On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:12:34 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:41:55 -0000, David P
wrote:


If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

David, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

It is at this point that I will say that my view of profitability is
different to yours.

View? I am referring to observables, e.g. that noone has posted to
this thread any measure of UK farm profitability except it was
calculated as Net Farm Income.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:17:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , David P
writes
What, are we not talking about UK farm profitability in terms of
Net Farm income?

If I owned a farm outright I would be able to calculate my profitability
quite easily - why would I need to deduct a rent that I don't pay?

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably to
make comparisons easier.

Yes, and those figures would be Net Farm Income figures, those we have
been speaking from -- IMO quite appropriately for the thread, since
that measure exactly allows us to look at UK farm profitability
aggregated across tenure types.

(Since this is being cross-posted to uk.business.agriculture, it
should perhaps have been stressed from the start, that 'Net Farm
Income' does not represent the income a farmer ends up with to meet
his living expenses -- the Net Farm Income measure is not meant for,
and should certainly not be used to compare the income of farmers
with the personal earnings in other sectors of society.)

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 20:47:47 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


If you are not here to talk about UK farm profitability, find another
thread.


if we are talking about UK farm profitability what the hell is Torsten
so keen on GDP for, as it is a figure utterly irrelevant to
profitability.
Looks like Michael has got through his guard :-))


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 21:37:07 -0000, David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
The land value increases are relevant to this thread only to the
extent they have affected farm profitability, e.g. to which extent
land value increases may have increased the cost of renting land in
the farmers accounts, and thereby contributed to the low UK farm
profitability up to 2002.


I don't have rental figures

Income from let land, % on capital value
(Source IPD Let land index July 2002)
Putting the two together..

1993 3,791 5.4 204.71
1994 4,229 4.7 198.76
1995 4,788 5.2 248.98
1996 6,058 4.2 254.36
1997 6,448 3.9 251.47
1998 6,134 3.9 239.26
1999 6,655 3.9 259.55
2000 7,103 4.1 291.22
2001 7,357 3.9 286.92

Something is clearly wrong there. I guess the yields that you are
quoting are yields on values subject to tenancy whereas I have quoted VP
[no tenancy] values.

"The income return from let land has remained relatively stable at
between 3 and 5% for the past decade. As rents on farms let under
traditional (Agricultural Holdings Act) tenancies started to fall in
the late 1990s due to the slump in farm incomes, their replacement
with higher Farm Business Tenancy rents and income from diversified
activities on farms and estates has helped maintain and even increase
income. Residential rents have increased and land owners have
diversified into commercial lettings of redundant farm buildings.
It is rent from these ‘non-core’ assets that has maintained the
long-term modest growth in overall income."

Rents are certainly *not* in excess of £100/acre
under AHA's. Rents under FBT's do have a tendency to hover around that
level but those rents are not related to the productive capacity of the
land.

There is only a small number of FBTs in the IPD sample, they
reported average rents of £79 per acre, while rents on traditional
leases were £62 per acre. Seasonal grazing rents averaged £57 per acre
in 2001.

Umm - are we actually going anywhere with this or have we simply
digressed into an interesting exchange of figures?

Dunno. It seems selfevident to me, that high price of farmland must be
adverse to farm profitability, but we may well be just looking at one
head of a multi headed monster. It should be possible to quantify the
total effect and asses its significance. E.g. if it can be estimated
to amount to £5 per increase in rent per acre , that should be enough
to influence the profitability of the total operation significantly
when we are talking current net incomes per acre as low as those we
saw in the first post to this thread.

On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:04:13 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:17:34 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably to
make comparisons easier.

Yes, and those figures would be Net Farm Income figures, those we have
been speaking from -- IMO quite appropriately for the thread, since
that measure exactly allows us to look at UK farm profitability
aggregated across tenure types.

(Since this is being cross-posted to uk.business.agriculture, it
should perhaps have been stressed from the start, that 'Net Farm
Income' does not represent the income a farmer ends up with to meet
his living expenses -- the Net Farm Income measure is not meant for,
and should certainly not be used to compare the income of farmers
with the personal earnings in other sectors of society.)

In case there are Saxons hiding in confusion, a few figures to
illustrate the commonly used measures for farm income. If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
NFI 78 90 117 92 43 31 23 26
ONI 77 90 117 93 45 32 26 27
FFI 86 88 117 95 48 35 31 43
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

Avg. farm incomes 2001, all types all sizes
NFI £9,886
ONI £10,926
FFI £18,928
CI £31,462

(NFI=Net Farm Income, ONI=Occupiers Net Income
FFI=Family Farm Income, CI=Cash Income)

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news
On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:04:13 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:17:34 +0000, Tim Lamb

wrote:

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably
to
make comparisons easier.

Yes, and those figures would be Net Farm Income figures, those we
have
been speaking from -- IMO quite appropriately for the thread, since
that measure exactly allows us to look at UK farm profitability
aggregated across tenure types.

(Since this is being cross-posted to uk.business.agriculture, it
should perhaps have been stressed from the start, that 'Net Farm
Income' does not represent the income a farmer ends up with to meet
his living expenses -- the Net Farm Income measure is not meant for,
and should certainly not be used to compare the income of farmers
with the personal earnings in other sectors of society.)

In case there are Saxons hiding in confusion, a few figures to
illustrate the commonly used measures for farm income. If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
NFI 78 90 117 92 43 31 23 26
ONI 77 90 117 93 45 32 26 27
FFI 86 88 117 95 48 35 31 43
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

Avg. farm incomes 2001, all types all sizes
NFI £9,886
ONI £10,926
FFI £18,928
CI £31,462

(NFI=Net Farm Income, ONI=Occupiers Net Income
FFI=Family Farm Income, CI=Cash Income)

I suggest you stick them all on a graph and marvel at how all the lines
show such a similar trend.
Exept of course for cash income which I suspect will be your preferred
measure


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

On Saturday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news
On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:04:13 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:17:34 +0000, Tim Lamb

wrote:

I am not an accountant but I understand that published figures for
profitability often include a *rent equivalent*. This is presumably
to
make comparisons easier.

Yes, and those figures would be Net Farm Income figures, those we
have
been speaking from -- IMO quite appropriately for the thread, since
that measure exactly allows us to look at UK farm profitability
aggregated across tenure types.

(Since this is being cross-posted to uk.business.agriculture, it
should perhaps have been stressed from the start, that 'Net Farm
Income' does not represent the income a farmer ends up with to meet
his living expenses -- the Net Farm Income measure is not meant for,
and should certainly not be used to compare the income of farmers
with the personal earnings in other sectors of society.)

In case there are Saxons hiding in confusion, a few figures to
illustrate the commonly used measures for farm income. If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
NFI 78 90 117 92 43 31 23 26
ONI 77 90 117 93 45 32 26 27
FFI 86 88 117 95 48 35 31 43
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

Avg. farm incomes 2001, all types all sizes
NFI £9,886
ONI £10,926
FFI £18,928
CI £31,462

(NFI=Net Farm Income, ONI=Occupiers Net Income
FFI=Family Farm Income, CI=Cash Income)

I suggest you stick them all on a graph and marvel at how all the lines
show such a similar trend.
Exept of course for cash income which I suspect will be your preferred
measure

So just what _is_ "cash income"?

It's not a term I'm familiar with, and I can't even guess at how it's
derived.

And what is Torsten's source?



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:23:51 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Saturday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news
In case there are Saxons hiding in confusion, a few figures to
illustrate the commonly used measures for farm income. If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
NFI 78 90 117 92 43 31 23 26
ONI 77 90 117 93 45 32 26 27
FFI 86 88 117 95 48 35 31 43
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

Avg. farm incomes 2001, all types all sizes
NFI £9,886
ONI £10,926
FFI £18,928
CI £31,462

(NFI=Net Farm Income, ONI=Occupiers Net Income
FFI=Family Farm Income, CI=Cash Income)

I suggest you stick them all on a graph and marvel at how all the lines
show such a similar trend.
Exept of course for cash income which I suspect will be your preferred
measure

what a maroon

So just what _is_ "cash income"?
It's not a term I'm familiar with, and I can't even guess at how it's
derived. And what is Torsten's source?

Farm accounts book, latest edition.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/Work_htm...cf/fab/fab.htm

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:11:26 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:23:51 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Saturday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news ..If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 ..
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
CI £39452 £43448 £53435 £52437 £40951 £35457 £32960 £31462

The avg income earner in UK had £23400 (males)/£14400(females)
in 99/00.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 19:11:26 +0100, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:23:51 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Saturday, in article
"Jim Webster" wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news ..If the focus
is how much or little farmers earn for a living -- compared to
other
people in society, we should be looking at Cash Income (CI).

UK farm profitability, all farm types,
nominal terms indexed, 100=avg(959697)

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 ..
CI 79 87 107 105 82 71 66 63

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
CI £39452 £43448 £53435 £52437 £40951 £35457 £32960 £31462

The avg income earner in UK had £23400 (males)/£14400(females)
in 99/00.

how did I guess he would prefer to use cash income as the figure for
comparison.
Does the average income earner figures include pension contributions?

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

The avg income earner in UK had £23400 (males)/£14400(females)
in 99/00.

how did I guess he would prefer to use cash income as the figure for
comparison.
Does the average income earner figures include pension contributions?



I believe it includes everything, overtime, payment in kind etc.
Also more than 50% earn less than average.

A more meaningful figure would be total earnings for 37.5 hours below
which 50% of full time workers get.
This would be significantly less I believe.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:08:06 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
how did I guess he would prefer to use cash income as the figure for
comparison.

what a maroon

Farm Accounts Book, backgrounder factsheet:
"Net Farm Income .. Occupier’s Income and Family Farm Income ..
None of these income measures should be used to indicate how much
income a farmer has to meet his weekly/monthly/annual living expenses
or to make comparisons with the earnings of employees in other
sectors. For such purposes the ‘Cash Income’ generated by the farm
business is a better measure."

avg. UK Farm income £
93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
NFI 29658 34221 44487 34981 16350 11787 8745 9886
ONI 31159 36420 47346 37634 18210 12949 10521 10926
FFI 37856 38736 51502 41818 21129 15407 13646 18928
CI 39452 43448 53435 52437 40951 35457 32960 31462

For comparison, the avg income earner in UK had an income in 99/00
of £23400 (males)/£14400(females).

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...

For comparison, the avg income earner in UK had an income in 99/00
of £23400 (males)/£14400(females).


As I said in an earlier email, this number is almost meaningless beyond
causing
unhappiness all round.

For 2001 the average hourly rate for people in full time employment was
£10.28 which equates to £20000 per annum., based on a 37.5 hour week.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:13:10 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

For comparison, the avg income earner in UK had an income in 99/00
of £23400 (males)/£14400(females).

As I said in an earlier email, this number is almost meaningless
beyond causing unhappiness all round.

You haven't said that previously, and it's not clear what you are
saying. In the previous post, what you seemed to me to be indicating
was that we should use medians rather than averages.

For 2001 the average hourly rate for people in full time employment was
£10.28 which equates to £20000 per annum., based on a 37.5 hour week.

Well, I can't see that adds anything; it indicates the same as the
figures I posted, that the avg UK income earner would currently be at
an income level of about £20000

For comparison, avg farm income (Cash Income, rounded figures):
93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01
£39000 £43000 £53000 £52000 £41000 £35000 £33000 £31000

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 17:13:10 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

For comparison, the avg income earner in UK had an income in 99/00
of £23400 (males)/£14400(females).

As I said in an earlier email, this number is almost meaningless
beyond causing unhappiness all round.

You haven't said that previously, and it's not clear what you are
saying. In the previous post, what you seemed to me to be indicating
was that we should use medians rather than averages.

For 2001 the average hourly rate for people in full time employment was
£10.28 which equates to £20000 per annum., based on a 37.5 hour week.

Well, I can't see that adds anything; it indicates the same as the
figures I posted, that the avg UK income earner would currently be at
an income level of about £20000



Simple, you quote a seriese of statistics I can only check one of them.
That is wrong so I cannot trust the rest.