Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:56:54 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. It explains why folks need an income though. I think you can safely assume that folks interested in the topic of this thread already has a good grasp of why folks need an income. But you seem to assume that farmers take all possible profit from their business as income, whereas the truth is that they will take at most as much as the business can stand and exactly what they take, and in what form, will depend on the current tax allowances, their living costs, and their judgement as to whether to invest further in their business (new machinery, more land), and many other things. One thing that will guide all of this is what others are earning in other employment since that is a fair approximation of what it actually costs to live in the UK. Michael Saunby |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:54:28 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. then if it is a business income you are assessing, why are you comparing with the income of employees. Farmers are not employees. If you are looking at business profitability then use a business profitability measure. I would recommend return on capital as a good one to start with. -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:53:58 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:56:54 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted [to calculate Cash Income]. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. It explains why folks need an income though. I think you can safely assume that folks interested in the topic of this thread already has a good grasp of why folks need an income. .. [Farmers] will take at most as much as the business can stand snip Sure, or one should hope so, and Cash Income is a good estimator of how much that could be. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:53:58 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:56:54 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted [to calculate Cash Income]. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. It explains why folks need an income though. I think you can safely assume that folks interested in the topic of this thread already has a good grasp of why folks need an income. .. [Farmers] will take at most as much as the business can stand snip Sure, or one should hope so, and Cash Income is a good estimator of how much that could be. Right, so if they take at most what the business can stand, and at least what they need to live - what happens when what is needed to live exceeds what the business can stand? Presumably a farming recession. Isn't that what we now have? Michael Saunby |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:01:22 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:53:58 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:56:54 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted [to calculate Cash Income]. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. It explains why folks need an income though. I think you can safely assume that folks interested in the topic of this thread already has a good grasp of why folks need an income. .. [Farmers] will take at most as much as the business can stand snip Sure, or one should hope so, and Cash Income is a good estimator of how much that could be. Right, so if they take at most what the business can stand, and at least what they need to live - what happens when what is needed to live exceeds what the business can stand? Presumably a farming recession. Isn't that what we now have? Michael Saunby |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:01:22 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:53:58 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:56:54 -0000, "Michael Saunby" wrote: .. The cost of maintenance of the residential building is not and may not be deducted [to calculate Cash Income]. snip Of course not, it is not relevant to the business. It explains why folks need an income though. I think you can safely assume that folks interested in the topic of this thread already has a good grasp of why folks need an income. .. [Farmers] will take at most as much as the business can stand snip Sure, or one should hope so, and Cash Income is a good estimator of how much that could be. Right, so if they take at most what the business can stand, and at least what they need to live - what happens when what is needed to live exceeds what the business can stand? It dies. Otoh, Cash income has been on avg. £40000 per farm over the last several years, so the species is hardly endangered. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
|
#340
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:11:20 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Monday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:12:25 +0000 (GMT), ("David G. Bell") wrote: I would argue that Cash Income is misleading because some of these costs may have been deferred in hard times, and Cash Income will thus not fall quite so rapidly as other measures. You are forgetting, that the reason why the alternative measure which everyone appear to have been brainwashed with -- Net Farm Income -- is falling more rapidly is -not- that it involves a correction for this effect. So why don't you tell us just what the difference is? With an example farm, skipping details Cash receipts 160000 Subtract Cash expenditures 130000 you get: Cash Income 30000 Subtract Deprec. of fixed assets 15000 Subtract Imputed labour costs 4000 (excl. farmer and spouse) you get: Occupier's net income 11000 Add Deprec.of build&works 4000 Add Interest payments 5000 Add Occupiers expenses 500 Subtract Imputed rent 10500 you get: Net Farm Income 10000 You are also forgetting and that the use of Net Farm Income is considered flat out malpractice, Cash Income the better choice for the purpose of comparison with other income earners in society, which is what we are doing here for the moment. Since when? I can assure you that I've not heard that claim before. I believe you, it is only the third time it has been made on this thread. Cash Income figures indicate that the avg ability of farms in UK to generate Cash Income has dropped to about half of what it was in 1995, from about £55000 to about £30000. Now, just which "average" is being used? Arithmetic mean? Mode? Median? And is the average used some other measure of business size, or is this the average Cash Income? When I write average Cash Income, I mean average Cash Income. How does it relate to business size an turnover? It doesn't. When I write average,all sizes I mean average, all sizes. You do know the differences, and why they're important? Certainly. And what's the distribution? We can look at the distributions around the means later, if you wish. I'm fairly confident it will not be one of the usual statistical distributions: it certainly isn't for the holding size. Right. There are interesting patterns in the distributions of Cash Incomes, particularly when you look at the data grouped by farm type. Oh, what the heck, here's some figures for 1998 -- if you want something more recent, find them and post them: Holding Number of Percentage of Size (Ha) Holdings Total Number Under 10 48900 28.3% 10 - 30 41900 24.2% 30 - 50 23000 13.3% 50 - 100 29600 17.1% 100 - 200 19000 11.0% 200 - 300 5400 3.1% 300 - 500 3400 2.0% 500 - 700 1000 0.6% 700 and over 800 0.5% Thanks, well, that's rather straight Pareto. Oh, and BTW, unless you're using the X-no-archive: header, people will be reading your postings long after the URLs you give have vanished. How will they know what on earth ypou're talking about? There seems to be a more immediate problem in that I am posting to ukba *now* using current standard terms for measures of Farm Income and noone seems to know what I am talking about. |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:11:20 +0000 (GMT), ("David G. Bell") wrote: There seems to be a more immediate problem in that I am posting to ukba *now* using current standard terms for measures of Farm Income and noone seems to know what I am talking about. no, they are probably watching your gymnastics in open mouthed admiration. You gave four figures and chose the one that suited your particular agenda. You then compared the income of a business with the income of an employee, a procedure that can only be described as fatuous. Why do you not compare farm profitability with that of other businesses using accepted business profit bench marks? -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... You then compared the income of a business with the income of an employee, a procedure that can only be described as fatuous. Turnover per employee and profit per employee are valid parameters to analyse a companies performance. |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Hamish Macbeth wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... You then compared the income of a business with the income of an employee, a procedure that can only be described as fatuous. Turnover per employee and profit per employee are valid parameters to analyse a companies performance. true, but what do you do with an industry where many of the participlating businesses have no employees? Even on farms with employees, the proportion of the work done by the self employed or owners/partners is far higher than, say, Tesco. Obviously it would be an interesting exercise to compare UK farm profitability with some other industry which is also predominantly run on owner/family labour, perhaps small corner shops. The problem with comparisons is that you have to chose a common factor to compare. So that is why I chose return on capital. Most businesses do function on invested capital. (although obviously there are exceptions here as well.) -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95998 sci.agricultu60239
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... Hamish Macbeth wrote in message So that is why I chose return on capital. Most businesses do function on invested capital. But what figure do you use as capital when you own the farm? To give a non-farming analogy. Lord Bath owns the Longleat Estate and runs a bussiness from it. Do you treat the value of the estate as the captitol and consider the turnover and profits in relationship to that? Or do you think his family already owned it as a private property and utilise it to earn cash. A bit like someone owning a family car and earning a little extra money weekends doing private car hire. If you count the value of the estate as the capitol then you will probably deduce he could do better putting the money in the building society and that he is running the bussiness on poor returns. If you treat it as a mechanism by which he enjoys the continued ownership of a vast estate that otherwise would be lost to his heirs in taxes and the capitol is only the extras spent purely to run the business, then the return on capitol can look very good. Your farm may be worth a million pounds as bare land and fixed buildings but you could count this as something you own and you run a business to maintain your possesion. in which case only the non-fixtures count as business capitol. A farm is somewhat different to most businesses, say a hairdressers or retail shop where the bussiness premisses are normally not part of the owners private and personal life. There is not the seperation between what is enjoyed as a personal posestion and life enhancement and what is the source of income. I know that the whole thiing may have been bought under a business loan but there is still the duality with a farm that does not exist in most business activities. |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes There seems to be a more immediate problem in that I am posting to ukba *now* using current standard terms for measures of Farm Income and noone seems to know what I am talking about. Not enough to argue it, anyway. If your end objective is to convince us that farmers are well rewarded why start from an obscure accounting system. In your example, a gross turnover of 290,000 puts the operation in the 100-200ha size (my guess) and hardly representative of an average farm business. regards -- Tim Lamb |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 2-2002-2009-Front_Walk.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
Tour-2002 vs.2009 - 1-2002-2009-August-Front.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
[IBC] BONSAI Digest - 8 Jun 2003 to 9 Jun 2003 (#2003-161) | Bonsai | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture | |||
UK farm profitability to jun 2002 | sci.agriculture |