Posts

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.

inadequate working capital

Eat to Live, or Live to Eat

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

This week’s title is common phrasing when dealing with people who struggle with weight loss. While there are many factors that come into play for those who struggle with weight, a person’s caloric intake is often a major contributor. Making smart decisions about what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat can be challenging for many people who are trying to do a better job of managing their health, not just those with weight issues. The question of “why” they eat gets into the psychology of the issue, which, coincidentally, leads into the real topic behind this week’s commentary.

Spending time at Canada’s Farm Progress Show in Regina each June has been something I’ve looked forward to for as long as I can recall. Remember, I knew I wanted to farm since I was less than 10 years old, so the Farm Progress Show was a more tantalizing buffet to the teenage me than even an actual buffet! (BTW, I still have an appetite like an 18 year old farm boy.)

The desire for more and new farm equipment seems almost insatiable, and begs the question:

Do we have all this equipment so we can farm, or do we farm so we can have all this equipment?

  • I recently met a young farmer who, while struggling to establish adequate cash flow, explained why another 4WD tractor on his 2,000ac farm will make him more efficient (he’s a sole operator with no hired help…how one man can drive more than one tractor at one time is something I can’t quite wrap my ahead around.)
  • You may recall from a few months ago the fictional story about “Fred” and how he NEEDED another combine. Despite his banker’s advice, he forged ahead.
  • Conversely, another farmer I speak with frequently is feverishly trying to rid himself of the over-abundance of iron on his farm.
  • Another is protecting his farm’s financial position by keeping the absolute bare minimum amount of equipment on his farm. Nowhere is there a “nice to have” piece of equipment on that farm; everything is “fully utilized.”

During the week of the June show in Regina, I read a tweet from an urban, non-farming young lady who was seeing the Farm Progress Show for the first time; it said (something along the lines of) “all this big beautiful equipment makes me want to go farming!”

Direct Questions

What circumstances must be present for you to consider additional equipment?

Does any equipment deal have to make for a sound business decision, or simply fill a desire?

Is your equipment a tool to operate your farm, or is it the reason you farm?

From the Home Quarter

In these weekly editorials, you have read about Mindset, about Strategy, and about Focus; these topics (and many of the others) challenge the conventional thinking in the industry today.

Those who bow to the mistress that is their farm equipment are only enjoying short term excitement. The mistress entices her suitor, subservient to the raucous cycle, and she soon becomes the one in charge.

Just ask anyone trying to get out of multiple leases…

cash is not king

Cash Isn’t King

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

I think this phrase has gained such popularity because of alliteration. The hard “c” in cash just rolls with the word “king.”

Let me emphatically disagree with the ideology that cash is king.

One could argue that the king rules all, answers to no one, and has absolute power. While I’m sure that is what the king would have everyone believe, the truth is that kings have always been influenced by the likes of his queen, his advisors, other diplomats, etc. Is he, then, truly the top, unflappable, incontestable?

Since we live in a democracy and are no longer ruled by a king or queen, when I hear such terms I think of cards. The card games I enjoy the most are 3-Spot (also known as Kaiser) and Poker. In both games, the king is soundly trounced by one card that is even greater.

Yes, I’m saying it.

Cash is not King.

It’s the ACE!

If cash is king, then that means that something else is the Ace, something else is more important than cash. This is simply not so.

Cash is the ace, the pinnacle, the life blood of your farm.

Imagine how the decisions would be different, the decisions that are made every day and every year on your farm, imagine how they would be different if you had an abundance of cash:

  • Instead of gambling on trying to time the commodity market high, you could sell your production whenever was most convenient and/or at an appropriate profit point.
  • You would cease the need for operating credit, vendor credit, or cash advances.
  • “Cash management” would no longer be juggling between various creditors and hoping you can deliver grain in time to make payments, but instead it would be paying bills on time (ahead of time?) and selling grain when it made the most sense.
  • Risk management programs would be a non-issue.
  • Equity loans to recapitalize the business would be a completely foreign concept.
  • Acquisition decisions (land, buildings, equipment) would be easier, faster, and more empowering.
  • YOU’D HAVE LESS STRESS!
    (That is capitalized for a reason.)

Cash is the Ace. It ranks above precision planting, Group 2 resistance, or the latest technology trends. The Ace outranks the King; it outranks all the other cards.

Direct Questions

Has cash always been your Ace, or have other things become more important?

What are the top three benefits to you and your business if cash was abundant?

How confident would you be to have TWO Aces in your hand?

From the Home Quarter

We often regard agriculture as doing amazing things with scare resources. Cash does not have to be one of those scarce resources even though that has been the mantra for generations (a.k.a Asset Rich – Cash Poor). Assets do not pay bills, cash does. The desire to convert cash into assets needs to be squelched at a time when debts are high, cash flow is tight, and profit margins are narrow.

Since cash is the life blood of your business, and a critical contributor to your financial health, when is the last time you had a checkup?

With your year-end financial statements now done, you’re ready for a checkup. Email your financial statements to me and I’ll provide you with a financial health report card. Normally a $500 value, this service is free if booked by June 13, 2016.

 

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.

trickledown effect of too much debt

The Trickle-Down Effect of Too Much Debt

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

One would think we learned something from watching the US housing market collapse at the end of the previous decade. Yet, here we are, seven or so years later and many are making the same mistakes that were made by countless US homeowners.

Granted, the macro factors that helped to create the US housing crisis are not prevalent here in Canada. My favorite term from the US crisis was “NINJA” Mortgage: No Income? No Job? …APPROVED! Lending criteria in Canada isn’t quite that liberal.

What exacerbated the problem in the US was how homeowners were using their homes as a personal ABM, taking cash out whenever they wanted for whatever they wanted from the rapidly growing equity they had in their homes because the house values just kept increasing. They leveraged the “found” equity they had in their homes to feed their consumer appetite.

Here in Canada, and specifically farms on the Canadian Prairies, we’ve seen something similar. Rapidly appreciating farm land is being used to secure more borrowing, and often to secure the consolidation of other loans. The renaissance of farmland value appreciation, especially in Saskatchewan, added a dangerous amount of fuel to a fire of pent up demand. Land “equity” was used for the feverish acquisition of equipment, buildings, and more land.

In the US, while sub-prime mortgages kept payments low, everyone was happy to be ticking along with borrowing and spending to their heart’s content…until the sub-prime period ended and the piper needed to be paid. With a property fully leveraged and no ability to repay the debt, many homeowners resigned themselves to foreclosure. Those who may have had an ability to pay the debt saw the value of their fully leveraged property start to decline because of all the other foreclosures, so when they found themselves underwater, they too went the route of foreclosure.

No one is arguing that things are different here. True. Borrowing criteria is more stringent in Canada. What is similar, however, is the experience of a rapid appreciation in the value of real estate and the leverage of said appreciation to support more (other) debt.

I was talking with a 17,000ac farmer recently who was very aggressive in expansion over the last several years. He has increased the size and scale of his farm in every way: land, equipment, labor, and debt. He made no bones about continuing to leverage all assets, including the appreciating land and his depreciating equipment, to the fullest extent in an effort to facilitate further expansion. The scourge of his actions over these last few years was the incredible drain on his cash flow to service all this debt. This came to light for him when recently he needed land equity to source an operating line of credit so that he could meet his debt payments.

Direct Questions

Have most of the increases to equity on your balance sheet come from appreciation of asset values or have they come from building your retained earnings?

How has your Debt to Net Worth changed over the last few years?

Are you drawing on your operating line of credit to make loan payments?

From the Home Quarter

It amazes me how what was ingrained into our long term memory for so long was so quickly forgotten. The memories of the indescribable hardships of the 1980s and 1990s have seemingly been overtaken by the boom years of 2007-2013. The willingness to replace the history lessons of tight margins and poor cash flow with the euphoria of big profits and cash to burn has led to many farms now facing a debt and cash crisis similar to what was common in the final 20 years of the last century.

The trickle-down effect of debt stems from when debt levels increase as fast as, or faster than, the borrower’s long term cash flow and net income. While asset levels increase, sometimes very rapidly, tremendous growth in debt levels eat away at potential equity and use up available cash flow. While the land base has expanded and late model equipment efficiently farms all the acres, while the bins may be full and the employees are busy, it all trickles down to cash.

When the demands on your cash are a raging river, it is pretty hard to live on a trickle.

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.