FNA Announces Limited Partnership Moving On Fertilizer Plant.

[Hopperbin]

Ya I lost 30 grand in LAPC only to have a board member talk us all out of trying to save ourselves that we must give back to the bank so they can re sell and then the board member end up the owner of the new company yes it happens.

[TOM4CWB]

We need as many options as possible. Is FNA here as a serious player in the fert market with a large investment in infrastructure... to truly serve growers well with good value?

There are local folks that meet these criteria... that truly do deserve our support... My vote and business will go to... big or small...when ever possible; where value is offered our family and farm!

Cheers!

[Hopperbin]

Dogpatch they are not bad they are just making a buck. So why not join them?

[Rareearth]

Years back farmers were asked to invest in the
hog industry. Many communities invested in
tangible (depreciating) barns and yard structure.
Sounds good but... All feed was supplied,
genetics and or breeding stock, trucking in and
out, sales through marketing companies,
slaughter plants, retailers, etc.

The core ideals were there, control and
opportunity were not. Everything going into the
barns, and everything going out was controlled by
others, they would never make a profit. At best
they wound make bank rate returns and at worst...

For a nitrogen plant to survive it has to be small
enough that the farmer investors can take and
use all production , at a very handsome price,
don't offer product for retail sales, not to threaten
the big boys. Must have poison pill for the shares.
Make the plant scalable, original investors can
benefit through dividends on expanded production
and new share holders,etc

Been there're, done that.

[GlennCaleval]

Note I am posting under my real name. Dealing with a subject that could have such a big impact on real people working real farms, it seems to me commenters ought to be willing to stand behind their words.

I'm not an FNA employee and I cannot speak for them but I've worked with FNA in the past and continue to do contract work for them as need and opportunity arise. I'm also known as being very direct. So I say I come at this "once-removed."

One anonymous poster above says the FNA Fertilizer Limited Partnership offers nothing but "that they will be taking your money."

Which may be a misunderstanding from not reading the material on the web site (www.projectn.ca). It's wrong on two levels. First a "guarantee" is there. For putting in a thousand, FNA guarantees $600 in kind, either farm products or membership dues. It's pretty much unheard of to have *any* kind of guarantee on a seed capital raise. So this one is over the top positive for those who invest.

Second, what you get is a Partnership. There seems to be a willful attempt at misrepresentation by some in what farmers are being offered. If they put in seed capital become legal partners in the FNA Fertilizer Limited Partnership -- a legal, registered partnership.

If the partnership is successful in seeing the project through to construction, they will end up owning a piece of a fertilizing manufacturer with the goal to drive returns not just on the equity, but also on the partner's fertilizer purchases.

I look at this way. The farmers who will pull this off, and they will, will gain a permanent cost advantage over every other farmer in the country.

That's why FNA is playing favourites. It is restricting seed capital investment to FNA Members only. If you're not a member, you don't get to buy into the partnership.

If it were some kind of money-grab, they'd let anyone who had it put money in. But they don't want just anyone.

As for the other poster who preaches doomsday based on past bad experiences with bull or feedlots or whatever, isn't that just about the perfect formula for stagnating in your own little world?

I personally lost 10s of thousands when the "wise men" torpedoed Sask Wheat Pool from a multi-billion farmer-controlled company into first a buying-spree addict and then a sell-everything-that works junky. I could be just as negative as anyone.

But the economics for a fertilizer plant are solid. FNA has proven, with real action and real fertilizer that there are excess margins available in that industry. So the question is which farmers want to move their fertilizer line item from the cost column to the revenue column.

And for the fellow who is pushing for Canadians to be part of the American fertilizer plant ideas -- we're perfectly capable of doing it in Canada. We don't have an "SEC" but the regulators up here are just as tough. Heck, just look at the partnership agreement with its dozens of pages to satisfy all the legalese requirements.

I hope enough farmers get in on the ground floor that the final plant will be 100& owned by farmers. But if only a few thousand FNA members are willing to risk 40% of their investment, that's okay too. With BMO Capital on board now, those farmers will end up with institutional partners that will make it all work for everyone.

And, by the way, anyone who is serious about their questions or concerns, please go ahead and give FNA a call. They'll definitely answer any question you have and happily walk you through the whole thing. The only ones with anything to hide in this exercise are the people who like to see if fail before it get's fully started.

But they're too late. It's started big time.

[GlennCaleval]

Apologies for the typos. There doesn't seem to be an edit function available to posters.

[OneContinent]

Canadian farmers should join up with American Corn Growers. That plan is backed by U.S. governments. We've already got several million in state funding to start the feasibility. One big plant near the border can serve both countries. Government backing means a lot too.