Posts Tagged ‘agriculture’

Runaway Land Prices Rational?

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

As mentioned in a previous blog, last month the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank hosted a farm real estate conference.  This gathering was the culmination and presentation of a year’s worth of research by the FDIC, the Chicago Fed, the Farm Credit Administration, and various other regulators.  These agencies wanted to determine if the steep run-up in land prices really was a bubble ready to pop, as some have suggested, or simply the result of market forces at work. Their findings were neatly summarized in this article by Marcia Zarley Taylor, Runaway Land Prices Rational, Regulators Now Say, originally published on the DTN website, and then republished on the KFGO radio website – www.kfgo.com.

In a nutshell, the experts confirmed what many of us have been saying for quite some time – current land values are not a function of speculators manipulating the market in hopes of making a quick profit, or buyers taking on excessive risk by heavily leveraging their purchases (a.k.a. the U.S. housing market).  Instead, values have been driven to their lofty heights by a combination of record net farm income and record low interest rates.  Yes, profits and cash flow have been the catalysts for higher land prices… a stark contrast from the market 30 years ago.

Since the fall of 2006, when the demand for land really began to pick up, one group I think that has been under-appreciated, yet a true stabilizing force in the market, is the ag bankers.  They have kept a close eye on the farm financial situation and provided the necessary capital for farmers/investors to complete land purchases, but only when these borrowers had enough of a down payment so that the risk was minimized.  Hopefully, they’ll continue to keep their lending standards high in the future and act as the brake to slow any reckless behavior.  Now, can you tell me more about that 78 acres that sold in NW Iowa last week for $20,000 per acre?

Projected 2012 Farm Returns Adjusted Down

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

In September, The University of Illinois released their annual estimates for crop expenses and returns for the following crop year.  Since that time, we have seen the corn and bean markets pump the brakes and slow down.  So, in response to the ever-changing commodities markets, the U of I has recently readjusted their projections (Reductions in Projected 2012 Crop Returns…) to account for less potential revenue in 2012.  In September, the U of I based their 2012 farm income projections off of selling corn at $6/bushel and soybeans at $13/bushel.  The updated numbers have decreased the projected corn and bean prices to $5/bu. and $11/bu., respectively.  The result is an approximately ~29% decrease in potential income per acre Central IL.

It will be important to keep a watchful eye on how this affects the 2012 farmland market.  With less profit, farmers will have less money to invest into farmland.  However, this does not necessarily correlate to a decrease in the demand in the farmland market, at least in the short-term (9 – 12 months).  Farmers on average will still have a profitable 2012.  Also, many farmers experienced a very profitable 2011 and are sitting on cash to invest into farmland.  From what we have seen recently (both at our own auctions and observing others), farmer-buyers are not bowing out of the farmland market anytime soon.  $10,000/A  is still the new threshold for Class A Central IL farmland, with some sales pushing north of $11,000/A.  As long as corn and beans remain at level to keep farmers profitable, interest rates stay low, and the availability of farmland remains relatively tight, the aggressiveness of buyers should remain.

More Analysis of the Farmland Market

Friday, November 25th, 2011

On November 15th, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago hosted a conference entitled “Rising Farmland Values – Causes and Cautions”.  A series of prominent economists, professors, lenders, and other industry professionals were invited to offer their view of the current state of the farmland marketplace in the Midwest.  Many of the  presentations can be found and downloaded here (Chicago Fed Ag Conference) by clicking on the “Agenda” tab.

I’m the first to admit that there are several different methods for discussing and analyzing the land value issue. Some experts have taken reams of historical data and neatly summarized the whole story in a series of charts and graphs.  Others have taken the more simplified approach of simply talking with land buyers and land sellers to see what’s been motivating their behavior.  When looking at the issue from this angle, it appears the biggest driver in ag land values has been the increase in farm income.  No doubt there are other forces at play, e.g., the risk/return of alternative investments, etc., but it still boils down to the fact that farmers have been making more money and they’ve invested a large part of their profits into new land purchases (or higher rents, thus stabilizing the returns to investors).

The future direction of land values is uncertain (though I personally feel that the rapid increase we’ve seen the past 5 years is going to level off) and I encourage all farmers and investors to continue reading and studying the issue closely.  But when you get to the point when your head is ready to explode from information overload, just remember the basics – if farmers are making money, land values will remain steady and/or move higher.  When they aren’t, especially for an extended period of time, then it’s time to get worried.

Increase in Farms for Sale

Friday, November 4th, 2011

If you look in your local classifieds section, or better yet, the Auction Section for an Ag publication like Illinois AgriNews, you will notice more farms for sale this fall than we have seen the last few years.  In 2007/2008, the farmland market saw glut of properties come on the market as landowners looked to cash in on then-record high prices.  When the economic problems hit in the summer of 2008, the activity in the farmland market screeched to a halt like every other market in the world.  While the residential real estate market’s problems were caused by bad loans being given out, lax lending practices, and overbuilding, the slow down in the farm real estate sector was primarily driven by a sharp drop in the corn and bean markets.

In 2009 and 2010, the supply of available farms was extremely thin, which actually helped keep the market strong.  However, in the last 12 months, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of farms on the market.  The main reason?  It again comes back to corn and soybean prices.  We saw the markets start to nudge up in late 2010 and then explode in early 2011, allowing more income to flow towards farmers.  We’ve seen farmers reinvest these higher profits back into their operations by buying land.  Farmers are not the only buying group, however.  Investors banking on a continued worldwide population growth (we’ve just passed 7 billion and are projected to pass 9 billion by 2050), are viewing farmland as strong long-term investment.  As population increases, food is going to be more in demand, which means the ground that the food is produced on is going to be more in demand.

All of these factors have caused farm prices to jump considerably the last 12 months.  Sellers who may have felt like they may have missed their chance to sell before prices dropped in 2008 may look to cash out now that their land value has come back (and surpassed the high prices we saw in 2007).  Unlike in some years, where some owners were looking to sell by the end of the year for tax purposes, sellers are not showing that urgency this year.  I think there is a good chance we will see a continued strong supply of farms on the market into 2012.  From that point, it will depend on how the commodities markets perform.

2012 Farm Bill Discussions Heating Up

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

Work on the new farm bill is beginning to move forward.  As with similar legislation in the past, various farm groups are submitting their proposals to Congress trying to protect and promote the specific interests of their constituents.  There is one big difference this time around… any bill that gets passed will be closely scrutinized for its impact on the federal budget.  Or better stated, there’s a lot less money to pass around now and there will be a special emphasis on making sure that funds are being spent wisely.

Earlier this week, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Thomas Vilsack outlined his priorities for the 2012 bill in a speech to workers in Ankeny, IA, as outlined in this abcnews.com article (Vilsack Says Farm Bill Must Improve Disaster Aid).  Aid to farmers affected by natural disaster, increased funding for agricultural research, and support for conservation projects were at the top of his list.  He admitted that USDA programs will need to be streamlined and easier to understand – a common complaint in the past.

I think that it is important to point out that nearly 75% of the existing $284 billion bill is used for nutrition, e.g. food stamps and school lunch programs.  Not that I don’t deem this programs worthy… they are.  But I think there are many people that believe that the Farm Bill only rewards the producers of agricultural products, without realizing that many of their friends and neighbors are also probably benefitting.

One important provision that likely will be eliminated in the new bill – direct payments to farmers and landowners.  While conceptually the idea of direct payments seemed like a reasonable way to transition farmers away from government support, the reality (especially with record high commodity prices) bordered on a public relations disaster – “rich farmers are earning record profits and still receiving government subsidies.”   This program is likely to be replaced with an improved insurance program that will protect producers when a true natural disaster strikes, as we’ve seen in Texas this year.

If history is a good indictor, then the final bill will likely be somewhat different than the pre-bill discussions.  And as mentioned earlier, the impact on the budget may be what ultimately decides the program’s fate.