Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the financial condition and ability of farmer cooperatives to withstand significant increases in bad debt expense.

A unique data set of farmer cooperative financial statements that spans from 1996 to 2019 is used to examine the changes in profitability, solvency, liquidity and accounts receivable risk. Also, a deterministic stress test model is designed to shock bad debt expense and the resulting write-off of accounts receivable for farmer cooperatives. The stress test provides insights to the resiliency of farmer cooperatives.

Results find that farmer cooperatives are in a strong financial position, which has improved over time. The majority of farmer cooperatives are able to absorb a substantial increase in bad debt expense because of their sizable, retained earnings position. However, cooperatives that have significant profitability challenges do experience much larger losses, especially mixed farmer cooperatives (roughly equally amounts of grain and farm supply sales) and large cooperatives with more than $500 million in sales.

The stress test results suggest farmer cooperative managers and boards of directors could re-examine their credit policies and consider extending additional credit. Also, cooperatives should consider monitoring and identifying an optimal accounts receivable to retained earnings ratio, which is similar to how banks examine their tier 1 capital ratios.

The value of this study is having data that allows for the examination of the financial condition of farmer cooperatives over time. Also, having current data means the accounts receivable stress test results are more relevant and timelier. This is important because these accounts receivable are primarily tied to crop input supplies, and farmer cooperatives are a significant market participant in the crop input supply market.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the recent financial trends affecting grain and farm supply cooperatives.

Review of and descriptive analysis of current cooperative finance topics.

In recent years three important trends have become apparent among grain marketing and farm supply cooperatives. These farmer-owned firms have been rapidly investing in infrastructure, reformulating profit distribution and equity strategies, and have pursued consolidation with other cooperatives.

Grain and farm supply cooperatives are changing at a rapid clip to meet the needs of their evolving and growing farmer-owners. New research is needed to help these cooperatives meet these needs, and this paper identifies new areas of research in cooperative finance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the optimizing behavior of agricultural supply and marketing cooperatives in the US Midwestern states.

This paper uses firm-level data from CoBank, the primary lender to agricultural cooperatives, to evaluate optimizing behavior of 77 Midwestern agricultural marketing and supply cooperatives from 2014 through 2017. The study uses the data envelopment analysis (DEA) and the weak axioms of cost minimization and profit maximization to identify whether or not a cooperative is following a cost minimization and/or profit maximization objective.

In contrast to previous research, results provide stronger support for profit maximization as the behavioral objective of agricultural cooperatives instead of cost minimization, especially for larger cooperatives.

Traditional firm theory for investor-owned firms states that businesses seek to maximize profits. Agricultural cooperatives however, could aim to maximize profits so as to redistribute profits back to user-owners as patronage refunds. Or, they could minimize costs so as to lower cost of products sold and services provided to their user-owners. Given users-control the cooperative, knowing the primary objective of agricultural cooperatives will allow for better design of research and education programming.

Given recent changes and consolidation in the agricultural industry among farms and agricultural cooperatives, this study reexamines past work that evaluated the optimizing behavior of agricultural cooperatives. Changes in industry and the necessity to remain competitive from an agribusiness standpoint have resulted in an anticipated shift toward a profit maximizing objective. The value of this study is providing an evaluation framework, using a firm-level comprehensive dataset, that represents the cooperative system.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which agency costs of leverage are present in farm supply and marketing cooperatives.

The authors calculate total factor productivity growth of a sample of agricultural cooperatives from 2005 to 2010 and use regression to determine the effect of leverage on productivity growth.

The findings indicate that there is a small but statistically significantly negative effect of leverage on productivity growth. This indicates that, at the margin, the costs of leverage outweigh the benefits.

This paper measures the magnitude of what is typically considered an important financial transaction cost. The authors find that the magnitude of this effect is small, indicating that government policy should address other financial issues.

In 2006, the Farm Credit System released a report about the general economic and financial needs to rural America entitled HORIZONS. The objective of this study is to build on the HORIZONS project by exploring the opinions of seven Oklahoma Farm Credit Associations’ senior officials and load officers on the financial characteristics of different borrower types, their associations’ competitive advantage in attracting and retaining these borrowers, and the potential load volume growth for each borrower type. The results of this research show that senior officials are more positive than are loan officers about the financial characteristics of nontraditional borrowers. However, both groups agree that these borrowers provide the best opportunity for load volume growth.

Nonfarm small businesses are an integral part of the US economy, and access to credit is crucial to their success. In rural America, a significant proportion of these businesses are owned by farm households. The purpose of this research is to compare farm households that operate a nonfarm business to other farm households as well as to rural and urban households operating a small business; and identify key factors that differentiate these businesses in their access to credit.

The paper uses a unique data set to draw comparisons between farm households (from Agricultural Resource Management Survey data) and rural and urban small businesses (from Survey of Small Business Finances data). Each of these data sets asks similar financial, demographic, and access to credit questions. Combining these data provide a unique way to analyze the financial health of farm households that operate nonfarm businesses.

The paper finds that farm households with a nonfarm business tend to have more household income and assets than other rural and urban small businesses and farm households without a nonfarm business. However, rural small business owners as well as farmers were able to access credit more freely than their urban counterparts.

Many studies have looked at the farmer's decision to work or invest off the farm. However, no study has considered the impact of owning a nonfarm business on the financial health and creditworthiness of a farm household.

This paper aims to develop and utilize a conceptual framework to examine the impact of liquidity and solvency on cost efficiency for a sample of Kansas farms.

A standard cost-efficiency model is modified to incorporate liquidity and solvency ratios. Tobit regressions are used to determine the impact of farm characteristics on improvements in efficiency.

Results confirm that liquidity and solvency measures have a significant impact on improving cost efficiency. Farms with larger expenditures on purchased inputs relative to capital were less likely to improve efficiency when liquidity and solvency were considered.

To the authors' knowledge, the paper is the first to add liquidity and solvency ratios to the cost-efficiency model developed by Färe et al. for the analysis of farms.

The purpose of this paper is to identify relevant financial concepts and skills that are being taught and/or should be taught, as part of the financial management curriculum in undergraduate agricultural economics and agribusiness programs.

The skill gap analysis uses survey respondents' rankings of the importance and competence scores of recent graduates' skills. The scores help to identify opportunities for improvement in the most critical areas of importance. The skill gap is calculated as (Average importance–Average competence)*Average importance.

Generally, employers in the agricultural financial services sector saw greater opportunities for improvement in finance skills relative to non‐finance skills. The results also indicated a greater focus on business and financial risk might be helpful in increasing the competence of new hires. Finally, respondents strongly endorsed maintaining a focus on the problem‐solving skills in undergraduate agribusiness programs.

The value of the study would be that departments of agricultural and applied economics would use the results of this survey to enhance their financial management curriculum and their undergraduate program. By responding to the desires of employers, agricultural economics and agribusiness programs cannot only remain relevant as a source of employees for the industry but the first choice of agricultural financial services sector when they are searching for new hires. This should also help inform students of the desirability of the skills they acquire in their degree programs. This information will also benefit the agricultural finance services sector by assisting college and university instructors in developing and/or enhancing their agricultural finance course(s) so that the may provide their students with the requisite financial and non‐financial skills that they require.

Consistent and reliable data on farmland values is critical to assessing the overall financial health of agricultural producers. However, little is known about the idiosyncrasies and similarities of standard land value data sources – US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Federal Reserve Bank land value surveys, and transaction prices. The purpose of this paper is to determine the differences and similarities of land value movements from three land value data sources.

In addition to Oklahoma transaction prices, two survey sources are considered: the USDA annual report and the quarterly Tenth District Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions administered by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The paper describes each data set and identifies differences in data sampling, collection, and reporting. Average values of Oklahoma farmland across data sources are examined. USDA estimates are regressed against quarterly Federal Reserve values across multiple states to determine the point in time represented by USDA estimates. Granger causality tests determine if Federal Reserve land value estimates anticipate movements in USDA land value estimates.

It is found that all three data sources are highly correlated, but transaction prices tend to be higher, especially for irrigated cropland and ranchland. USDA land values are reported as representing land values on January first, but instead they more closely represent first and second quarter land values according to a multi‐state comparison to changes in quarterly Federal Reserve land values. Given the finding that first quarter Federal Reserve Bank land values lead USDA land values and that they are published before the USDA release, Federal Reserve land values are a timely indicator of agricultural producers' financial position.

No previous research has addressed the topic of how various sources of agricultural land values compare.

To identify periods of severe stress, and potentially take action to avoid or dampen their negative effects, lenders and policymakers need accurate and reliable data on US farm debt supply and credit needs. The purpose of this paper is to assess the current availability of information on US farm debt as well as its accuracy.

A review of the farm debt information and survey methodology of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

This manuscript examines several potential issues involving the debt and lender data within ARMS. First, the empirical results indicate that there is an informational break in ARMS beginning in 2000. Second, the paper presents evidence that the overall level of debt reported by USDA is not consistent with information reported by lenders for other regulatory sources. Finally, the paper proposes a modification of the debt question to improve the data collection.

The paper offers an external review of farm debt information in ARMS.