• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Voluntary Grain Pools Have Succeeded in Australia

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How Voluntary Grain Pools Have Succeeded in Australia

    How Voluntary Grain Pools Works in
    Australia

    In early August, three of FarmLink’s
    professional women grain marketers
    joined on a study tour of seven women
    farmers and grain traders from
    Australia. The trip was hosted by a cash
    grain brokerage company called Agfarm
    Australia, which helps farmers sell
    their crops for higher prices. Over the
    course of their visits and tours,
    FarmLink gained some very interesting
    insights into how voluntary pooling is
    working in Australia. All of the aspects
    of these contracts are workable in
    western Canada.

    The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) lost
    its monopoly five years ago, and was
    since bought by Cargill. Them, along
    with Viterra, GrainCorp, Glencore and a
    few other buyers of Australian grain,
    all offer voluntary grain pooling
    contracts to their producer customers.

    Agfarm’s voluntary pooling contract has
    some advantages over the others, related
    to the fact they work solely with
    producers, and because the company is
    focused on getting the best possible
    prices for the farmers who put their
    grain in the Agfarm pool.

    Here’s how it works. Producers can
    choose from a 5 or 10-month pool, and
    the pools are run for canola, wheat,
    barley and sorghum. Grain has to be
    committed to the pool within about 2
    months of harvest. Farmers can deliver
    to almost any elevator of their choice,
    as Agfarm has agreements with facilities
    covering 95% of the capacity across the
    Australian grain belt (about 300
    individual delivery points).

    Agfarm Australia’s policy is to sell an
    equal portion of the crop every month.
    Their focus is on offering out their
    tonnage to all their buyers, and
    extracting the maximum value possible.
    They don’t hold an opinion about short-
    term price direction or try to time
    sales into futures market rallies,
    instead they work industry
    relationships, logistics expertise,
    their knowledge of the local trade and
    their feel for where and when the best
    value comes available. Premiums are
    achievable by accessing markets
    otherwise unattainable by individual
    growers and accessing scale benefits.

    Agfarm Australia also offers a 3-month
    pool, which they call their ‘harvest
    pool,’ because it provides the most cash
    up front, including an ‘initial payment’
    made within 3 days of delivery (Note:
    standard grower payment terms are 30
    days end of week of delivery). Figuring
    out which of the voluntary pool option
    to use hinges on the producer’s
    individual needs and risk tolerance:
    basically, the longer the pool period,
    the longer the marketing window giving
    greater exposure to the market both
    positive and negative; whereas the
    shorter the pool period, the sooner they
    get paid.

    The payment terms under Agfarm
    Australia’s voluntary pooling contract
    are particularly attractive. On the 15th
    of each month, they issue a payment
    based on the previous month’s price. So
    if you marketed 1000 tonnes of wheat
    into the pool, and the average selling
    price was $255/t in the first month, two
    weeks later you would receive a payment
    for $25,500 (1000*10%*$255 = $25.50/t or
    $25500). Each month afterwards you’d
    receive similar payments regularly;
    almost like receiving a salary for grain
    production.

    Each month, they send a financial
    statement to all growers who delivered
    into the pool reporting sales to date
    and the performance of the program. The
    program is finalized prior to the next
    harvest, enabling growers to evaluate
    how the voluntary pool performed in the
    past year before making any decisions
    for next year’s marketing.

    www.farmlinksolutions.ca

    #2
    Well said.

    Comment


      #3
      Brenda well said but I have said it before. The presend board will flush the cwb before they allow it to work in a dual market. Just so they can say I TOLD YOU THE CWB COULD NOT SURIVE IN A OPEN MARKET.

      Comment


        #4
        apparently there a 52 different pool products from about 12 pool operators across australia.nothing wrong with company you mentioned but there brokerage is a bit rich,and many choose to pool grain themselves but its another concept.

        Comment


          #5
          I have spoke to a few board supporters in the last
          couple of weeks who feel the need for something
          different than the status quo. I think the board is
          hurting itself by maintaining such a hard line. The
          directors have quit listening and started telling
          supporters that their stupid if they think there is
          anything else than single desk. Good strategy belittle
          your supporters.

          Comment


            #6
            There are none as blind as those who refuse to open their eyes.

            Now close your eyes.

            What you see with your eyes closed... is what Chairman Oberg and his lost troop... believe we must see!

            Blackness. Nothing. Fear. Intimidation. Being lost.

            Surprise!!!

            All these sad somber 8 BLIND CWB Director folks need to do... is open their eyes and look at the great opportunities stareing them right in the face!

            Comment


              #7
              Tom: The current Board of directors was NOT elected to carve out a NEW CWB, they were to guide it under the present mandate.

              On July 31 of 2012, the whole board should resign as their position will no longer be valid. The government has not planned ANYTHING for the future of the CWB although they are responsible for its operation through legislation. They are going to cut it loose with hopes that it will just disappear.

              The whole transition thing has not been spelled out yet but already I can see chaos because Ritz and company are more interested in the politics of the whole shebang instead of doing an adequate job of planning ahead. They are like the proverbial "ostrich" with their collective heads in the sand.

              Comment


                #8
                wilagro, it's clear you would prefer the
                CWB monopoly remain, but like you said
                it's gone as of July 31st.

                Would you really prefer for the government
                to decide all on their own what comes
                next? Don't you want to have a say in how
                the grain industry runs in the future?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Wilagro:

                  I agree with you on the CWB BOD mandate being limited to the current organization.

                  If they worked on creating the CWB’s replacement, they would not be failing at their fiduciary responsibility to the CWB. If the establishment of the new agency was a threat to the existence of the CWB, that would be different. But I think we all know that the future of the CWB is not a function of whether there is a replacement entity or not. Creating a new agency does not weaken the CWB in any way.

                  I believe they could wear two hats – directors of the CWB and architects of the new agency. What a great position to be in. Knowing full well that the CWB is gone, to be asked to help design a new agency should be considered an honour and a responsibility to be taken seriously.

                  Where they are failing as directors is in the “save the single desk” campaign, which is not helping the CWB maintain its position and reputation in the trade, locally or globally.

                  I recently learned the CWB has not even talked to any of its customers about what is going on. No courtesy call, no “I don’t know where we are headed but will keep you posted”. Nothing. Nada.

                  Was there an edict from the BOD to the staff saying “thou shalt not discuss”? If so, the BOD is working contrary to the interests of the CWB – even if you consider its short life expectancy.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Second line in last post should read:

                    BUT if they worked on creating the CWB’s replacement, they would not be failing at their fiduciary responsibility to the CWB.

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...