanding relating to agronomy. With tongue in cheek I like to say, “I know enough to be dangerous.” Nonetheless, I took great pride in the significant attention to detail I employed while being in charge of seeding when still part of the farm. I carefully measured TKW (thousand kernel weight) and calculated seed rates accordingly. I was diligent about what fertilizer, and volume of fertilizer went into the seed row (we only had a single shoot drill.) I always slowed down to 4mph or less when seeding canola and ensured to reduce the wind speed to the lowest possible rate to minimize the risk of canola seed coat damage.

I always had a long season in spring from having to cover the whole farm twice: once with a fertilizer blend to be banded, (all of the N and whatever PKS that couldn’t go in the seed row) usually at least 2″ deep; the second pass was with seed and an appropriate PKS blend that could be be in the seed row. It’s just what I did to respect what I’d learned about the importance of fertilizer rate and placement. It took more time in applying, hauling home, storing, etc. It created operational challenges during application (it seems there were never enough trucks and augers available.) It took more time to set the drill for the correct application rate. All of that didn’t matter to me because I only had once chance to get the crop in the ground and fertilizer properly applied (at least at that time, the equipment we had made it so that all fert was applied in spring) and I wasn’t going to leave anything to chance that I could easily control.

The key point in fertilizer management is “The 4 R’s.” Right source, right rate, right place, and right time of fertilizer application make for the best use of your investment. So why over the last number of years have we seen such a boom in spreading fertilizer on top of the soil?

This article was recently published by FCC. There is no ambiguity as to the best and most effective way to apply phosphorus. I’ll ask again, “What’s with the shortcuts?”

I know the answer: time. There isn’t time to incorporate adequate volumes of fertilizer into the soil. We can use a spinner that has a 100′ spread at 10mph (or more;) this permits more fertilizer to be applied in a shorter amount of time, and it permits fewer stops to fill the drill during seeding…all of it saving precious time. I get it.

But where is the trade off? Have The 4 R’s of Fertility been tossed aside completely? Where is the balance?

Casting aside the proven science of the 4 R’s in order to save time by broadcasting is easy and efficient, but is it effective? I suppose that depends on what effectiveness you are trying to accomplish. I’m suggesting effectiveness of the fertilizer you’ve paid dearly for.

Direct Questions

When making important management decisions like fertility, what methods are you employing to determine your best strategy?

Where is your balance between ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and expense when making critical management decisions?

How has your Unit Cost of Production projection changed if you decide to accept only 80-90% effectiveness from your fertility program?

From the Home Quarter

What is easy might seem efficient, we might believe it is effective, but it is most likely expensive. Historically, decisions were made with the goal of minimizing expense with little else given to consider ease, efficiency, or effectiveness. Management decisions that do not provide adequate emphasis on effectiveness will likely see higher expenses. Your focus with your agronomy must be to produce at the lowest Unit Cost of Production possible on your farm. Choosing a fertilizer application method that places more emphasis on that which is easy versus that which is most effective is likely to create a situation that is expensive. Management decisions that focus heavily on one aspect to the detriment of the others rarely achieve results that meet or exceed expectations.

Introducing the Growing Farm Profits 4E Management System™. Details to follow.

bin row

Crop Price Rallies (will be) Few, (and) Short

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

That is the headline in the recent edition of The Western Producer. Penned by Sean Pratt and primarily sharing the views of Mike Jubinville, the article contains the usual verbiage found in most articles that get classified under “commodity outlook.” Here are some of the biggest points made by Jubinville in the article:

  • The commodity super cycle is over.
  • We’re into a new era of a sluggish, more sideways rangy kind of market.
  • Canola is not overvalued and Jubinville feels that $10 is the new canola floor.
  • Wheat should bring $6-$7/bu this year.
  • $10 for new crop yellow peas is a money making price.

This last point gets me. If I had a dollar for every article that claimed a “money making price” on a commodity in such general terms, I’d be making more money! In all the thousands of farm financial statements I’ve reviewed over the years, I can say unequivocally that there are no two farms the same.

In saying that, it is abundantly clear that what is a profitable price on one farm may not be a profitable price on another. And just because $10 yellows may have been profitable last year does not for one second mean that $10 yellows will be profitable this year. Why? It depends entirely on the choices you have made in changes to your business, as well as on the differences in a little thing called YIELD.

Yield can make a once profitable price look very inadequate very fast. In fact, a 15% decrease in yield, from an expected 45 bu/ac to 38.25bu/ac, requires a 17.65% increase in price, from $10/bu to $11.76/bu to equate to the same gross revenue per acre. This factor is not linear: an 18% decline in yield requires a 21.95% bump in price to meet revenue expectations. Alternatively, an 18% bump in yield requires a price that is 15.25% lower than expected to meet the same revenue objectives.

The point is if yield is down, achieving the objective price may not be profitable. Or at the very least, it would be LESS profitable. But the bigger issue is this: How can it be stated what is or is not profitable without intimate knowledge of a farm’s costs?

If the farm’s costs and actual yield create a Unit Cost of Production of $10.20/bu, I’m sorry Mr. Jubinville, that “money-making” $10/bu price you mentioned is not profitable!

Direct Questions

How are you determining what is an appropriate and profitable selling price for your production?

What are you doing to ensure you are including ALL costs incurred to operate your farm?

If you find that your projected Unit Cost of Production is not profitable, what measures are you taking?

From the Home Quarter

Far too often, we can get caught up in making critical business decisions based on what we “think” is appropriate, on a hunch, or on pure emotion. Using Unit Cost of Production calculations to validate your farm’s profitability is an incredibly empowering exercise. I’ve been in a meeting with a client and witnessed the entire crop plan change during the meeting based on Unit Cost of Production information.

What is not measured cannot be managed, and measuring your profit is pretty darn important.