Why when neighbors sell do they need cash from locals within days but give a foreigner years!

[oneoff]

There are various ways of taking options out on other persons properties. If you have not seen the complete sales agreement; it is possible that a relatively naive seller may have signed and accepted an agreement that effectively provides for the resale of the farm by the person holding the option; without ever paying a nickel beyond the "option".....And extentions may indeed occur if the "relatively naive" seller does not get in too big a hissy fit over what he now partially understands about what the original documents actually provide for.
If in todays "raidly escalating" farm land values; no new buyer is found who is willing to pay $20,000 more than the million dollars it was supposedly worth going on a year ago; then the strictly legal liquidated damages are the "$20,000 down payment". Its like putting 2% down to obtain a potentially double digit return in what looks like a strong rising market.


Could anything be more clear and straight forward.


For this or any other strictly private business to discussed in public it would be nice to know both side to the story; and the intentions behind everything. Perhaps it would also be appropriate to have the consent for private dealings to even be mentioned outside gossiping neighbors.

If this were tied to public business debate; which it is in an indirect way; then there should be stances made by farmer's organizations, APAS and all the levels of government; and the electorates at large. That process is best done through connsultation, spreading information and full debates.

Now that type of forward planning and concensus agreement will never ever ever ever be made in time to have any meaningful impact.

We have been failed........

[oneoff]

The second part of what should be asked is:

Would Saskxxxx or any of those who agree with him/her; do anything differently if they coveted additional acres beyond what they could physically farm with their own bodies and possibly those closely enough associated that they receive the full losses and profits of what Mother Nature and their own management allows to be produced on those additional lands.

What I'm saying is that there may be a fine line separating managers of "mega" indiviual private farms organized as a corporation; and some land holding investment company owned by a single or few individual.

Would there be concensus for the majority to discuss how we should deal will all those who are disproportionately tying up the world's land base.

The debate may bring out some pretty nasty comments that would come pretty close to our own homes. I would be most interested in the telling reactions of those who become offended; or may feel that they should defend themselves.

[oneoff]

Tell me how far off base this "mega farm" business plan would be....
Twenty-five dollars per acre would be budgeted for the provision of seeding annd harvesting machinery which would provide all "as new" equipment for whatever scale the farm grew to over time.

Labor would be provided for as the farm manager saw fit from a limited pool of associated relatives and increasing non-Canadians on a non permanent basis. Perhaps a full time foreman; but majority of seeeding/harvest busy seasons covered by seasonal Mexicans/exchangestudents/woofers/those who will put in some long hours for remuneration that Canadians have obviously refused to fill.

Unwritten agreements and understandings have been made that certain "quadrants" of expansions are the territory of certain expanding neighbors; and it is somewhat generally accepted that some sorts of competition are not in the interest of "neighbors".

At the scale the "real farmers" are operating; there is no one really dependent on the help of any of the "neighbors"; and no one even gives a thought to other than their own growth and present situations.

Everyone is quite smug about how sucessful they have been; and now that the township sized farm has been well exceeded; the top ten per cent are looking forward to picking up the remainder.

But darn, there is foreign competition; and it could be a formidable obstacle; and gee the federal and provincial governments are not as concerned about the rural vote and are musing about deceasing farm subsidies; and wow there is even some backlash from the consumer who sees there isn't but one or a few really involved in the meat industry or any other sector.

Maybe the final scenario is a foregone inevitable conclusion; but maybe also it will substancially scollapse and will have to start over to a great extent.

[SASKFARMER3]

Yes this deal is that! I still say my kids
will have all the land they want when
their 18 to 20 in our area. All the land!

[bgmb]

I have said it before and I will say it again. It is not the time to go after big pieces at these prices, a strategic quarter or half that will only come up once in a lifetime yes if you have the cash but not big chunks. Even last winter I thought we were at the top and I was still a buyer at those prices now we are %50 higher again. I am waiting for the bubble to burst and the investment companies to start liquidating before buying any significant amount. Renting looks like the smart move now.

[SASKFARMER3]

Wanted two out of the 9 last spring. We have
seen it before. Rumor is rent is 75 has just been
paid for 8quarters by our main farm.
I do agree if a quarter you wanted or two comes
up buy that. Waiting is tough, but the writing is on
the wall for these land groups.

[bgmb]

I would be paying the 75 rent before 2000 purchase. You don`t have to sit, rent instead of buy, be the land companies friend saskfarmer then you will be first in line when the time comes.

Or I could be totally wrong and land will double again !!

[mbratrud]

bgmb

I have always been a believer in Buy vs Rent, but youre right the tables have turned 4% on $2000 is $80 with no risk of being a victom of Land Bubble.

So I have changed my tune as of late to if I can rent land for 4% of the value it is far less risky than putting up half my farm as security to lock in historicly high land prices.

Time will tell what is right, and it's different if you have no debt and can pay cash for land. If you have to go to the bank and borrow every penny, renting is looking better all the time.

[TOM4CWB]

bg;


If the feds keep printing money... you know what the answer is in the short term. If Trillions out there... it needs a home... and GOOD farm land is the BEST investment on the planet.

When selling A closing date means nothing. They just ask for extensions. 20 percent down NON refundable is the only way to go... then the buyer has real skin in the purchase and will most likely finish the deal. I have seen deals with 50 percent paid off... and the land returned during the early 1990's.

One thing we know for sure.... history does repeat itself!

Look at Japan... they are the poster boy for where the world is going. 25 years of trying to inflate a developed economy out of a bubble! AND they are still going....

Cheers!