Economists downplay likelihood of farm crisis

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

One of the flaws of an education in economics is that one can become an economist without ever taking any course in capital budgeting and/or investment analysis and, in particular, never once study anything about the vitally-important role of price/earnings multiples. On the other hand, anyone who:

(1) obtains a degree in business
(2) takes the Canadian Securities Course
(3) follows the investment strategies of Warren Buffett

enshrines these things and the differences between the two ways of looking at things show in this story, and glaringly-so.

When business and investment people discuss whether things are over-priced, the first thing to be analysed is P/E multiples - when ag economists get together, it would seem that P/E multiples are the last thing to be discussed, if at all.

More particularly, while there are many differences between the land price spiral in late 70s and now, the one common element is, or course, runaway price/earnings multiples which, presciently, became a cover story for one issue of Fortune magazine in 1979 - nothing has changed. Investors in farm land then, and investors in farmland now, all eschew any concept of price/earnings multiples when making investment decisions.

And, ironically, the wisdom of the investment adage, well-known to any commodities trader - "Things always look the rosiest just before the crash" seems to have been lost on this crowd as they, as if with one voice, chant the mantra that there is no sign of a land value crash. In particular, when Professor Weersink opines about there being no "black swan" on the horizon, nobody, except those who believe in the wisdom of P/E multiple-based investment strategies, ever sees one until it's too late.

Finally, I well-remember hearing the same "no cause for alarm" rubbish from the same type of talking heads in the late 1970s as they blithely ignored the same price/earnings multiple warning signs their successors are equally as blithely ignoring today

Sigh!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

So you have land for sale again to take advantage of the price ?
You know it does not matter what it is worth until you sell it !

FCC supports the loan policies of FCC. What a surprise!

FCC has the largest ag. loan portfolio, $20 Billion, an ag. sector portfolio 4 times bigger than FCC's nearest competitor. About 80% of those loans have floating interest rates.

How did FCC get so big, so fast? They used taxpayer's money to buy the market. Canada's chartered banks have been complaining about this for decades.

Unfortunately, every Canadian citizen is at risk with FCC's gamble, for taxpayers guarantee the loans and decisions of FCC.

In the 1970's, FCC's predecessor made a similar gamble as both farm land prices and ag commodity prices soared. Every time their farm assets went up in value, the bank started calling all the farmers, offering even more loans. When interest rates climbed in the 1980's, and commodity prices dropped, and farm valuations also dropped, thousands of farmers could no longer afford their loans.

FCC's predecessor went bankrupt, and Canadian taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

Here, we have FCC saying that FCC is very smart and has everything under control.

The warning signs are clearly visible to all. Interest rates will soon start to climb. Bond rates will climb even faster than Bank of Canada rates. FCC will (or should) be basing their loans on bond rates. Please fasten your seat belts, turbulence is expected soon.

A "stress test" of 200 basis points (ie. 2%/yr interest rate increase) is not much of a stress test. Canadian bank Prime Lending Rate (ie. the rate charged their very best customers) averaged 7.58 percent from 1960 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 22.75 percent in August of 1981 and a record low of 2.25 percent in April of 2009. Currently it's 2.85%, so a 200 basis point "stress test" is calculated at 4.85%, a fraction of the average interest paid from 1960 - 2015.

FCC is just as confident now as what their bankrupt predecessor was in the early 1980's.

We'll soon see who is right.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Do you actually realize or understand that Canada is a vast country with land that is used to grow and produce agricultural products ? You sound like an Liberal who thinks the food comes from a local garden and just appears on the store shelf every day .
Where were you when Thompson was towing his "Equity Trailer" around the province ?

Don't forget that FCC lends to all types of agriculture .

In response to "Do You Actually" http://betterfarming.com/comment/16278#comment-16278

Yes, I somewhat understand Canada. I have been as far East at Botwood Newfoundland, to Victoria BC, and the Klondike Highway, Alaska to Dawson City.

I understand that FCC is important to Canada. That's why it's important that FCC does an excellent job. Not too tight on credit, not too loose, just right.

My comments were based on the article above, as well as other research I had previously done on FCC as it related to the Supply Management sector for chicken.

If you are interested in learning from that research, you are cordially invited to review it:

I hope to learn something from you. I am not aware what you meant by "Thompson was towing his 'Equity Trailer' around the province" refers. Can you please explain in full?

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Mr. Black(and other readers) here is a link to a very interesting article if you have not previously come across it, if respectfully, BF will leave the link up. http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/overgrown-farm-credit-giant

Raube Beuerman

FCC is in the business of lending money but unlike the banks FCC should not be squandering money and making huge profits .

Banks are in the business of making money and they are accountable to their shareholders, as they should be.
As for the rest of your statement, please, read the article from the link I provided again if you have not already.

Raube Beuerman

Today, one would have to spend $31 for $1 in dividend income on average for top quality Canadian or US companies with a track record of increasing their dividends ahead of inflation.
In contrast, you would have to spend $60 for land per $1 of income.

A couple other things to consider 1) the tax implications on dividend income are superior.
2) Dividend income is obtained while sitting on one's a$$, while the other method requires work.

Now some may love driving up and down the field (I don't mind it either to a certain extent), but I can think of plenty of other things I would rather do.

Raube Beuerman

6 billion in increased debt across Canadian agriculture is substantial. I am not part of that statistic, I would fit into the category of reduced debt from the previous year.
The difference between now and the environment of interest rate increases of the early 80's is that the price discovery mechanism has been remove from the bond market. When central banks/government simply buy their own bonds(debt), it changes everything.
Aside from a black swan event, I don't see rates going up for quite a while.
One other comparison to note in this environment of low rates, compared to the late seventies, is the tax implications in that interest is paid before tax, while principle is paid after tax.
Are farmers really making any more money per acre inflation-adjusted than they did in the late seventies?
Realistically, is it mathematically possible that these loans will ever be paid off?

Raube Beuerman

When it comes to the purchase of farmland, and pretty-much anything else, farmers are notorious for believing the following:

(1) this time it's different
(2) price/earnings ratios don't exist and would mean nothing even if they did
(3) I'm such a good manager I'll be able to handle it
(4) my bank will lend me the money - how can it go bad?

On the last point, I "cut-my-teeth" in the early 1970s working for FCC lending money based on the income approach to value of farmland. If that approach was to still be used, and I'm one of many who believe it should, FCC would be lending somewhere around $3,000 to $4,000 per acre which would then give farmland a price/earnings ratio equivalent to that which might be earned on publicly-traded equities.

Further to that matter, one of the most-successful farmers I know was in business before he became a farmer and became a successful farmer by applying what he learned in business which was to never investing in anything, including land, which couldn't be paid for in seven years - quite understandably, he has been selling, rather than buying, land recently.

Finally, I'm going to venture a guess that none of the esteemed analysts at the recent seminar even thought about looking at the overpriced farmland issue from the income approach to value aspect.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.