CBH & the AGC Offer. (Edited 21/02/2016)

Its been a interesting watch and listen even within only hours of the announcement an offer had been submitted to the board. Social media went abuzz and all sorts of views popped about. Some notable things so far.

WA Country Hour has had 2 listeners relay their view that the "emotion needs to be left out" and I was wondering who had actually got all emotional. Its early days and the offer will no doubt impact on not only the current business of CBH but also what ever they have planned in the next year or two or even further out if they have bigger long term plans/projects they're working on.

So this is going to take them quite a while to sift through and see how it even slightly ripple affects lots of diverse angles and levels of the CBH business. I don't know if a decision date was pencilled in but I doubt it'll be sorted in just one short week...maybe it will. Then all the computations, variables and possible outcomes will have to be looked at. Its a pity in one sense that some staff will be taken away from normal day to day work load, there will be a hidden cost in assessing the offer. Part of doing business, just a point often overlooked. Having said that, its not insignificant. It will be an interesting number to learn. Unsure whether the board will reveal the number and its impossible to do anything except dart board a number right now. At a guess, the cost to directors, management, staff, legal advice and lost productivity is going to stretch it out. Could be a $100,000 or it could be close to the million. Your guess is as good as mine but my guess is the higher end of that range. Its not going to be insignificant nor irrelevant. The Grower/Members will probably ask, but the members need to be aware, the directors have a legally binding thing called Fiduciary Duty. To exert proper due diligence as well as do the offer real justice they are going to have to reach out and assess it properly and fully. Members need to be aware the offer will affect the effectiveness as far out as currently planned future projects reach. Its not a simple matter, its a complex assessment that leads in all sorts of directions and impacts on returns in every pathway.
If its thorough, the assessment won't be cheap and there's bound to be some "in kind" costs that won't hit the calculations of cost the assessment.

It raises a few concerns, which is not to say its a great offer or a dud deal...just underlying concerns over some comments that are floating around.

1. "The directors need to look seriously at the offer and not dismiss it on ideological grounds". Odd concern really and shows some folk aren't aware of a director's fiduciary duty and the ramifications of failing to fulfil that duty. There is no safe harbour under the Corporations Act for failing one's fiduciary duty. That duty is owed, by the director, to the shareholders best interest along with the perpetuity of the entity. So if they decide the offer is in the best interests of the majority of members & is helpful in keeping the entity going then they will support it (and perpetuity of the entity is not keeping it co-op, changing structure can easily be supported if its in the members best interests). Now if the directors failed their fiduciary duty, they are personally, legally liable under the Act and could find themselves in a huge legal mess and huge financial loss. With so many of the directors being AICD trained they would know full well they have to make a decision and it has to be what a reasonable person would decide in the best interests of the shareholders. (Yes they're members but shareholders/members are interchangeable words)
2. It includes a "corporatised" change in structure or includes a change to a "commercial" model.
   Yes, but to be accurate its a change from a Co-Operative model to a Publicly Listed Company on the ASX. Its already commercial and we shouldn't misuse the word. Corporatised hides the fact shares are bought & sold which can and mostly likely will lead in a loss of control and a formulation of a Dividend Policy. Under the Co-Operative model, whilst its profitable, it doesn't make profits, it makes returns. Returns are used to deliver further benefits for the members, either by investing, lowering costs, return rebates etc. At present, no money is taken out of the pot to pay dividends to shareholders who may well include speculators, day traders, metro based mum & dad investors, institution, overseas competitors, Merger & Acquisition aspirants. Look to Wesfarmers and you'll see whilst many farmers did not sell shares after it changed from a Co-Op most shareholders are not farmers today, control is not ours and never will be again. Once listed, the control is gone and an additional war chest drain goes into dividends. Wesfarmers does no business with farmers except insurance (along with anyone else) and fertiliser through CSBP. It is not a agriculture based company, its a coal & hardware leaning industrial conglomerate. In CBH's case, members converted to shareholders with a tradable share and some money in the pocket up front are in essence selling, whether they hold the shares their allocated or sell them. They're selling control. Please don't be fooled.
3. Strategy is lacking -Unless you're on the board I'm not sure how you can say this. Strategic thinking is the domain and responsibility of the board & is rarely shared outside of the board due to commercial advantage. Strategic Planning is the role and job of management. Unless you're in the board room, you won't know exactly what the strategy is. And rightly so or you've delivered yourself to the feet of your competitors. I haven't seen the offer but one of the people involved with AGC did phone me for a very long phone call, unpacking aspects and concepts of the offer without going into confidential areas or commercially sensitive areas. Why me, yeah we had a facebook exchange, respectful but differing and while he was attending to brush fires from (un)Social Media I did appreciate his call and I think he's coming from a noble angle (no that's not an endorsement of the deal). Some of the aspects of business direction and weighting of domestic to overseas income was interesting. Some of these facets were deliberately explained in a fairly conceptual fashion which I very much understand and respect. Some of these, from the outside at least, appear to be able to be integrated into the business (in theory) without a change to a publicly listed company. I say "in theory" because I do not know the board's strategy or the viability of some of these possible new enterprises/investment.
4. Lack of proper skill set on the board
   Unsure how this point was worked out. I think it wasn't. I think all of the directors are Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) members, most are graduates of the flagship course (yes I am too) and some are even Fellows of the institute. There's also at least one MBA on the board. How much skill set is missing exactly? If you haven't got a particular skill, you get in professional advice. I have no reason to think that doesn't happen on the CBH board. If you haven't got a particular training in an area, it gets picked up in Director Performance Evaluation sessions any board should be having regularly. Its an ongoing thing, director education IS and ALWAYS should be a regular part of a board's life. I have no reason to think this isn't happening.
5. GrainCorp -
   Yes, that company name is not necessarily a concern, but the directors will be aware already of the GrainCorp group, its core business, its recent business history and its financial health. It may not have been greatly well known before the offer, it will be now.
   In a nutshell...here's were that is at as found via ASX website.
   a)  $1.35billion market cap (that is simply the number of shares multiplied by the actual share price)
   b)  Its just survived an unsuccessful take over bid by American giant ADM which looks to only have failed due to the intervention of the Australian federal Treasurer.
   c)  It has a dividend policy of paying between 20 & 60% of net after tax profit into the dividends. Even with that policy its dividend yield is currently sitting on 1.17%.
   d)  Then there's the Price/Earnings Ratio. It is not the be all and end all ratio, but it is a serious and significant first look ratio. Yes you should be using a range of different ratios when "casting" a company's financials but the P/E Ratio is a good first point of call. If investing, you get good value from 8-12, you get a little less value from 12 - 18 and once it goes over 20, well your value is greatly reduced unless something big, positive and changing is unseen on the horizon. No I would never invest in a company that has a P/E Ratio of 40, but that's just me. GrainCorp Price/Earnings Ratio is 60. To really craft out what and where the lack of value in their financials are and what exposure it presents in the event of a public float, well the board will have to be quite busy for sometime.
   e) Now this is just me and can be argued not really relevant to the offer directly but some of the proponents are ex CBH directors. If this offer were going to directly affect me I'd be grabbing all the Annual Report from CBH and looking up the directors and see what these ex-directors had in the way of sitting performance at board meetings. If they'd dropped below 80% then I'd think unless there were extenuating circumstances they probably weren't as serious about CBH then as they are now trying to set it up as a Publicly Listed Company.

So...there's no emotion here, not sure where else. Unable to deal with competition looks debatable, skill sets isn't because its supposed to be an ongoing process of continual assessment and improvement...and I'd like to think that the ex-directors were aware of this at the time if its a fact and wonder why its only an issue now. Hmmm? Its going to come down to numbers and net benefit to members vs net cost to members in the longer term. I'm not privy to what the board will be considering or how they will be considering it, but due to them having to know the seriousness of their fiduciary duty, I'd expect them to be very thorough in their consideration. As this will get scrutinised by the members I'd expect them to be doubly diligent.

According to the ABC Radio's "WA Country Hour" the board has a grower's advisory group and I'd expect they may get a better briefing of what decision is made and on what grounds. In the end, even if a number of members aren't happy, the directors are duty bound. If a decision was made that was in the members best interests and at the members wished to have contrary decision, if it were me I'd resign to be safe. That's because at the end of the day, the directors are legally, financially liable for any decision they make and any decision not made...because not making a decision is a decision.

Now whilst there is currently no emotion showing, once the decision is given members will expect a good explanation and quite rightly. However some of it may have to stay in a broad sense only or confidential as some information of the proposal may be commercially sensitive. That's going to be a difficult point for the board to relay because, I'm sorry, there are numbers of members who aren't aware how a board works and what a director's role, rights and responsibilities are. Its an area for the board to look at when the dust settles. Its this bottle neck of understanding that may be hampering proper widespread engagement.

Commercially sensitive is code word for cover up with some government departments of late but the directors should be well versed in what they can and can't say & I'd expect on top of whatever media policy the board has, the Chairman will be the main talking head on this.

Then there's positives if the offer is rejected. In a broad sense parts of the offer, for example where business focus should be, how charges are worked out and a number of others things maybe integrated into the business easily after the proposal is rejected (if and when). So if you're of an emotional ilk, be happy. CBH may well find improvements even if the offer fails or on the other hand, the offer may just prove to be too good to refuse.

One thing is for sure, currently a Co-Operative quarantines returns for the benefit of the members, there is no profit making via share sales or dividends and the customers and only customers can own and control the business.

Publicly Listed Companies can be share targets, can be owned by anyone and the owners will eventually be predominately be non farming people at some point. The growers are merely customers, providing an income for the shareholders.

Yes, careful what you wish for. I do think that whilst the offer maybe had to come when it did, there's a number of wider conversation that needed to take place first. Among them, what a board does, what a director can and cannot do, what are their rights, roles and responsibility...and exactly what does fiduciary duty mean and how is it that this a director's duty that protects the members/shareholders.

These are some of the things the Board and Management may need to communicate across to members so there's less confusion about director's rights, roles & responsibilities. Do most of the members know what corporate governance really is? Condensed and distilled to its simplest form its the systems & processes you have in place to make sure what's supposed to get done, does get done and what's supposed to not happen doesn't. The members need some basic education, raise that bar you raise the entire membership knowledge base. You narrow the divide, you bring everyone closer.

Interesting times ahead.

CBH - Where to from here?

Where to from here is a great question but even before that, establish where is "here".

Couple of things first...

"Co-operatives are important -
Co-operative and mutual enterprises are among the largest and oldest businesses in Australia. There are an estimated 1,700 co-operatives in Australia, most of which are small. However, in 2011 the top 100 co-operatives, mutual and credit unions in Australia had a combined annual turnover of more than AUD $14.7 billion." (*1)

Its worth remembering that Co-Operatives have a member involvement called "patronage relationship" where the members buy products, goods and/or services from the co-operative which they themselves own. Yes you'll note the absence of the middle man, speculative investors and a number of other stakeholders that may want to liquify their ownership for cash at any point.
Most often, rather than get a dividend you're more likely to get a member benefit that is quarantined within the group to the members advantage.

A public company you may have investors that include non industry related people just after a return on their investment, some want a regular high dividend, some are speculative investors that can of course push uncertainty into the field and sometimes undermine a share price. That instability can affect a public companies performance something the Co-Op is relatively immune from.

So one of the primary, not the only but definitely the primary differences is, where do the benefits go.

Co-Op  - to the members by re-investing into more enterprises to supply more services or product to the member...again "quarantined benefit" and if you don't use the co-op you cannot invest. Their share registries generally have annual or regular reviews to address lapsed members.

Corporates - to the shareholders. Either by reinvesting to grow the company to increase its share price (capital growth) or return a series of dividends to the shareholders. Its a profit making exercise and rightly unapologetically so.

But why are we using the term Corporates? Well its a funny thing and its used by Co-operative critics quite often. If you corporatize CBH you are effectively converting it to a Public Company. That may be listed or unlisted. I suspect those that actually do know they should be saying "Public Company" don't in case someone asks "Listed or unlisted" because that highlights possibly the real motive which is not competition or strategic direction based at all. What strategic direction can be achieved via a Public Company (Listed or Unlisted) that a Co-Operative cannot. If its raising finance or reporting mechanisms (that'll be the next stump up when challenged) then the board will be addressing that, not outside the board critics. You'll hear reasons but as with most of these things, want to find out more... FOLLOW THE MONEY.

I suspect also the members who are critics want it to be a Publicly Listed Company, so they can not only get an annual dividend like an unlisted company but being listed they can more easily sell their shares for a return and remain a customer (or not). In other words milk a quick one time harvest of the Co-operatives hard work over many years. In the case of Wesfarmers, not many farmers grabbed the money & ran but overtime with share buy backs new share releases to raise capital the farmers soon became the small minority of shareholders and today its a Hardware & Coal company if its anything other than a profit generating conglomerate. Yes, very successful but try getting an Agriculture based product or service out of Wesfarmers. It is to farming what Berkshire-Hathaway is to insurance. Its an investment vehicle, not the insurance company it was when Warren Buffett came along. That's fair & fine if that's what everyone wants, but be careful, there is no going back.

I suspect critics of a Co-Operative who aren't members view it as competition and see an opportunity to hack into the CBH domain, the market share and reap a reward. Otherwise its like a someone who doesn't own Wesfarmers shares slamming CEO Richard Goyder & Chairman Michael Chaney over the Wesfarmers share price. If you're not using CBH, you're not a member/shareholder why are you even slightly interested? Why indeed, hmmm?

Competition - apparently some think a barrier to competition is the Co-Operative structure. Its not, its primarily a pointer to where the money the entity earned goes to and how. Co-Operatives can compete with Public Companies and they do. They can out perform them and vice versa. Its a matter of the business case, not the company structure that dictates the market slice up.

Directors and the board - Interestingly, to convert from Co-Op to Public Company you'll need the membership to pass it. You'll need the membership to change the constitution (otherwise known as Articles of Association, or Entity Rules etc). You'd need to look at CBHs constitution to see what percentage is required. If it fails, how are you failed?

Well there is no market dominance these days, well no monopoly that is. You can build your own on farm storage, road train it to who ever you want to sell it to. Sometimes using CBH infrastructure anyway. But there is no monopoly breaking by conversion here either.

If it is converted, chances are most of the board will stay on. So if you're talking about a problematic board, then wouldn't you fix the board, not change the structure? I'm not sure there is a board problem, none greater or worse than any other board.

Either way, directors are directors are directors. They have a fiduciary duty, they owe that to the organisation and the members/shareholders. The terms "members" and "shareholders" are interchangeable but the fiduciary duty is the same. If you have a problem with directors & you think they're failing you under the Corporations Act...just speak up. Who is and how?

Hmmm...dead silence.

The one destination we seem to return to is...where's the money go.

Co-Op into quarantining benefits for the members.

Public company profits go to re-investing into the business and where possible and prudent paying a dividend with the ability to opt out by selling shares. Which is fair if that's what the majority of members want. Conversion of shares will require an up to date share registry, a complete tally of Co-Operatives net worth and a share price will be determined. Think its the same old song, gimme a cheque, don't care about the Co-Op. Then there's the other thing that's just happened.

Six months out of the job and Neil Wandel wants to publicly make a judgement on the board?

Re the board having no or poor strategy as per the recent comments of past Chairman Neil Wandel...

Does that position, if its correct happen ONLY JUST since he left 6 months ago or was it a long term issue that he as chairman for 5 years was ill equipped to affect change and improvement. If the problem only appeared since he left then he's either guessing or has access to a director who's happy to be leaking him information which is confidential board knowledge. Ironically that would be a big board problem but I suspect he's just firing a salvo of sour grapes. He peeled stripes off the board suggesting it was a poor board at some stage during his career, worst ever he said. Well he was in charge of it, he was steering it, he was over seeing the performance reviews (if there were any) and he was to ensure improvements yet failed to try or deliver. If that's not right he's reflecting on a time 6 years ago or more or he's reflecting on the last 6 or so months. There's no other options. I do wish he'd clarify. Actually I don't. His comments are poor behaviour from a person who is supposed to be a seasoned director and chairman yet he's sounding quite the utter buffoon.

Neil's comments last August reflect a person, an outgoing chairman who may have failed to display or understand the proper duties of a director and a chairman by making these comments just as he was exiting the position.

"Do some homework and if you come to the conclusion that you'd be happy for that person to manage your personal farm business for three years by all means vote for them. In my time at CBH, the directors who passed that test have been some of the best directors in the board's history."  Mr Wandel said he was very fortunate to have been a part of what he believed to be the second best board that CBH had ever had.

He considers the Mick Gayfer-led board which decided to build the Kwinana port terminal the best the co-operative had ever seen.  "I've also been a part of what I consider to be the worst board in the co-op's history," Mr Wandel said (*2)

He never actually said which was the worst board, but Mick Gayfer's time was the best & Neil's (one of them) was the second best and another of Neil's was the worst. Critiquing the board's performance upon exiting is never he sign of a good chairman nor a good director. I have to agree with Neil's admission, he probably was part of the worst board in CBH history but people will differ on which one that was. More likely he's one of the poorer directors the Co-Op ever had. You have to be to make such comments.

Any talks with Mr Wandel about the potential for CBH's east coast investment and the timing of the decision during the interview were off the table. (*3)

That's from the same article and it was off the table for very good reason. Its board business that stays within the board...just like board performance reviews or opinions. If Neil was on the board 12 years, chairman for the last 5 and the 2nd best board and the worst board were in his time...either he was chairman of (in his opinion) of the worst board ever (which is reflective of his long running unsuitability of being chairman...an admission of sorts) or it was in the first 7 years of being on the board which is old news and not relevant nor worth mentioning. That leaves a few past Chairmen with a huge cloud over their head of being utterly inept and CBH's worst according to Neil...or Neil's making an admission it was under his leadership the board was at its worst. Hmmm, he's left us with much speculation.

Whatever the case, inappropriate comments. Entirely, which sadly self soil a long career at CBH. His comments would be like a long standing director speaking publicly at Neil's retirement and saying Neil was the worst Chairman in CBH history. You just don't air that sort of attack and it would also highlight the directors inability to ensure the Chairman is everything they should be...yes if you can't get the Chairman to the level he/she needs to be, you should resign if the chairman won't.

In Neil's case if you can't get the board up to a proper standard, to the point they're the worst ever in CBH history how the hell were you thinking 5 years at the helm was not making things worse?

Curious comments by someone who was not trained by the AICD or if he was, forgot all his training altogether. I suspect he was at the end of his tenure because his abilities fell short of his aspirations and the required standards. If you're a director you should be engineering in an expiry date or obsolescence. Once you achieve the things you set out to, you should be searching for an even more experienced and talented replacement to ratchet the board up a further notch. Going "Full Brezhnev" and staying on too long, hoping for life tenure is a horrid mistake and is an Achilles Heel for the board and the entity. Possibly something missed by Neil.

Would I let Neil run my farm? Thankfully there's no chance of any of us being faced with that question. Thankfully indeed.

1. So Neil looks to fail on whichever front it is he's coming from. Ignore him. Nothing he says makes sense and is not linked to the corporate structure at all. Irrelevant. Fail
2. Strategic Problems of a Co-Op are fixed by conversion to Publicly Listed Company has been hinted at, never explained because Strategic Direction and Strategic Thinking is the Board's role...so add training to the board or change the board, not the structure. Fail
3. Competition is there whether its a Co-Op or Publicly listed. Its nothing to do with structure. Fail.
4. Motives for the change from Co-Op to Public Company are mainly the ability to create a net share holding and then liquidate to create a one time cash payment to the possibly crafty and deceptive.

Follow the money. Some are looking to cash in shares they don't own yet.

Stop & think seriously for a minute, what can the Public Company do that the Co-Operative cannot and who is it who want that objective? Not the majority members so far.

For more reading on Co-Operatives including advantages vs disadvantages go to...
http://www.cooperativeswa.org.au/
or
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/setting-up-a-business/business-structure/cooperative

Look at where CBH is right now. What is the change trying to achieve, will it achieve it and at what cost?

Or are some looking to smash the Co-Operative so as to milk a one time harvest before they leave the industry and deliver the entity over to investor, speculator shareholders not a part of agriculture.

Careful what you wish for, but also be careful you know what you are wishing for.

Sources -
(*1) - http://theconversation.com/the-misunderstood-world-of-the-co-operative-enterprise-6015
(*2) - http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/grains/wandel-retires-proud-of-cbh-achievements/2706836.aspx?storypage=1
(*3) http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/grains/wandel-retires-proud-of-cbh-achievements/2706836.aspx?storypage=3

Albany WA - Plans, Prospects and Possible Place in the World

The Interknot allows this to be typed and read, it allows others to vent their spleen, cry their angst and share their dreams, hopes and why the hell nots. Such is the joy of freedom of speech, however we all fail from time to time. We may forget that whatever rights we have to freedom of speech, we shouldn't allow speech that suffers from freedom of thought.

Where is Albany's place in the world. Well it depends on your view I guess and who knows who's right, there's extremes and opposing sides and somewhere in between is the truth.

Should Albany have a 5 Star Hotel?
Be hard to find anyone who thinks we shouldn't but to be fair, if you're a local living in a major city, with a 5 Star Hotel nearby how often would you stay in it? Would you stay 4 or 5 times a year, a week at a time? You might stay there, you might never but more than likely you won't stay there long nor often and long.

Their trade is the passing trade, not so much the locals. Which most people would think but perhaps wrongly some also believe "build it and they will come" which is fine in a Kevin Costner fantasy film but if that's all it took, we would have a 5 Star Hotel now & for a very long time.

Toowoomba, Ballarat, Bendigo. All eastern state centres, cities that have populations 3 times Albany's population. Its passing trade and tourist trade using accommodation are all far greater than Albany's. All have 90,000+ residents compared to our 30,000 and a bit.

Not one has a 5 Star Hotel.

The smallest city I could that did have a 5 Star Hotel actually has 2 and one of them is a Hilton.
Yes, Darwin. Population of over 120,000 and a passing professional trade and tourist trade that will dwarf Albany during off season.

OK, maybe not 5 Star, go 4.5 stars. That's Toowoomba. 4 star, that's Bendigo & Ballarat.
It seems to be, you need a big population, you need big passing trade in professionals (during the week) and tourism during the week and weekends.

Albany is a sensational place. Its a city by name but in essence its still a small country town by the seaside, with a small population, a 10 year growth rate of under 7%. The fundamentals just aren't there.

Airlines services - 2 regular big jet flights out of Albany at reasonable prices. Who wouldn't say no. Again, the ones who'd say no would be the operators. When one local said "If they dropped the fares 60% people would race to fill the plane". He is absolutely correct. At that price you'd want to run because the most likely result is the plane will not run a second flight such is the high loss. It suggests the profit margin is over 60% and after cutting it there is still profit. So, if anyone thinks there's a 60-80% profit margin on plane flights then its time they bought a plane.

Flights on the Perth-Albany run are not going to reach the peaks some locals think. The airlines have to run on business case fundamentals. They'll need a particular margin & yes I know there are times when the plane is nearly empty, but they have to run that flight with the regulated agreement. If it happens a lot, it affects their bottom line. Deregulating seems logical, however when you can't even get 2 airlines to place a tender for a regulated market, how will you get them in a deregulated one where their turnover is split with a competitor.

The best thing would have been to see the smallest jet possible, makes the flight time shorter and the flight smoother in the air. Problem is, on the current numbers it wasn't viable. In a conversation I remember saying "When Albany's population hits 100,000 a lot of these problems will solve themselves, although other problems will no doubt pop up. You will be more likely to have the critical mass for a jet service"

The reply I got was "But we have 100,000 people living in the surrounding shires so it should happen now"

Hmmm...yeah well to reach those numbers you'd have to include Denmark, Walpole, Mt Barker, Cranbrook, Jerramungup's population and you'd still be well short. Now more often than not, country people heading to Perth need to drive because in Perth they need their car to get to a lot of different places and to bring home things they need. Generally in these cases, its not carry on luggage size goods. I can't see a farmer driving from Walpole to Albany to catch a plane to Perth where they'll have to hire a car for the duration and then freight down any goods. The point is, when the City of Albany has 100,000 people its getting between Toowoomba & Darwin. A lot of the country will be able to get more in the way of goods in Albany.

In any case, whatever the crucial number is on the J Curve, we're well below it for a 5 Star Hotel and a regular well priced Jet Service.

What Albany should be focusing on is industry. Wealth creators that provide jobs and revolving income to feed family and businesses they buy goods and services through.  Tourism is great and should be encouraged at every point, but as a service industry its not going to be the powerhouse of economic drivers setting the growth agenda for the next 50 years.

We have no mines, no oil rigs, no gas fields and our Agricultural sector is suffering worse than some other adjoining or nearby shires despite the higher rainfall. The Forestry industry is still going and at end of 2015 the wood chip prices may have hit rock bottom and a gradual rise may be on the cards. That and several players have left the district and some plantations are being returned to pasture. But it will not regain the very artificial and unsustainable growth it was showing on the outside in the years before Timbercorp & Great Southern Plantations imploded in spectacular fashion.

And its interesting to see whenever the Planning topic is raised, its to do with in town pursuits like big hotels, air flight services, tourism and a number of other very city or inner city centric themes.
No one mentions how the LPS1 has reduced opportunities for farmers to diversify their property to stay viable compared to the old LPS. Its to protect land zoned as Priority Agriculture, yet there's an enormous number of farms that are under 400 acres and therefore unviable. They can't be subdivided and sold, because that's being deliberately opposed by the council. For the most part rightly so for now. However they're stuck, can't farm profitably, can't diversify and if they can buy more land its in some places 4 times the price it was 10 years ago. Not viable.

So to get through, increasing numbers of farmers are getting off farm work, the farms are essentially turning into massive hobby farms and no one lives on the farms during the week. I do, but many of my neighbours don't. So on a bad hot day in summer, when I'm working at home I'm also on fire watch knowing none of my neighbours are closer than 30 mins away in an emergency.

What's an answer? Allow 400 acre farms to build rentals on the farm. They can be lower income than town, or higher with the inclusion of 5 acres per rental. This allows the farmer to stay on the property because he/she know has passive income coming from the farm allowing them to work on farm. In Michigan, north of Detroit it was very common for a 100 acre paddock to have as many as 6 rental houses. If you had that rate, or even less, they'd be the highest performing paddocks on the farms

Agriculture, Opportunities & Asset Classes

Agriculture sue isn't what it used to be. Once many wheat & sheep farms had free range pigs although we never knew the term free range. It was a handy sideline and a great disposal item for getting rid of freshly dead sheep or lambs, seconds wheat or sheep offal left over from a rations slaughter. Things changed and the unmentionable stuff would hit the fan were those practices widespread again.

In it opportunities arose as that door closed.

Thing is with Agriculture, as tough and as tight as it is something hasn't changed.
There is still a future for farming, it is, as always, a matter of who has a future in farming.

Old timers will recall "Get Big or Get Out" which was misinterpreted by many as a clarion call to be as big as you possible could or sell up. Essentially many tried to get big and ended up doing both.

It resulted (along with other contributing causes) in us seeing a term in the Farms For Sale adverts that yelled "Economy of Scale". It still pops up now & then and is still heralded as some sort of financial safe harbour. What does it mean? It means, pick what you think is a good or great yearly earner for a person...$100,000 taxable, $500,000? Is half a million a good yearly taxable income for one owner? It means the farm is so big, you can achieve that huge taxable income after costs, but it doesn't mention ROI or Return on Investment. That is also kinda important and whilst you can ignore it for a long time, you can't ignore it forever. If its an ROI of .5% then your half a million a year is as bad as a huge loss, its poor use of your net worth and it means you're so risky close to a complete wipe out and losing everything if your equity isn't 100%.

I also recall the phrase "Crop to a profit, not to a Yield" and still today many farmers still talk yields, tonnes/hectare. Yes its a polite public number but it doesn't really reflect profitability. In the old language I recall some farmers were making good profitable returns on "7 bags an acre" and some in better country were needing 13 bags to break even. Now most years they made similar margins to the 7 bag guys but they had a heap more flopped out on the block at risk with the 7 bag guys with less tied up in machinery and had very high equity. Some of the 7 bag set were seduced by the higher yield prospects and got bigger. Some kept a constant eye upon the other metrics and stretched their turnover and maintained or increased their margins/ROI and did very well. Some made huge jumps in dollar turnovers, took their equity down to dangerous levels with huge borrowings into more land and high cost machinery. Some got big, some got out, some did both.

Opportunities - Yes they exist. They always will but you have to hunt them down and select with a discerning eye. In essence, nothing has changed. When buying investment homes I once read "Look at 100 houses, narrow it down to 20 & return for a 2nd and 3rd look to get a more detailed assessment, then scratch it down to 10, put an offer in on 5 of them, negotiate hard on 3 of them & buy one, the best deal of the lot" - seemed like a lot of work for one house but it was just being very thorough to get the very best earner.

Opportunities are the same, dream up a 100 ideas and whittle them right down. That's what innovative people do when they're investing their own money. If you get down to 5 maybe one is a pearler maybe the other top 4 will end up being pearlers years later when things change.
Without doubt, the 2 most effective and most important tools or pieces of equipment you can have on a farm are quite simply your brain and your calculator.

Asset classes - I'm told there have only ever been 3 and there will always only ever be 3.
Property
Shares
Cash

A good accountant told me once to balance it out and have fair proportions of each, don't specialise on one only. When asked what was a "fair" ratio he said it'll vary and it'll also change with circumstances. But aim at 1/3rd if you can.

Connected to that in a separate conversation a lady from Jerramungup I met once was talking about farming and I asked her "I grow grain and wheat, what sort of business do I have?"

She thoughtfully said "Well you're in the textile and food business I guess, you're a farmer, you're in Agriculture"

I said "I disagree, I make my living from wheat & sheep, that's my day to day living but the biggest asset I have is the land. I'm in the real estate business. If I own a rental its the same, I might make a living being a land lord but essentially I'm in the real estate business"

It clicked with her and resonated. Its something farmers should think about deeply. Where is their net worth spread? All in the farming business with 4% in cash, 20% in cash or...?

Can you imagine having $5million in a farm, $5million in shares and $5million in cash? Ahhh personally I can't, but if I were on a broad acre farm still THAT would be the aim. It would take a long time getting there, it would take some innovative and at times brave decision making but time does help.
If you did make that magic mix at that magic level it doesn't take a lot to realise you now have an awful lot of passive income at your disposal. 2 of the asset classes, shares and cash, can be moved and converted fairly easily, fairly quickly, especially compared to property. In any case increasing your equity is a big aim, so is increasing your margins, your profitability.

And some people still chase big yields, big turnovers and ignore the fundamentals.

Its worth stating I think the more off farm income you have the better and I never understood why governments didn't try to encourage or reward those who did aim to build off farm income. If ever there was a rewarding way to drought proof the farm that's it.

Many farmers will never get there, but I think the lofty idea of having a minimum of 1/3rd of your income coming from off farm is a good idea. In any case, making every post a winner is essential but if its all work, hard graft and stress...you're doing it wrong.

Interesting to see how many people have dreams without plans.

Concession Permit Scheme

Why is it so difficult, is no one pushing for it?
A cheaper form of licencing for motor vehicles that are older and driven less. In South Australia they have a scheme where you have 90 days in which to drive your nominated vehicle, but you have to keep a log book.

In short, the car is licenced for 90 days of the year. If you get pulled over, you pull out your log book for the police to inspect and you're fine to go. Simple.

In Victoria you'll sometimes see number plates with red background and white lettering that usually have SR and numbers or H and numbers. Its their limited use permit scheme. The VicRoads website has a good deal of detail on it including the odd part about crossing state borders. I was told it has changed but at as I type (Jan 17th 2016)the website states that the plates are recognised in every state of Australia, except W.A.

To drive to WA the owner will have to contact the Licencing Department and arrange a club permit and that a fee may apply.

In an age of interstate harmonisation of legislation, this one's a no go. With the ASRF Nationals approaching fast entrants need to be aware of the limitations of SR & H plates out of Victoria. If they don't get the permit they will be deemed to be driving an unregistered/unlicensed motor vehicle. I'm thinking all your 3rd party gone and very possibly all insurance gone for not having complied with the law. If you're heading to WA, check with the ASRF and don't be relaxed check with the WA Dept of Transport.

And now... New South Wales is having a go at it.
Now one of the barriers to gathering support for such a scheme here has been from some rodders. Some who said look if you push for that we'll lose all rego for hot rods.

I get what they're saying, I just have no idea what that's based upon and how likely that is. Their contention is vehicles under the National Street Rod Guidelines would be deregistered if we pushed for a limited use log book scheme.

Now if you look up the Guidelines, go to the index and you'll find a section listed as the scope and introduction. You'll soon see that passing the guidelines is not guarantee of getting rego. You'll find that the guidelines are actually a guidelines of achieved roadworthiness. In that regard the system is working well and I wouldn't want to see it abolished.

Thing is NSW is introducing a 2 year trial for cars 30 years and older. First stage is historic cars in standard form. Second stage is modified cars. Modified cars will include any vehicle that passes NSRG. So any registered hot rod can jump over to the club system.

It hasn't been determined if this means and end to yearly inspections for hot rods. That may continue.
It does put a lot more responsibility upon clubs to administer their members vehicles to ensure they're all complying with the rules...which is very fair enough.

Could it mean the TAC in WA might lose the ability to gain constant stream of inspections each month? Not sure. In this case the fiduciary duty the ASRF has is to the members and if there's more benefit to the member by keeping the inspections, so be it. If there's more benefit for their members to push for a dropping of inspections so be it. They cannot decide that they need to protect an income stream and therefore keep inspections. Early days of an option not even on the table here. The department may require inspections. We'll just have to see what NSW does.

In any case, the only barrier to WA taking up such a scheme is lack of push and old guard with anti change syndrome. That and bureaucrats because its quite obvious no such barriers exist in NSW.

Benefits? Well you insurance and costs are for days you actually drive it, not whilst its parked. You might be able to negotiate a lower premium because more of the year is same as laid up insurance.

Now if you own 3 eligible cars things just got even better. For the price of one normal rego fee you could have 4 or more cars on the permit scheme and realistically, if you have that many cars you can't use up all your combined days anyway. You'd be mad if you didn't take the option...of you're just inclined to give the government more money than its entitled to.

And that's the other thing...its optional. If your hot rod is your every day commute to work, stay with 365 day rego. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

Here, check this video and hopefully ASRF reps will start pushing for this in the states with no scheme like (we think) Tasmania, WA, Queensland, ACT & the NT.

That'd be nice. Here's the video of the NSW Transport minister explaining the trial in Parliament.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registr ... video.html

GM or GM Free Grain or something else?

Not uncommon for a topic to get so polarising, where views are formed and so tightly held by the individuals on respective sides that change is hardly likely. Is a solution possible. Yes. But we'd need intervention from progressive thinking, lateral thinking problem solvers. Sounds easy but you need more than impartial hired thinkers rolling into town and solving the problem. You need them and you then need all other stakeholders involved coming front and centre with the least amount of bias and looking at the problems, looking at the levels of solution they'd need to be happy.

One of the first parts is... Is GM Bad For You? Here's why we'd need a relatively impartial and independent person or persons to sit over the facts first and make a range of recommendations. Why? Because 10 minutes of Dr Google can find you great volumes of "evidential scientific facts" to suit which ever side you're from. A lot of it needs filtering out so we can determine a few things. Lets just use cereals for debate's sake.

1) What harm is expected from consuming GM cereals
2) How likely is this with what doses?
3) Do we have any independent data?

I ask this because imagine we have 3 piles of wheat. A tonne of GM wheat, a tonne of GM Free wheat and a tonne of 50/50 GM/GM Free wheat. Now set about making processed products from them. Make a range of products from the 3 piles of grain. Now we have sample data points to assess. Now we have all 3 types of each product ready to be tested. Test away.

See what is differing between them, is there a detectable difference?
If so what is the difference and how will that affect people who consume it?
Is it harmful and how harmful is it?

If we get no detectable difference or an extremely low level of difference and an exceedingly low chance of negative outcome for a consumer we have the problem half solved.

For one, the level of harm being negligible we know straight away cross contamination isn't such a big deal and if its non detectable in differences, we know we can have 30-50% contamination before it makes any difference. Segregation at the wheat bin just got a lot easier. Neighbours with only a fence and two firebreaks between the GM and the Non GM crop haven't got a huge problem anymore either. They ensure they harvest their seed as far from the firebreak as possible and both will be likely to be seeding & therefore harvesting pure crops each year.

Now grains will vary and sad to say some may not be compatible next door with just a pair of scarifier breaks between them. Some may have big discernable differences. But until its tested we won't know. Its to be assumed that the negative affect will be because a genetic modification causes some harmful compound to be present in the grain. What is it and can it be engineered out? More questions with small prospects of answers with proper independent government regulated science

The sad court case between two neighbouring farmers in Kojonup should never have happened, it should never have been allowed to happen. An independent political party that represents rural & regional Western Australians should have stepped in and facilitated a solution. Instead it went through costly loss of income for one, then costly court appearances for both.

Now a GM Free cropper is not going to plant his or her crop anywhere near the neighbours GM crop, whether its safe to do so, has huge tolerances of contamination allowed or anything. They just won't.

Now you can virtually substitute GM & GM Free for Certified Organic and Traditional non organic.
In this debate, one of the problems I've heard bandied about (again with maybe-science attached) is the chemical exposure from herbicides and insecticides. I've never sprayed for nematodes so I'll just put that aside. Herbicides are pre emergent and post emergent. They have dose levels of LD50, the dose required to kill 50% of a rat population. There are also half lives of various chemicals. Depending what other chemicals they come into contact with. Chances are no one is going to be killed. Negative Health Affects? Well again, we need some comparative science with a 50:50 blend involved. Plants that have their leaves formed and their grain unformed do not store chemicals then send it for final storage in the grain.

Some of the organic eaters remind me of gluten free eaters, most of whom are not Celiac. Most think they're getting a health benefit. If so is it detectable, observable and of significance or is it just felt that organic is better. Some organic grain processed into breakfast cereal is joked to have the same nutritional value of the packaging. Again, not enough solid independent facts, verified, test and sorted by independent person/s.

If only one smart person was told "You, go fix this. If some of it can't be fixed, work out a plan B"
It would be so good if certain GM/GM Free grains can have their contamination levels raised 10 fold (number plucking from air) the court case would have gone differently, someone may have kept their GM accreditation, no income might have been loss and the only difference between the 2 crops is an operational one.

Department of Agriculture WA would have 30 years ago had the budget flex to go seek out solutions. It had the staff, equipment, resources, know how and ability to do trials. We could have got an answer. The department is now at best a regulatory agency or an advisory stop off point. It needs to rebuild and be a part of the science. We need some tough bruisers & fighters who're keen to return rural & regional research to its previous long lost highs. Until that happens we have more chances of court cases and high court appeals to resolve issues that should never have ended up in litigation.

Now yep is the answer...the question did I make a lot of big bold fluid like assumptions?
Isn't everyone in the GM debate. Until we get some independent panel to assess and fund research there'll be pseudo science preventing progress and hiding that which is actually 100% safe.

Animal Rights/Vegan Extremism

I came across this and frankly I was stunned. https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/lets-start-shooting-animal-killers/

We see a half eloquent person sort of write a letter to a judge they haven't met yet explaining why its justifiable to take up arms against people who are involved in the consumption of meat.

It failed the Goodwin's Law test very early in the piece by drawing comparisons between his position with the non connected Nazi reign of terror. I always think its pretty disgusting and low when this happens and its the lowest trick in the book to find something of decidedly low point in human history and connect it to something unconnected to try and bolster a failing argument. Too many people died in WW2, on both sides. When the war was over it was obvious there were no winners just millions of dead, millions of grieving and decades of rebuilding immense destruction. Why try & connect that with my mornings bacon & eggs on toast with rich strong coffee with milk?

But there's a few basic points of contention that cause this persons manifesto to implode without hitting deeper detail that causes it's increased spiral to Moron-town. So I will skip over and ignore the long drivel about "animal holocaust" etc and start nearly half way down with something slightly less moronic.

1. "Even those who struggle with math must come to the realization that veganism cannot displace carnism when we are recruiting fewer vegans than carnists are having children."
   Its at this point the fear should be beginning to elevate. As an early sign, even if you missed all the distasteful offensive comparisons with a genocidal regime that one sentence gives you a grave clue as to what is ahead, and its not good. Its already turning to numbers, not reason.
   
2. The term "Animal Rights" is used. Animal welfare I get, stop cruelty to animals, that being the deliberate and malicious act of senseless pain and suffering. There's no need for it, it can actually make food production more difficult, less productive and doesn't add to profit. There's no need to beat or mistreat an animal because an food animal will be more productive in a shorter time if its treated well, fed and watered well and has the lowest stress levels possible. Here's where the fork in the road begins, Animal Welfare is the path that wishes to eliminate all un-necessary suffering to the animal, whatever its final destination is. If its roaming the wild, in a house as a companion animal, someone's pony that gets ridden in sport/recreation activities or whether its destined for the dinner plate, Animal Welfare is the discipline that tries to reduce stress, pain, discomfort and keep the animal in the best condition whatever the use or destination. Animal Rights elevates the animal to equal with humans and sometimes above that. Whenever I see "Animal Rights" mentioned I know its about the evil empire or at least a group who wish it were an empire.
3. The opposition of the concept of animals as property. OK, another sign of degraded logic but each to their own. The way to change that is via the legislature. Get the laws changed. There is no attempt to do that anywhere, no inclination to even try. It will fail by numbers and it will fail by logic. Hence I guess the next step is a call to arms and a call to cause violence to those of a differing view. Assuming they were actually successful at killing everyone who eats meat, well that's mass murder, genocide and the majority of the planet would need to be killed. Its a mind boggling thought bubble on every single level, from every single angle but the first angle is, kill those with a differing view. When did that ever become a way to do things?
4. Animal Holocaust - Sorry, I can't even begin to answer that without being disgusted at the thought of comparisons with the genocide unleashed upon the Jews and many other minority groups. Nope, comparison invalid and offensive on every level.
5. Is this wholesale slaughter of humans who eat meat to be extended to all carnivores or just human carnivores? Lion eats the antelope...kill the lion and all other lions who are vegan? The shark eats the salmon, kill all sharks oh and kill all the salmon because they eat squid and other small fish and keep killing down the food chain till you reach a vegan/herbivore victim and save them? Thing is, if you only kill humans and claim all the other "sentient beings" are just doing what nature does, well isn't that "Speciesism".
6. Capitalism? Oh apparently this is the big problem that causes animal cruelty. Short of turning off his computer, giving away all his possessions and walking off to live in a cave to live of gathered foods amongst the vegetation, the author is relying upon capitalism. He wants to destroy the actual system he's a part of. Odd.
7. Socialism ? Those societies murder half the number of animals? Says who, apparently the Armory author does apparently the socialists remove the profit factor from Agriculture. They will join the animal rights revolution. Hmmmm....ok...
   Ahh, no, fail, epic, epic fail.
8. Murder ? There is not a criminal code nor legislation anywhere in the world that has criminal charges for "murder of animals". The term is moronic. Yep you can kill and animal both legally and unlawfully but there is no murder charge. Only thing charged is the language with emotion to overcome a lack of reason, logic, fact or shred of validity.
9. Morality? Hinted at but odd killing humans who kill animals is ok. Not legally it isn't so all that's left is a moral defence. I know of know genuine worldview that is acceptable to mainstream society who'd be ok with the genocide of humans who are convicted of the charge of being involved in the production and/or consumption of food from animal sources. Which moral code allows this?

EPIC FAIL - EPIC FAIL. However the biggest concerned is if the author is able to recruit or attract like minded extremists, people of mental illness who think its quite ok to kill anyone eating animal based food products. If such an author influences just one dolt to harm or kill another human on the basis of that article its a tragedy. A good orator has the power to rouse fools to slaughter and I can't help but think this extremist is either a very mental ill person who believes their garbage or they're some sort of twisted sociopath who hopes to fuel someone else to slaughter just for the fun of it. Either way, we have a serious falling away of a part of society. Veganarchism is a real thing, its a real threat and if you see the term Animal Welfare don't panic, but if you see the term Anima Rights be very wary. Left to their own devices some seriously negative things could happen to innocent people.