Strongly capitalised rural processing businesses prove to be much more resilient than cooperatives who struggle to balance supplier payouts with building retained earnings

Strongly capitalised rural processing businesses prove to be much more resilient than cooperatives who struggle to balance supplier payouts with building retained earnings
ID 127411664 © | Dreamstime.com

The 50% Chinese owned meat processor and exporter, Silver Fern Farms, has posted its first normal full year result since the change in shareholding structure after the long and sometimes acrimonious debate in 2017.

What this result proves is that without the Chinese capital injection which wiped out the cooperative’s large debt burden SFF would still have posted a substantial loss.

Westland Dairy’s shareholders would do well to reflect on this before they reject the offer from Yili to buy all their shares. Cooperatives, by their very nature, have a tendency to pay more than they should to their shareholders for supply and SFF, Westland and Fonterra are no exception.

Eligible shareholder suppliers of the country’s largest meat company will benefit from a distribution, termed an ‘unimputed patronage reward’ totalling $874,000 million which will presumably compensate those shareholders for any underpayment for their livestock during the season.

On the face of it, Silver Fern Farms Limited (the parent company) performed reasonably well during the 2018 calendar year, reporting an after tax profit of $5.8 million and EBITDA of $32.9 million on sales of $2.4 billion. This compares with losses of $7.4 million and $30.6 million for the previous two reporting periods, although 2017 was for fifteen months and 2016 was under its original cooperative structure with $14.8 million finance costs. This of course was the main reason the company needed a well-heeled new shareholder, a fact that seemed to escape the minority group fighting to preserve independence.

The situation seems to have settled down completely since Shanghai Maling invested in SFF. The sky hasn’t fallen in, the cooperative still owns half the company and the improved cashflow permits capital investment – increased from $8 million to $29 million – in health and safety, compliance, asset replacement and operational improvement, as well as a profit distribution to both partners.

As the CEO, Simon Limmer, notes in the press release, this result was “not at the level we are aiming to achieve for the company.” It is still necessary to lift profitability “to sustain our aggressive capital re-investment programme, and to more actively progress our in-market investment in sales and marketing to grow value in the market.” SFF appears to have stemmed the loss of market share that bedevilled it during the period of successive loss making years, as it claims to have increased its procurement share in beef and maintained a stable share of sheepmeat and venison.

This confirms what has always been true about meat (and dairy) processing and exporting. Companies must be in a position to pay a competitive price for throughput and process and sell it efficiently. Otherwise processing facilities become inefficient and expensive to operate and a competitive procurement price sucks the remaining margin to the point where the company cannot make a profit.

Good capitalisation is essential. AFFCO is a great example of the positive impact a well-capitalised owner has on a full service processing and marketing business; ANZCO and Silver Fern Farms promise to show similar benefits, while Alliance is hopefully another, but has to tread the path between rewarding its shareholders and re-investment.

The jury is still very much out on the dairy industry, for so long the darling of the agricultural sector. New Zealand’s meat and dairy industries have shown over the years that the cooperative structure has several positives, but a robust capital structure and investment in the right areas are sometimes a casualty of supplier ownership.


Current schedule and saleyard prices are available in the right-hand menu of the Rural section of this website. This article was first published at Farmers Weekly and is here with permission.

Y Lamb

Select chart tabs »

The 'NZ average $/hd' chart will be drawn here.
Loading...
The 'NI avg 17.5kg $/hd' chart will be drawn here.
Loading...
The 'SI avg 17.5kg $/hd' chart will be drawn here.
Loading...

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

3 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Allan I think you understate the issue. i realise you are just reporting on rural issues, but what you present here is indicative of all business in NZ. That being their attitude towards debt. The banks are complicit in this problem as they will often encourage businesses to debt load, but of course they are not shareholders, but in the end they end up taking the biggest slice of a business with very little to no risk .

It reminds me of a case some years back when a chap I knew who had built up a service business from being a one man band to quite a successful local business. he had done this without incurring any bank debt. He told me that every month his bank manager turned up at the business offering him bank loans, which he naturally turned down. I suggested to him that he should offer the bank a shareholding of perhaps 30%, or anywhere up to 49%, of the business for several million, and explained to him that if the bank wanted a piece of his business, then they should take a proportionate piece of the risk too. He laughed and said that they'd never buy it. I still think it was worth a try....

“A marginal profit” on a turn over of $2.4 billion!There it is. A profit that amounts to four fifths of sweet nothing. How can reinvestment into plant and machinery, R & D, for a start be maintained. This outfit is running flat out to stand still. Once all the new capital is soaked up, and blown out the exhaust pipe? What then you may well ask.

The SFF issue isn’t debt - debt levels are low. They are not making any money, and both ROA and ROE are pitifully low.