Prophetic words that apply to every business and simplifies the importance of profit.

Profit Margin is calculated as “Net Profit” divided by “Gross Revenue.” Essentially this calculation tells you how much of every dollar earned in gross revenue is actually profit. The smaller the profit margin, the less you keep.

It goes back over 10 years now to when I was a bank branch manager in a rural community. A client was trying to purchase a lake cottage and was upset with us that we weren’t clamoring to provide them with a mortgage. They worked very hard in their business that provided a service to the oilfield, and had expanded it several times by adding more trucks and employees. In one of their rants on me for not giving them what they wanted (it was more like “demanded” at this juncture) one of the partners (a married couple) said, “What does it take? We made a million dollars last year!” True, their top line revenue was exceeding $1,000,000 in the previous fiscal year; however, their net income – the profit – was just over $15,000. Even adding depreciation and interest back into the calculation (to arrive at EBITDA) there was no way they could service the mortgage they were requesting. Their profit margin was (in a simplified example) 0.015%, which meant that for every $1.00 in revenue they generated, they were retaining $0.015 in profits (1.5 cents profit for every dollar in revenue…hardly sustainable in a cyclical industry.)

What I Don’t Like About Profit Margin

1. There are many variations on the calculation:

• gross profit margin
• operating margin
• pretax profit margin
• net margin…just to name a few. Each of these is measured slightly differently and has different meaning in different circumstances. If there isn’t sufficient care in assuring accurate nomenclature, things can get confusing.

2. The calculation, on face value, includes the non-cash depreciation expense (a tax figure) that often does not accurately portray the true market depreciation of an asset.

What I Do Like About Profit Margin

When calculated consistently over time, the trend will open up investigation and discussion on variances year over year (YoY) so that corrections can be made if necessary. I also like that it can be an internal benchmark, your own personal KPI (Key Performance Indicator) to which you could measure actual profit margin results against an ideal profit margin target that would fuel your business goals and growth aspirations.

Plan for Prosperity

What is a sufficient profit margin in your business? It is often relative to the industry in which you operate. If you have no idea, a good person to ask is your banker.

After spending virtually all of my professional career working on the financial and business aspects of agricultural production, I can confidently say that western Canadian grain farms need to target a 20% profit margin to sustain their businesses through the volatile cycles that affect the industry. “Target” because some years will blow right by 20%, other years will be low single digits (or negative numbers.) This truly is one space where bigger IS better!

Where has your profit margin measured out over the last 3-5 years? Which way is it trending? Why? If you don’t know the answers, or haven’t asked the questions, there is no time like right now to dig in.

To test me (or so I think this is why) he asked what he should do with his heifers this fall. After admitting that I am not an astute cattle market advisor since most of my work with farms are grain farms, I asked what his thoughts were if he and I weren’t having this conversation. He said he’d keep them and only cull a handful of cows. Doing so would increase his breeding herd by one-third. This, at a time when we’re coming off a serious drought which has left feed stocks and pastures in tight supply and at premium prices.

He sold fed calves this fall for enough to make a tidy profit. In the same breath he bemoans the price insurance premium he paid this year. I wouldn’t have thought that creating enough profit from operations so as not to need risk management programs was a bad thing…

Further to his question about what to do with his heifers, I said that I’d first need to know where the market is headed by taking a look at the futures market for beef and for the Canadian dollar. This was a lead-in to ask him if he does any hedging. His response was, “No, we’re not on the right side to do that.” Puzzled, I asked him to explain. He described how “lots of guys out there hedge the dollar, price all their barley, and contract their sales…basically they’re doing everything to lock in a profit.”

I let that statement stew for a moment; I wanted his own words to sink in.

Then I just blurted out, “That sounds fantastic! Why wouldn’t everyone do that?”

There was no response.

It was at that moment that I knew there was no point berating the issue further. Here was a cattle operator who knew his costs but refused to use that knowledge to his betterment. There was nothing I could say in that moment that would lead him to take a different action.

To Plan for Prosperity

Profit is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing and business must do everything possible to maximize it. The story above is real, and more of the story includes a decision on whether this cattleman should pursue off-farm employment because the cattle alone aren’t providing sufficient income.

I’m puzzled at how off-farm employment along with the cattle herd simply creates more work and is an option being considered, yet more work to maximize profitability in the cattle herd (hedging strategy) isn’t work that is desirable.

Profit feeds your business, it feeds your family, and it feeds your ability to spend time with your family & on other things you enjoy.

Profit is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing.

Is profit a part of your strategy?

Settling for average in any aspect of your business will lead to certain demise. If everything was average (yields, quality, market prices, rainfall, heat units, weed pressure, disease pressure, input prices, equipment repair frequency, wages, overhead, etc, etc, etc…you get the picture) then farming would be easy.

But it’s not.

Fair to say that if you are projecting average yields and prices for 2017 you’ll be measuring those against higher-than-average costs. This is likely to total down to a negative bottom line.

I’ve never been a fan of “average.” As my old friend Moe Russell likes to say, “You can drown in a river that averages a foot deep.”

Average, to me, is nothing more than a feel good guide when looking to validate poor results. For example, acknowledging that yields were only a couple bushels below average means nothing without quantifiers like market prices (meaning we’ve calculated gross revenue), like input cost (meaning we’ve calculated gross margin), or like operating costs (meaning we’ve calculated profits from operations.) Here is a table to illustrate what I’m getting at:

If average is profitable over the long term, then we must acknowledge the need to adjust all facets of our profit calculation when one facet is below average. The problem is that generally we are seeing farms operate with higher than “average” costs and trying to pay for them with “average” yields.

To Plan for Prosperity

Our profitability is not determined by where it falls on a bell-curve, so why would we accept “average?”

Ask yourself if your 2017 break-even yield is near, or well below, your 5 year production average. If it is near, then there isn’t much wiggle room, is there? Everything needs to go right, including the external factors you cannot control, like weather.

Does your 2017 crop plan include a sensitivity test? What is your sensitivity to a 10% decrease in yield? What is your sensitivity to a 10% decrease is price? How close do either, or both combined, bring you to break-even?

To Plan for Prosperity

To quote my old friend Moe Russell, “What rabbits are you chasing?” Using Moe’s analogy, the rabbits you should be chasing are found in your operations costs: machinery, labor, repairs & maintenance, fuel, etc, and in your overhead costs: interest, carrying costs, etc. These are the internal factors, the factors that you can control.  And if these have gotten out of control, even free land won’t be profitable.

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…

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.

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.

Late in 2015, I picked up on some interesting farm financial info during a presentation I attended as a part of CAFA. This information represents farms from a geographically vast cross section and revealed some interesting trends:

1. Gross Revenue per Acre has Trended Up

With 2007 being the base year with a value of 100, and also being the first year of the bull run in commodity prices, we can clearly see that while gross revenues are trending up, there is still great volatility in gross farm receipts. True, weather anomalies had a significant effect, but that’s farming, isn’t it?

2. Investment in Crop Inputs per Acre has Trended Up

While gross revenue has seen volatility, and for three years including 2009-2011 gross revenue was at or near 2007 revenue levels, investment in inputs has only once seen a reduction year over year. In 2013, investment in inputs was 77.5% higher per acre than it was in 2007.

3. Gross Margin per Acre has Trended Up

While gross margin is trending up, there was a significant decline in 2009 from the previous year that extended right through 2011. Even by 2012, gross margin had not returned to 2008 levels.

4. Operating and Fixed Costs per Acre are Trending Up

This figure would represent operating costs such as fuel, labor, and equipment costs, as well as fixed costs such as interest, land, and building costs.  Notice the steady increase that has never went down year over year, even through the low margin years of 2009-2011 operating & fixed costs continued to rise.

5. Net Income per Acre has Rebounded from Significant Reductions

Net Income represents what is left over after operating your business, that profit which remains to cover administrative costs, make principal loan payments, and cover that other insignificant cash requirement: living costs (that was sarcasm if you couldn’t tell.)

In this illustration, we have calculated Net Income simply as Gross Margin LESS Operating & Fixed costs. Here we see that the low margin years of 2009-2011 actually extend right to 2012 with net income still below that of our base year 2007. This is the residual effect of increasing costs during a period of low margins (2009-2011) by continuing to have a negative effect on what would otherwise be a successful year in 2012.

Everything Dips but Expenses

This chart illustrates a dangerous trend: even when income goes down, operating & fixed expenses are allowed to continue to rise.

By the end of 2011, net income had dropped to less than 30% of 2007 levels, yet operating and fixed costs were over 145% of 2007 levels. It took 2013 bringing about the largest crop in maybe forever to elevate net income back to 2007 levels.

Direct Questions

If Net Income represents the funds you have generated to cover living costs and make loan payments, how well does your worst net income from the last 10 years cover your living and loan payments in 2016?

What does the trend of your gross income, input costs, operating costs, and net income look like since 2007? Is it similar to what’s been presented here? What changes have you made to your operation based on your own information?

Gross margin should ideally be in lock step with operating and fixed costs. If you aren’t increasing your gross margin, why are you increasing your costs?

From the Home Quarter

This is a very telling experiment, but it is not the rule on all farms. The information presented here is an average across a list that spans all regions of the prairies, but heavily weighted on Saskatchewan. The experiment gets more interesting when you apply it to your own business. To lean on the 5% Rule first promoted by Danny Klinefelter, if in 2013 you could have been 5% better than the average in gross revenue, input costs, and operating & fixed costs as presented here, your net income would be 44% better than information presented, and index to 152.14% of the 2007 base year.

How does that sound?

Like so many other aspects of life and business, going on the cheap, finding the lowest cost solution, spending as little as possible often has the opposite effect than what is desired. When I needed steel toed work boots for the farm, I used to spend about $120 for “cheap” boots from the discount or department store. The last pair I bought were Red Wing and cost me well over $300. They outlasted 2-3 “cheap” pair and my feet were far more comfortable during those long 18 hour days at seeding, keeping me less fatigued. Was there greater value in the more expensive boots? You bet there was!

If cost is your #1 concern when considering options for managing your data and business information, then please consider why you buy the name brand hand tools, cars, trucks, and farm equipment that you do? If cost was the only concern, wouldn’t we all be driving cheap $10,000 cars, using WalMart wrenches made in China, and farming with Belarus tractors?

Find what works for you and just use it. If you don’t know what works for you, then ask for help. I am meeting with an office organization expert this week to get the help I need in creating a work-space that is better organized and more suited to my work flow.

Last week we discussed “Using Your Financial Information,” but if you aren’t managing your information adequately, it will be difficult to use, and leave you to make decisions with information that is not accurate. We expect our financial institution to provide us with accurate statements, and we’d be pretty upset if the information they provided us wasn’t spot on. We need to have the same expectation of ourselves.

If doing your own income and expense entries, set aside 1 hour twice a week to input accounting data. I used to leave mine until it was time to file GST every quarter. I have found that there is value to letting my accountant’s office handle this task so I can focus on my business. In 2016, I’ll be leaving the data entry to my accountant.

The first piece of information I prefer to offer to new clients is a Unit Cost of Production calculation. This requires current and accurate figures for crop inputs, yield and price, operating costs, and overhead costs. To know what it costs to produce one bushel of canola or one tonne of barley on your farm requires accurate info, otherwise it’s still a guess! Using this accurate information is very empowering!

Here is a list of Best Practices to consider implementing for managing your farm’s financial and business data:

• Research and fully utilize an agronomic data platform; ideally it would require minimal manual entry on your part by gleaning info from your tractor/sprayer/combine consoles, and also easily convert to your accounting software.
• Manage income and expenses regularly: don’t simply fill the shoe-box! Designate 1 hour twice per week to data entry.
• Evaluate the worth of your time relative to tasks you do, and delegate accordingly.
  (IE. if you’re the CEO helping the hired men sweep out bins, you’re not allocating your time very well!)
• Consider using outside help, or a designated employee, to manage date entry if you deduce that your time is better spent elsewhere.
• Keep income & expenses, assets & liabilities, and cash flow records current each month.

Direct Questions

How are you best utilizing the resources you have available to compile your data? Are you using the right people, or slugging through on your own?

What data and information management tools are you using? Do they satisfy your needs? How are you using the reports they create?

Does managing financial information take a back seat to other tasks? What do you need to make it more of a priority?

From the Home Quarter

Choosing an information management platform is a daunting task. But it is less daunting than trying to make informed decisions with little or no usable information. The learning curve is steep at the beginning, yet once you’ve done all your set-up, keeping it updated is relatively easy. Making information management a priority can be less easy, depending on mindset. The benefits you’ll enjoy from being equipped to make informed decisions immediately as required are similar to the benefits you enjoy from getting your entire crop seeded early into warm moist soil. Even emergence on an early seeded crop is as satisfying as highly informed strategic management decisions…and just as important!

Over the winter, an old colleague and friend made the following tweet through @RCGFarmWise:
Moe Russell has spent well over 30 years in farm finance
and management, and he has been tracking this kind of
info for a long time. I trust his integrity and his
information. Essentially over 5 crop years, this says that
farmers have increased equipment costs 100% faster
and land costs 400% faster than they’ve increased input
costs. In a time of high commodity prices with yields that
were typically above the long term average, this was not
uncommon.

Recently I took part in a Farm Business Development Initiative (FBDI) seminar that brought together
approved consultants and learning providers (of which I am both) to discuss updates to the program.
(Lean more at https://fbdi.gov.sk.ca/) During a conversation there, I overheard one attendee saying
how he listens to farmers “bemoaning the $60/ac they spend on seed, but nary a word to the $60/ac
increase in equipment costs they just took on.”

It is not surprising to see farmers looking to inputs first when trying to find ways to cut costs. We justify
it by lamenting increases to seed, fertilizer, and chemical prices. We validate cutting inputs by
acknowledging that inputs require the highest cash cost per acre of anything else on the farm. There are
sound ways to cut inputs; I was enjoying listening to many clients describing how they are using generic
herbicides this year, focusing heavily on scouting to verify the need for fungicides versus just spraying
anyway, etc. But when I heard one who wanted to eliminate a broadleaf herbicide in his cereals to cut
costs, even though I’m no agronomist, I quickly brought risk management to that conversation. Every
decision needs to have a risk/benefit or cost/benefit consideration. There is too much at stake!
More to the tweet above, looking under the right rock is not easy because it will force each of us to
acknowledge how and where we’ve allocated our capital. If we know we should not have increased our
“operations” cost, it’s difficult to face that reality, swallow pride, and make a better (or corrective)
decision. This is magnified in year like 2015 when excess moisture ahead of seeding turned into drought
for most of the growing season, and adding to that the late spring & early fall frosts, we could find that
many will miss their production targets. Are you confident you were using the most efficient agronomic
plan possible? Will your “operations” costs be harder to manage with missed production targets? Will
you be looking under the “inputs rock” to find ways to cut costs?

It has been said many times that “you cannot shrink your way to greatness.” Cutting inputs for the sake
of reducing costs is “shrinking” your ability to generate strong revenue. Even the best marketing cannot
make up for lost production. Your priorities need to continue for you to be:

1. The most proficient manager you can be to build a strategic and tactical plan that maximizes
ROI, personal wealth, and family values;

2. The most efficient producer you can be to lower your Unit Cost of Production;

3. The most equipped marketer you can be to hedge market risk, and generate sufficient gross
margin.

By misplacing your cost cutting priority onto the critical facets of your business as listed in the 3 points
above, you would be doing more harm than good, despite best intentions.

Direct Questions

Where have your costs experienced the greatest increase (inputs, operations, facilities)?
In recognizing the 3 critical facets above that require your full investment (management, production,
marketing,) where can you find costs that can you live without?

How confident are you in your awareness and abilities to enact appropriate cost management
strategies?

From the Home Quarter

You won’t hear me condone a general prescription of “more fertilizer,” but you will hear me advocate
for “better use of fertilizer.” It’s not about the producing biggest yield; it’s not about producing at the
lowest cost; it’s about producing the best yield at the most efficient cost. And the most efficient cost
also refers to “operations” and “facilities.” The allocation of your finite resources to those costs also
needs to be highly efficient. As a banker friend of mine likes to say, “Your crop doesn’t care what color
your equipment is.”
…or how new it is.
…or how much rent the landlord is squeezing out of you.
The purpose of your business is to grow your profits, maximize your ROI (return on investment,) and
increase your wealth. Spending over $200/ac on “operations & facilities” costs will not get you there.