Posts

scoreboard

Scoreboard

/2 Comments/in , /by

We’ve just come out of an age where keeping score didn’t matter. Everyone got a participation ribbon. No one’s feelings got hurt. Maybe we’re still in this age, I don’t know.

Why do we want to keep score? “Because we want to win” is a good answer. But what if we’re not competing against an opponent, what then?

Keeping score is a form of measurement. Whether you’re measuring progress or efficiency, minimum standards or ultimate goals, a measurement is required. In your business, you’ll find the most critical financial measurements in your financial statements.

I’m not much of a golfer, but I do enjoy the game. While I don’t get out nearly often enough, when I do, I always keep score. My playing partners occasionally don’t care to keep their score, and that’s just fine. I’m not playing to compete against them; I’m competing against myself. I know how good I can play, and each round I strive to match that, and maybe get a little better. For the record, I’m about a 15 handicap; I am looking forward to the day I break 90.

You may not view your business as having competition that you need to “outscore.” But when it comes to finite resources like land and labor, make no mistake you are in competition and whoever is leading on the scoreboard is most likely to win the prize.

The scoreboard in sports shows who has most points. The scoreboard in Monopoly is simply who owns the most property and hoards the most cash. The scoreboard is what you make it, but it is worthless if you don’t use it (and check it once in a while…)

To Plan for Prosperity

Run your farm like a business, and it makes a great lifestyle.

Run your farm like a lifestyle, and it makes a terrible business.

If I knew who said it first, I could offer attribution. The analogy then is if you don’t want to keep score, are you happy with a participation ribbon?

Free Land

Free Land

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

Getting farm land for free, whether it be purchase or rent, still won’t be profitable if operating and overhead costs are too high. If overall farm operations require high yields and prices to cover your break-even point, then you’re running way too close to the line.

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.

dashboard view

Dashboard

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

What’s on your dashboard?

If you’re thinking about your trucks & tractors, the answer might be anything from gloves to a coffee mug to a clip for the rifle.

What I mean is “what are you watching on your dashboard?”Truck Dashbaord

  • Oil pressure?
  • Coolant temperature?
  • Exhaust temperature?
  • Seeding Rate?

All of these are important, and no doubt they all get significant amounts of your attention.

What are the consequences if any of these go into the RED?

 

What about your BUSINESS dashboard?

  • Working Capital?Financial Dashboard
  • Debt:Asset or Debt:Equity Ratio?
  • Unit Cost of Production?
  • Gross Margin?

What are the consequences if any of these go into the RED?

 

Which set of gauges get most of your attention? A failure on which set would be catastrophic?

When I was still farming, the first day of seeding in 2014 had one of these go into the red, only I didn’t know it because the gauge failed. In short, the tractor needed an engine overhaul because of severe overheating. Did it break the farm? No. Did it make seeding extra costly, and take longer than otherwise would? Yes. Did we survive? You betcha.

To Plan for Prosperity

We tend to do what we do best, what we like to do, and what we understand. Understanding the safe range, the limits, and the consequences of oil pressure or coolant temperature running into the red is something that is ingrained into us as youngsters who were imploring that we be able to run equipment. Yet, if no one teaches business owners the safe range, the limits, and the consequences of running their working capital or gross margin “into the red,” how will they know what to watch, or to watch at all?

For an intensive strategy on setting up and monitoring your business dashboard, call or email me anytime.

Over-Optimism (a.k.a “It Can’t Happen to Me”)

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

Recently I’ve sensed great concern from some bankers regarding the effects on the cattle market because of this TB outbreak in Alberta. The effects are still not definitive but could prove devastating.
The fallout from this recent harvest in western Canada is still being measured. Creditors are in full disaster preparation mode so as not to be bombarded by voluminous delinquent payments over the next 5-6 months.

A valuable part of the work I do is to help clients make capital expenditure and credit decisions. After a number of difficult crop years from excess moisture, many farms have great concern over their financial stability and fully recognize that they have very little room for error. Pains are being taken to consider how every decision could affect the farm’s future profitability.

Many long term business decisions have been made on the premise of $12 canola and $8 wheat, or $2/lb weaned calves (as a kid, I sold my first calf for $0.80/lb.) Servicing debt on land and/or equipment payments during the high points of the cycle is easy, but as we’ve seen, the debt often outlives the business cycle.

Some farmers, especially those who are relatively new to farming, have never experienced tough financial times. They have no first hand experience of BSE or the 2004 frost; they know little outside of high yields, good quality and strong grain & cattle markets. Sadly, there are many who have first hand experience of those dramatic market influences yet have permitted themselves to have short memories.

I remember giving a presentation in 2013, in a community I won’t name so that I don’t shame them, where the audience was verbally angry with me for stating that we were a “global average crop, not a bumper crop but an average crop globally from $9 canola and $4 wheat.” They thought I was crazy because, in their opinion, canola had a new floor price and it was $12.

Regularly I am forwarded an article from some US agency (it varies week to week depending on who is forwarding it to me) that provides insight into the rapidly decreasing appetite for risk into grain farming from US lenders, or the sizable decline in land rent rates, and the reduction in land values. I often tweet these articles with the question, “Does anyone think this can’t happen here?”

I am encouraged by a shifting focus among farmers that centers more on ROI (Return On Investment) and less on size & scale. It bodes well with a saying (it’s not mine) that I like to lean on: Better is better before bigger is better.

Direct Questions

How do you view risk and its potential to affect business results when making business decisions?

Have you considered how a major market shock could affect your profitability, and if so, what have you done?

If your profitability will be sub-par in 2016, what adjustments are you planning to make for 2017 and onward?

From the Home Quarter

While no one can deny that “things are different now,” there is still much we can learn from history. Maybe the most important lesson from history is that major business-impacting events are very unpredictable. As such, maybe we should be more prepared for the predictable events so that the unpredictable ones aren’t such a major shock…

success criteria

Success Criteria

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

It is always interesting to listen to the variety of different opinions on how each farm views “success.”

For many it is measured by a tangible: number of acres under cultivation, number of combines in the fleet, etc.
For others, it is an intangible: family harmony.
Most of the time though, year by year success is measured in bushels.

Here is my response to a tweet just the other day:

Profit is always the supreme success criteria. Generally, I stop there because so much of the focus at the farmgate is primarily, almost exclusively on production, and it drives me crazy! But we simply cannot ignore the basic tenet of primary production: you need the bushels!

In the commodity business, and I don’t care if it is grains, livestock, oil, or minerals, the only businesses that produce commodities with consistent profitability are those that produce at the lowest cost per unit…period.

What’s the best way to lower your cost per unit? Produce more units, and in this case that means more bushels! Of course, the caveat is that you must produce more bushels without incurring more cost, or at least if costs must increase that their increase is not linear to (ie. less than) yield increase.

I am continually challenging my clients to find ways to reduce their overall costs. In an industry that has dedicated immeasurable amounts of focus on production, it is not unreasonable to admit that many farms are already producing maximum yields for their region, soil type, weather patterns, etc. Without further advancements in plant genetics, increases in yield beyond the average will mostly be achieved by the good fortune of ideal weather during the growing season.

Control what you can control (your costs) and accept what you can’t control (the weather.)

Direct Questions

How do you calculate your Unit Cost of Production (UnitCOP)? Do you calculate it at all?

How do you determine when the chase for more yield is no longer profitable?

What strategies do you employ to reduce your cost per unit?

From the Home Quarter

As read in the tweet above, “How about net profit?” Profit is the reason we’re in business, is it not? A business without profit is not a business, it is a charity!

Business is always evolving, growing, changing…maybe our definition of success should change too.

 

 

borrowing-binge

Borrowing Binge: At The Farm and Beyond

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Last week, I was emailed an article by Rob Carrick of The Globe and Mail. Carrick writes about Canada’s borrowing binge; no not our federal government deficit and growing debt, but Canada’s household debt. Let’s see how it applies not only to household debt, but farm debt.
**NOTE: Carrick’s article is below in italics, with my comments inserted in bold.

“It’s getting harder to see anything but a messy ending for Canada’s household debt binge.

This isn’t the beginning of a lecture on reducing your borrowing. It’s more a resigned observation of human behaviour. You can warn people to act now to avoid a potentially bad outcome in the future, but they’re not likely to do anything unless they see trouble dead ahead.

The second quarter of 2016 was a vintage moment in debt accumulation. Incomes rose, as Statistics Canada puts it, “a weaker-than-normal” 0.5 per cent, while household debt growth clocked in at 2 per cent. This is the Canadian way – keep debt levels growing ahead of gains in income.

On two counts, this is bad personal finance. Your household spending flexibility is negatively affected in the short term (you have less money to save, for example), and you’re more vulnerable to financial shocks ahead, such as rising interest rates or an economic decline that kills jobs. Clearly, most people aren’t worried about these risks.”

What risks make you worried about your debt load? Can you control them (ie. fusarium, sclerotinia, excess moisture, interest rates, commodity prices?)

“The explanation starts with the fact that we live in a world in which conditions for borrowing are as good as they can ever be. Interest rates are low and the economy, while tepid, is producing enough jobs to prevent unemployment from becoming a big issue.

In the field of behavioural finance, there’s a term called “recency bias” that describes what’s happening here. People are looking at recent events and projecting them into the future indefinitely. So far, it’s working. We’ve had low rates and a slow-moving but stable economic for years now, and there’s no sign of imminent change.”

“Recency bias” describes the not so distant thinking that canola wouldn’t go below $10/bu, meaning that “$10 was the new floor” (circa 2012.) There were many other behaviors and attitudes that came with that thinking. How quickly forgotten are the years of poor quality and inconsistent yields…

“Under these conditions, there’s no reason to heed the repeated warnings from the Bank of Canada, economists, finance ministers, credit counsellors and personal-finance columnists about the dangers of taking on more debt. And so, the ratio of household debt to disposable income hit a record 167.6 per cent in the second quarter, up from 149.3 per cent in the second quarter of 2008.”

Is there a reason to heed the warnings from ag economists, management advisors, and creditors about the dangers of taking on more debt….? Depends how much debt you currently carry. 

“Recent warnings about debt levels give us an idea of what could happen if there are any economic shocks ahead. The credit-monitoring firm TransUnion said earlier this week that more than 700,000 people would be financially stressed if rates went up by a puny quarter of a percentage point, and as many as one million would be affected if rates went up by a full point.

The Canadian Payroll Association recently surveyed 5,600 people and almost 48 per cent of them said it would be tough to meet their financial obligations if their paycheque was delayed even by a week. Almost one-quarter doubted they could come up with $2,000 for an emergency expense in the next month.

These reports highlight some of the risks of the borrowing binge we’ve been on for the past several years, but not all. Decades down the road, we may find that people didn’t save enough for retirement in the 2010s because they were so burdened by debt. Student debt levels might rise in the future because parents weren’t able to help with tuition costs.”

An interest rate sensitivity test would answer this question for your particular operation. But more important that interest rates, which in reality are unlikely to experience any significant increase in the short-medium term, is income volatility. The debt payments won’t change, but a farm’s ability to make those payment will. If the debt payments can only cash-flow when yields and price are at high points, there is trouble ahead.

“That second-quarter data from Statscan show clearly how deaf people are to warnings about the dangers of debt. In the worst three-month period since the recession, economic output fell by an annualized rate of 1.6 per cent.

The reaction of employers to this economic dip can be seen in the fact that income growth was weaker than normal in the second quarter. Consumers barely flinched, though. They’re impervious not only to warnings about the dangers of high debt levels, but also to periodic bouts of economic volatility like we saw in the second quarter. Only a big shock will get their attention.

There’s no point trying to forecast when a shock will happen, but what we do know for sure is that the financial and economic conditions of today will change. We remain in an adjustment phase following the financial crisis and recession late in the past decade and it’s far from clear what the new normal will be.

Things could get better for the economy, or they’ll get worse and jobs will be vulnerable. Either way, people are going to have to make stressful adjustments that they could have avoided by reducing debt today. This could get messy.”

From the Home Quarter

It has been well documented that farm debt in Canada is high. In the next breath, there is all kinds of spin added to the argument such as stating current debt in 1982 dollars so as to compare to the carnage that was beginning 34 years ago. Not to try to deflate the validity of constant dollar comparisons, but the cold hard reality is that existing debts, today’s liabilities, need to be paid back. Compare the situations all we like, describe how “things are different now;” either way, no matter how you slice it, current farm incomes need to pay present day debts.

So when I hear of lentil yields often coming in at half of expectation, when I hear of wheat and durum crops again decimated by fusarium, when I hear of malt barley crops grading as feed because of all the rain, I can only hope that those farms who experience such production results this year are not over-leveraged. Is this a hint of “the big shock” Carrick wrote about, as it would apply to agriculture? Or is that big shock something already on the radar like China slamming the door on Canadian canola that doesn’t meet spec?

The borrowing binge at the consumer level, as Rob Carrick wrote about, could have drastic implications on the Canadian economy; his words also apply to agriculture. We could be in for a rough ride, “this could get messy” as Carrick wrote.

Sage words from a 30+ year farm advisor: “Take your worst net income over the last 10 years and measure it against today’s debts. How do you feel?”

If you don’t feel good from that experiment, please call me or email for strategies to help ease the discomfort.

Overspending

Critical State – Overspending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control your own destiny:

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

Direct Questions

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

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

From the Home Quarter

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

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

go fishing

If You Are Happy Just Floating Along, Go Fishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Questions

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

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

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

From the Home Quarter

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

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

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

 

dichotomy

Dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

Now let’s compare a couple different scenarios.

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

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

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

One would be the envy of 95% of farmers.

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

Direct Questions

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

Which farmer do you want to be like?

What are you prepared to do to get there?

From the Home Quarter

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

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

Spending Less

Spending less is more valuable than earning more….

/3 Comments/in , , , /by

Let’s start with a handful of truths:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautiful!

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

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

Direct Questions

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

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

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

From the Home Quarter

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

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

It’s called a casino.