(By Jeffrey Stafford) With extremely hot and dry conditions in the
U.S. Corn Belt so far this growing season, the prospects for bumper corn
and soybean crops are withering. Farmers in the United States stepped
up planting this year to take advantage of high crop prices and to
return stocks/use ratios to a more normal level after a couple of
seasons of tough weather. However, Mother Nature has reminded everyone
that weather has the final say on crop production year to year.
We see the scorching conditions and rising crop prices as a potential
boon for some agriculture companies. However, our enthusiasm comes with
caveats. While a little bit of bad weather can be a major plus for
farmer economics, an all-out crop disaster has sent farmer cash receipts
reeling in the past. Our take: The offsetting effects of higher crop
prices and lower yields ultimately will determine the final impact on
farmers' wallets, and thus the amount of money growers have to spend on
seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, and equipment for the 2013 season.
Unfortunately, with Mother Nature holding all the cards, the
near-term outcome becomes difficult to predict. In the long run, we
still think weather will normalize and crop stocks eventually will be
replenished. Thus, the current conditions have little impact on our fair
value estimates for agriculture companies.
Crop Rapport: Lower Yields and Cash Receipts
Damaged by sweltering heat and insufficient rain, corn crop conditions
are deteriorating by the day across the Midwest. In its latest Crop
Progress report from July 30, the portion of the corn crop that the USDA
rated as "good" or "excellent" dropped to 24%, compared with 62% in the
previous year. Since June 11, the proportion of the crop rated
good/excellent has dropped a massive 42 percentage points from 66%. For
soybeans, 29% of the crop is rated good/excellent, a drop from 60% on
June 11.
Corn and soybean prices have responded by rebounding, providing a
natural hedge for farmers likely to suffer from lower yields that dent
the volumes U.S. growers bring to market in the fall. However, the final
effect on cash receipts is still unsettled. Since 1980, gains in corn
prices have only fully offset significant year-over-year yield declines
about half of the time. For example, in 1988, the yield per planted acre
declined 32% compared to the prior year, while average corn prices at
the farm level increased 31%. With differences in planted acres between
the two years, the net impact on total corn cash receipts was a 10%
year-over-year decline. Further, in 1983, yields declined 31% year over
year, while corn prices only advanced 26%. On the other hand, in 2010,
when yields dipped 7%, corn prices increased 46% and cash receipts
advanced 37%. In our opinion, a yield disaster in 2012 probably would
look somewhat like 1983 and 1988, when corn cash receipts declined 36%
and 10% year over year, respectively.
With a small data set and inconclusive results in down yield years,
it's hard to predict what will happen to farmer cash receipts. The
outcome for farmers this season will also depend on what higher corn and
soybean prices do to demand. A further price spike likely would lead to
feed rationing and harm margins for ethanol producers. Significant
demand destruction could pull prices back down later in the year.
Beating Around the Bushel
Our calculations show that at corn prices of $7 per bushel, yields would
have to decline to about 120 bushels per harvested acre for cash corn
receipts to shrink compared with last year's record levels. If we assume
$6 corn (which is more in line with the most recent USDA estimate for
average farm price for the current marketing year), then yields would
only have to drop to about 140 bushels per acre for a year-over-year
decline in corn cash receipts. Yields were 147 bushels per acre last
year, and the USDA's current estimate (as of July 11) calls for 146
bushels per acre this year. The 1995 season marks the last time corn
yields fell below 125 bushes per harvested acre. For soybeans (at prices
of $15 per bushel), yield would have to decline to about 35 bushels per
acre (compared with 41.5 in 2011 and the USDA's current 2012 estimate
of 40.5) to see a year-over-year decline in soybean cash receipts. For
reference, last year was a very good year for farmer cash receipts, and
even flat receipts this year would mean an excellent year for farmer
economics. According to the USDA, crop cash receipts totaled $197
billion in the U.S. last year, compared with an average of $172 billion
from 2008-10.
While our analysis shows that farmers' wallets are still looking
quite healthy, a number of caveats should be noted. First, with recent
weather forecasts lacking meaningful rainfall in the U.S. Corn Belt,
yield estimates could deteriorate further in the coming months.
Second, the impact on the individual farmer should not be ignored.
For example, Farmer A in Iowa fights through tough weather to harvest a
crop marginally below trend-line yields and benefits greatly from the
natural hedge of rising corn prices; Farmer B in Illinois has to totally
abandon his crop and rely on insurance payments, seeing a significant
decline in revenues and having less money to spend the next season on
crop inputs and machinery. With the ability of Farmer A to increase his
acreage next year limited by the land he already owns, the impact of
total cash receipt growth on crop input purchasing in 2013 could be
limited by Farmer B's depleted wallet. We have heard anecdotal evidence
that some farmers in Illinois are indeed contemplating cutting current
crops for silage.
Third, farmers abandoning corn crops could drag
down the ratio of harvested acres to planted acres. In the drought year
of 1988, 86% of planted acres were harvested compared with an average
since then of about 91%. If we assume only 86% of corn acres are
harvested in 2012 (the current USDA estimate is 92%), then the corn
yield per harvested acre would need to drop to 130 bushels per acre for
total corn cash receipts to decline compared with last year, assuming $7
per bushel of corn. At $6 corn and 86% of planted acres harvested,
yields would have to beat the current USDA estimate of 146 bushels per
acre for total cash receipts to stay flat compared with last year.
Lastly, it's important to remember that some farmers sell a portion
of their crop before it is harvested. A large planted acre number for
corn helped bring down prices earlier in the season, and farmers who
sold early likely received a price below the current levels. Thus, the
average farm price used to determine cash receipts is trailing the
current futures prices.
Certain Firms Will Weather the Lack of Storms
The recent crop conditions have not changed our long-term outlook for agriculture companies with economic moats, such as Monsanto (MON), Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (POT), and Deere (DE).
We think these firms are best equipped to handle the ups and downs that
weather brings to the agriculture market. From a valuation standpoint,
wide-moat PotashCorp looks the most attractive with a 4-star rating.
In the near term, bad weather and higher crop prices have provided a
boost to seed, chemical, fertilizer, and equipment companies. We expect
the gains to hold if demand is not destroyed by higher crop prices. With
higher crop prices and cash in their pockets, farmers likely would
plant another large crop in the U.S. next year, setting the stage for
another strong volume year for crop inputs. For example, in both of the
last two seasons, corn yields have declined year over year, but the
decline has been more than offset by much higher corn prices, leading to
higher revenues for farmers. Even if crops were to deteriorate further
and cash receipts for the current crop were to fall compared with last
year, it's not a foregone conclusion that 2013 purchases of seed,
pesticides, and fertilizers would decline. In fact, according to USDA
data, the drought years of 1983 and 1988 were followed by year-over-year
growth in expenditures for seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers in 1984
and 1989. In 1989, dollars spent on seeds climbed 8% compared with the
prior year, while pesticide purchases advanced 21% and fertilizer
spending grew 6%. However, it's worth noting that during the drought
years of 1983 and 1988, sales of pesticides declined (10% year over year
in 1983 and 8% year over year in 1988). We theorize that farmers giving
up and plowing crops for silage early in the season reduced the amount
of pesticides sales later in these years. As such, companies in the crop
chemical market could see some pressure if the percentage of acres
harvested to acres planted slumps further. Of the companies in our
coverage universe, we think Syngenta (SYT) is the most exposed to potential weakness.
For equipment, the potential outcomes look a little different based
on historical results. Although the recent weather headwinds likely will
lead to increased prices and higher cash receipts for farmers, we
caution that circumstances of increased receipts driven by reduced
domestic yields have led to lower demand in the past, as the
psychological effect on farmers of a "bad" harvest year can cause
reluctance to purchase. Most recently, for instance, the difficult
weather conditions last year led to a massive increase in cash receipts
(nearly 30%), but just a single-digit year-over-year climb in
high-horsepower tractors. As another example, rapidly declining
conditions in 2002 led to poor harvested corn acres as a percentage of
planting area, driving down production levels and yields; we saw a
similar situation in 2006, with both cases showing positive
year-over-year cash receipt growth but declining high-horsepower tractor
sales.
As a result, we wouldn't be surprised to see sales of farm equipment
show slow growth over the immediate future, particularly for combine
harvesters due to their reduced necessary usage in a low-yield
environment. That said, we think tractor sales during next year's
planting season could benefit from another round of record acreage,
potentially boosting volume for market-leader Deere.
Jeffrey Stafford, CFA, is an equity analyst for Morningstar, covering agriculture and chemical companies.