Overspending

Critical State – Overspending

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

Cash in the bank is a good thing. Spending it because it is there is the scourge to many farm’s financial strength.

Years ago, when I was still in banking, I was doing what can be argued young bankers should, or should not, do…I was listening intently to some well tenured, long-in-the-tooth bankers. It was good because of the insights they brought. It was not good because of the cynicism they had. One cynical comment in particular stayed with me; it was when that grizzled old banker said, “Farmers hate having money in the bank…as soon as it’s there, they go spend it!”

Maybe that comment showed his lack of insight into how a farm business is run. Maybe he was fairly accurate in his conjecture in how it relates to the psychology and mindset of a farmer. Although, I believe that “hate” is the incorrect descriptor for how farmers really feel about cash.

You may recall reading Spending Less is More Valuable Than Earning More in this commentary a few months ago. I regularly read comments in ag publications and on Twitter about how “farmers are good at making money, but trying to keep some is the hard part.” Not for everyone…

Investing in your business is something not to be taken lightly. Every year, month, week, and day, farmers battle with the decisions of what to grow, how to fertilize it, what to spray, when to spray it, etc. With almost the same frequency, many farmers are also looking at the tools to get the job done (ie. farm equipment.) “Newer, bigger, better” seems to be the name of the game when it comes to equipment. And less frequently, farmers consider expanding the land base. Whether to rent or to purchase is but one of the questions pertaining to land.

It is my belief that the issue of overspending would not be an issue if more discipline was used in ensuring that all expenditures met an ROI (Return on Investment) threshold. I’ve learned about the following instances in the last year that clearly show a lack of understanding the concept of ROI:

  • disastrous chickpea crops despite as many as 6 fungicide applications (at $15-$20 each, that’s an extra $90-$120/ac in inputs)
  • $90/ac rent paid on 640 acres that has only 420 acres available in the entire section due to excess moisture (so he’s actually paying $137 per cultivated acre)
  • inability to make loan payments because the operating line of credit is maxed out.

I have gone on record many times in my prognostication that credit, specifically operating credit, will be difficult to maintain (and likely impossible to get) in the not-too-distant future. Those operations that do not run on cash, therefore relying on operating credit, will face insurmountable hardship when credit policy changes.

Control your own destiny:

  1. Build working capital reserves, specifically CASH;
  2. Discontinue relying on operating and trade credit to cash flow your farm;
  3. Sell your production when it meets your profit expectations instead of when you need to make your payments (cash in the bank allows you to do this!)

Direct Questions

How would you describe the rationale employed when determining how to deploy resources, specifically cash?

As a percentage of your annual cash costs, what is your minimum cash balance to keep on hand?

From the Home Quarter

In a business within an industry that is renown to have multiple cash and cash flow challenges, it is not unusual to learn that adequate (or abundant) cash on hand is not common. And so when cash is available, the need (or temptation) to upgrade this or replace that can be too much to handle. Disciplined decision making, backed by a sound strategy, is often the difference between successful, highly profitable farmers and surviving, occasionally profitable farmers. Which would you rather be?

For guidance, support, or butt-kicking in developing your strategy, and the discipline to stick to it, please call or email my office.

go fishing

If You Are Happy Just Floating Along, Go Fishing

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I wasn’t trying to be funny when I quipped what is the title of this commentary while in a meeting with an excellent banker and the exciting young prospective client he introduced me to. It just sort of rolled off my tongue in the moment. It was a hit; both men enjoy fishing.

The premise of that particular conversation was profit. In my work as a lender and a consultant, I venture to say I’ve looked at hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands, of financial statements. Those statements have told a vast array of stories, from the depths of successive and devastating financial losses to the opposite end of the spectrum with profits that make you wonder if your’re drunk when reading it. Many hang around the middle, somewhere south of an impressive profit , but still north of a fundamentally adverse loss. It is sad to discover than many farmers create this break-even situation by choice.

The choice is often centered around tax and the great lengths taken to avoid payment of income tax. The list is long and arduous; it won’t be found here.

Let’s put this in real terms. Most farms I’ve analyzed range from approximately $250/acre on the low side to $400/acre (or even higher) as the figure that represents whole farm cash costs. That is the amount of cash required to operate the entire farm for one full year. Now, I got my math learnin’ in a small town school, long before calculators were allowed in the classroom, back when cutting edge computer technology was the Commodore Vic 20, but math is math, so if we consider a 10,000ac farm with $400/ac costs, we’re looking at $4,000,000…each year!

Granted, there aren’t too many 10,000ac farmers who are happy to break-even each year, but they are out there. At the end of the day, I don’t care if you’re 400 acres or 140,000 acres, expect a profit!

Farmers take far too much risk each year to not expect a profit. If you walked $4,000,000 into any bank, could you get a better return than 0%? Of course! You could get a risk free rate in GICs that would probably approach 3% (or maybe 4%…any bankers reading this what to comment???) So I ask why, if you could get a risk free rate of 3% or 4%, why would you take a sh_t-ton of risk to accept a 3% or 4% return farming?

Direct Questions

Investing $4,000,000 in GICs and getting a risk-free 3% annual return grosses $120,000 per year before tax. Could you live on that?

Land owners/investors demand a rent that mimics 5% return on the value of the land. If you invested $4,000,000 in land, you could earn upwards of $200,000 gross in rent, plus enjoy the long term capital appreciation…could you live on that?

What is an acceptable return to demand from your business…based on the amount of risk you take each year?

From the Home Quarter

Farming is not for the faint of heart. Farmers accept the financial risks that come with farming because they understand them. The opposite if often true of stock markets: farmers aren’t typically investors in equity markets because generally they don’t fully understand the risks. But savvy stock investors who do understand the risks still expect a positive return, they aren’t happy “just getting by.”

If you’re happy just floating along, go fishing.

If you expect to get well paid for the risks you take, call me.

 

dichotomy

Dichotomy

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

Here is a throwback to an article I wrote in August 2015 titled Is Data Management Really Important? where I highlighted a conversation between a friend and I that included his opinion that even large corporations let their “focus (be) primarily growth & profits and how to accomplish it, with information management being thrown together afterwards.”

While I believe that statement to still be true both for large corporations and farms alike, there is something in that statement that opens up what seems to have become the dichotomy of prairie grain farming: growth or status quo.

Let’s not get hung up on “growth’ as a single definition. In March 2015, my article Always Growing…Growing All Ways clearly described a few of the many ways we can achieve growth in our businesses that does not have to be pigeon-holed into the category of “expansion.”

So let’s clarify the dichotomy as “expansion or status quo.”

Now let’s compare a couple different scenarios.

  1. In the spring of 2016, I met with a young farmer who started out in 2000 with nothing but an ag degree and desire. As he prepared to sow his seventeenth crop this spring, he showed me his numbers while admitting that he felt good about his financial position, but didn’t really know if he was good or not. He lost almost 20% of his acres from the previous year, and was happy about it because the cost to farm that land was too high and he knew it.
    When I told him that I’d peg his operation in the top 10%, maybe even the top 5% of all grain farms on the prairies, he paused and said,”OK, so what are the top 5% doing that I’m not?”
  2. There is a farmer who has been calling me off and on for a couple years now. By all accounts, it is quite a feat that he is still operating. Although he’s been farming for well over 20 years his debts are maxed out, leases are burning up cash flow faster than the Fort McMurray wildfire is burning up bush land. He spends more time running equipment that his hired men; he has no clue what his costs are; he has aggressively built his way up to 10,000ac and wants to get to 20,000ac; one of his advisors told me that his management capability was maxed out at 4,000ac.

The first scenario has the farmer focused on growth of profitability, control, and efficiency.

The second scenario has the farmer focused on growth of the number of acres on which he produces.

One would be the envy of 95% of farmers.

The other will never in his entire career get to the point of financial success that the first farmer has already achieved.

Direct Questions

Which are you more like, the first farmer above, or the second farmer?

Which farmer do you want to be like?

What are you prepared to do to get there?

From the Home Quarter

What has been described above is actually a false dichotomy. We’ve been led to believe that farms must get larger in order to survive and that small farms were doomed. What that message failed to deliver was “At what point is a farm large enough?” I am not decrying large farms or the continued expansion of farms…as long as it makes financial sense! The false dichotomy of expansion or status quo need not be black or white, left or right, mutually exclusive. Farms that are not expanding today could be expanding next year, just like farms that are expanding today may not be next year. Some farms that have expanded over the last few years might even be looking at reducing acres in the future.

Growth (expansion) at all costs can often come with the heaviest of all costs.

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.

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.

 

barometer

Farm Business Barometer

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

It’s harvest time. The weather has been uncooperative. The crop is generally not ready to go. Quality is diminishing. The August and September contracts Fred* had in place will not be delivered on time, even though the elevator has room, because his grain is still in the field and not in the bins. (* Fred isn’t anyone in particular. This story is fictional, but we need a lead character and decided to call him Fred.)

Finally, it looks like the weather will break, forecasting two weeks of high pressure, clear skies, and warm temperatures. Fred even has enough help between the hired staff, and family who have offered to come home for a week or so. He must get this crop off quickly, as fast as possible. Fred needs another combine.

Fred cannot afford to think about this for too long; everyone is in the same situation, and they could be looking at adding a combine to their farm as well. He heads into town, speaks with his salesperson, and acquires a quote. It’s higher than he wanted, or was expecting, but Fred is in a bind. He just heard that there are 2 other quotes on the same unit. He writes the cheque for a deposit.

Now comes the hard part – seeing the banker.

Fred recalls the feedback he was given before seeding time: things have been a little tight, and pulling back on any capital expenditures for a couple years would be best. What if this gets declined? How will he get the crop off in time? Is his deposit refundable? Fred scolds himself for not asking when he wrote the cheque.

Fred arrives at the banker’s office unannounced. Luckily she’s in the office today. Thankfully he doesn’t have to wait long. He explain the situation: things are getting worse by the day with poor weather degrading crop quality, and thereby crop price; he has lots of help to run extra equipment to get harvest done in record time…if he had another combine. When she asks if a decent combine can even be found at this juncture, Fred proudly produces the quote he just received no more than a half hour ago. She says she’ll take a look at things, and call right after lunch.

Fred heads home. The temperature is climbing and the wind is blowing; he thinks he could maybe get going this afternoon. Everything is serviced and ready to go; after all, he’s only done 150 ac so far. Fred heads in for lunch early, hoping that will speed up the call he is anxiously awaiting from the banker. He scans his phone for afternoon market updates, text messages from any neighbors who might be rolling, and that critical phone call from the banker that just isn’t coming fast enough.

He can’t sit around; Fred fires up the combine to go out and get a sample. The wheat sample looks bleached. He figures he’ll be lucky to get a #2. Sticking his hand in the pail Fred thinks “It feels close.” He rushes back to the yard to test it: 14.8! That can go in aeration! Let’s go!

Fred reaches for his phone to let everyone know to get ready to go, but realizes he left it in the combine in the field from which he just took a sample. Fred jumps in the semi, and even though it hasn’t warmed up enough yet, he hustles out to the field. Word will get to everyone via the house phone, and they’ll get out to the field right away.

Once back in the combine cab, Fred finds a message on his phone: it’s the banker! She wants him to call her right back. He does, and the call goes straight to voice mail. Fred swears.

She calls back in the time it took to fill one hopper. As Fred unloads into the truck, she tells him that she cannot approve a loan for the combine. She says that Fred’s cash flow is too low and his debt levels are too high to take on another liability for a “nice to have” asset. She talks about other options for this harvest, and offers clear feedback on what needs to happen in the future to not have these kinds of interactions with her again, but Fred has already stopped listening because he’s moved on to thinking about who else he can call for financing, wondering if the dealers program can turn an approval in less than an afternoon…

Fred immediately calls his salesperson at the dealer, and a couple other leasing companies, to ask them to begin an urgent credit application. They’ve got all his information now; he’s been in touch with them a couple times this year already when the banker has denied his other requests. Fred begins to wonder why he even bothered with the bank this time.

An hour later, Fred gets a call from the dealer; their financing division has approved his combine loan application. The interest rate is higher than his other loans, and the payment terms are more rigid, but he is not worried about that now – Fred can get that extra combine!

Jubilation turns to anxiety: the dealer cannot deliver until next week, and it hasn’t been through their shop. Fred will need to invest a half-day to have someone drive it home (who can be freed up to do that now that the harvest is rolling again?) Fred realizes this combine will probably need some repairs and some parts (more trips to town on the weekend.) On top of all that, he realizes that he’ll have to shut down himself to go in to town, sign the loan, sign the equipment sale agreement, and hopefully get to the insurance office before they close for the weekend. At this point, Fred might as well drive it home himself!

Yup, having a 3rd combine will make short work of Fred’s 5,300 acres! He acknowledges that he’ll have a serious amount of harvesting capacity for his farm size, and despite what he was told by the banker in spring and again today, Fred still got approved the loan. And if Fred got the loan, his business can’t be in as bad of shape as the banker says, right?

Direct Questions

Why does Fred exclusively use his creditor’s approval or decline of his credit applications as the barometer of his business’ financial stability and position?

How does Fred account for the differences in lending criteria and motivations between creditors when using their feedback as his business barometer?

What do you use as your barometer of business health?

From the Home Quarter

In our story, Fred clearly does not take the time, nor does he have the interest in understanding the financial ramifications on his business from the emotional decisions he makes. He continues to forge ahead by using any and every source of credit he can grasp. What happens when his requests are denied? Is it only then that his farm is in a position of financial weakness?

When focusing on priorities, I advise my clients that there are often times more important issues than upgrading equipment and constructing more buildings because credit is (relatively) easy to get, and has been for some time. As such, using credit approvals as the only, or primary, business barometer is narrow in scope, biased in feedback, and lofty in risk.