Posts

canola field

Critical State – Debts Get Called

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Imagine, if you will, that it is a nice harvest day in late August. The combines are serviced and running, warming up to head to the field. You’re in the house grabbing a quick bite and filling your water jug before embarking on what looks like a long afternoon of harvesting. The phone rings, it’s the bank. They tell you they’ve made the decision to reduce their market exposure in ag lending in your area, and that you’ve got 30 days to “find a new lender.”

While I hope this is an imaginary situation for most of you, it is a true story for a client of mine from my banking days. It wasn’t my bank that “de-marketed” them; that happened years earlier, but it left a sour taste in their mouth. They had cash flow challenges like almost all grain farms did coming out of the 90’s, but their file was not at risk of going south. There was no indication in the previous weeks or months that their loans may get called, so you could only imagine the shock, the disappointment, and the anger at getting that type of phone call at the beginning of harvest. How could they find the time to seek a new lender when the combines had to roll?

Here are some terms that borrowers need to understand:

  1. Demand Loan: this is a loan that provides the lender with the right and opportunity to demand full repayment of the loan at anytime. While there still may be time remaining on the loan term, notice of demand to repay the full balance is an option the lender can exercise.
    Structuring your borrowing to include no demand loans does not guarantee that you wouldn’t face a situation as described above. Demand loans are typically listed as a current liability in your financial statements which makes your working capital look offside.
  2. Effective Annual Interest Rate: interest payment terms, specifically interest compounding periods, affect the actual dollar amount of interest you pay on a loan. Interest that is compounded more frequently will cost more than less frequently (this also applies to your interest bearing investments: more frequent compounding pays you more interest and vice versa.) Lenders are required to calculate and disclose the annual effective rate so that borrowers can have a standardized figure to compare.
    Consider 5% interest compounded semi-annually; the effective annual rate is 5.0625%. Consider 5% compounded quarterly, and the annual effective rate becomes 5.09453%. The difference between the posted 5% and the annual effective rate in these two examples is the compounding interest.
  3. Covenants: as the term implies, covenants form part of the binding agreement between you and your lender. Breaching a covenant could put your total borrowing at risk of being demanded by your lender. Covenants can be for anything from minimal financial metrics to submitting financial reporting. Sluffing these off will hurt your lending relationship.

Direct Questions

What information do you require from your lender to give you more knowledge and comfort?

How are you being proactive in managing your relationships with your lenders?

From the Home Quarter

Receiving notice that your debts have been called instantly puts your business at critical state. While having an excellent relationship with your lender does not guarantee that you won’t be the victim of a corporate de-marketing decision (like my former clients above,) it will put you at the top of the list of clients to keep if there is ever a culling program initiated by bank HQ.

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

ag excellence

Musings from the Ag Excellence Conference

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Last week, I attended the Ag Excellence Conference. Facilitated by Farm Management Canada, this year’s edition was held in Regina. Touching into 3 days of information sessions, speakers, and networking opportunities, I was impressed by the quality of content and the discussions that arose.  The following are some of the major questions and statements of which I took note during the conference:

  1. Will continued population growth in developing countries be enough to sustain the price and demand levels we’ve currently enjoyed?
  2. Why do we try to hire the cheapest labor available but expect it to meet high expectations?
  3. Are farmers losing their “social license” to farm?
  4. Why is there such a low priority put on advancing business management among farms?
  5. Just how far can automation advance production agriculture over the next generation?
  6. Are our water ecosystems at risk?
  7. How will Saskatchewan land values be affected with new ownership rules taking effect?
  8. Are you entrepreneurial or intrepreneurial, and can you be both?
  9. Physical (crop) yield does not equal financial yield.
  10. Strategy is nothing more than a dream without a tactical plan.

From the Home Quarter

Unlike most agriculture industry events which focus almost entirely on production, the Ag Excellence Conference focused on business management. Attendees recognize the need to elevate management awareness and skills to help ensure the future viability and sustainability of farm businesses.
The questions and statements above were asked/stated explicitly, or simply implied during conversations. These points stemmed from various regions of Canada, and various sectors of agriculture (from grains to cattle, to vegetables, to dairy, poultry, and egg.) Everyone in agriculture is asking the same questions, and raising the same concerns.
Give consideration to each of points above. Do you have a thought or response to any or all? We hope to tackle these and other issues in the coming weeks of Growing Farm Profits Weekly™.

sustainability

The RISK 2-Step

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Here is a quote I recently read that was attributed to John D. Ingalls in Human Energy:

“The degree to which ambiguity can be tolerated determines the amount of difficulty
the individual can, and is willing to, meet and overcome in coping with the problems of
human life and in taking advantage of the opportunities life has to offer.”

Let’s make a few changes and see how it applies to business:

The degree to which risk can be tolerated determines the amount of variability the
business owner can, and is willing to, accept and manage in coping with the cycles of
business and in taking advantage of the growth opportunities that risk presents.

A good fair portion of any given week has me speaking with some very smart farm business owners,
lenders, and other business advisors. I continue to hear the same message: “guys (farmers) just don’t
understand the risk they are taking when they “

Risk is something every entrepreneur faces. We get paid for taking risks, and the more risk we take, the
higher the expected payday. Of course we all also recognize that the more risk we take, the greater the
potential loss as well.

But isn’t that pretty much what John Ingalls said above (or at least the paragraph I amended?

  • The risk averse cannot tolerate variability, is unwilling to manage cycles, and fails to capitalizeon growth opportunities.
  • The risk ardent embrace variability and cycles as opportunity to grow and expand.

The first step in being rewarded for taking risk is understanding the risk. It cannot be understood until is
acknowledged. Acknowledgement happens either when one steps out of his comfort zone and takes a
good hard look around, or when an outside party brings their perspective to the table, such as a
creditor, who might for example, change the terms of the relationship due to an inappropriately
managed risk.

Acknowledging that a risk exists, and recognizing its potential impact on your business can often be
difficult, scary, or even embarrassing. It can be hard to admit that we don’t know or understand
something that we (society) feel(s) we “should know.”

The second step in this 2-step, once you understand the risk, is to manage the risk. You’ve heard me say
many times “you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” which holds true for risks as well. Managing
the risk takes an understanding of how it could affect your business, measuring that effect and the
opportunities to mitigate the risk (think of it as a projection of best case and worst case scenarios.)

What does this all mean from a practical standpoint? Let’s consider a real world example from 2015.
Many growers were struggling on whether or not to apply fungicide to their durum. They were looking
for ways to reduce costs. The crop wasn’t looking so great (frost in late May and no rain until mid-July.)
The environmental factors that contribute to high fusarium were not as apparent as 2014.

The risk was the potential detriment to crop yield and/or quality from eliminating the fungicide
application to durum in 2015.

To understand and manage the risk, here are some questions that needed to be addressed:

  • How much damage can you withstand before lower quality grading eliminates profit potential?
  • How will lower grading affect ability to sell/deliver? (impact on cash flow)
  • Is there enough crop now growing to pay for the cost of fungicide if grade and yield are 100% protected? (cost/benefit consideration)
  • Is the crop at an even enough maturity to facilitate proper timing of the fungicide application?

Once these, and many other, points have been given appropriate consideration, one can make the best
management decision he/she can. In the case of the 2015 durum fusarium issue, some farmers sprayed
and still had toxic levels of fusarium; others didn’t spray and had manageable levels of fusarium. The
outcome is never guaranteed, but the process empowers you to make the best decisions possible.

Direct Questions

How are you determining which risks to pay attention to, which risks to manage, and which risks to
simply live with?

Even if you can’t dance, The RISK 2-Step does not require fluid movements or talented feet, but may still
require a lesson or two; who is interested in some “dance” lessons?
Are you risk averse or risk ardent? Knowing is important in being able to manage risk.

From the Home Quarter

Don’t kid yourself when answering the 3rd Direct Question above. We all know we need to be able to
handle some risk; my goodness, if we couldn’t, we wouldn’t be able to farm! But deep down at your
core, how do you handle risk? Consider this the “warm up” before stepping onto the dance floor for The
RISK 2-Step: truly acknowledge where your approach to risk lies, and then start the dance.