|
There was a clear consensus emanating from the annual U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Outlook Forum, which I attended in Arlington, Virginia last week: most in attendance
believed that food prices will continue their assent of last year (4%) and
perhaps rise by another 3.8%-4% in 2008. U.S. food price inflation will be
the result of increasing cost pressures from higher agricultural input prices.
These prices, in turn, are the result of strong global demand, continued weakness
in the U.S. dollar, the push for renewable energy, low stock-to-use-ratios
and global weather that has not been conducive to crop growth in certain regions.
Global Plusses and Minuses
Despite the general concern about rising agricultural commodity prices, there
was some good news from the conference, particularly from Paul Schickler, a
general manager with DuPont who spoke of technology advances that have been
made in plant genetics. He stated, for example, that advances in seed production
have led to an increase of 30% in corn harvest yield since the start of the
decade. However, the demand side has increased commensurate with supply. Population
has increased 13%, income has increased 35% and meat consumption has risen
25% over those same 8 years.
Globally, the two main drivers for the agricultural commodity boom are the
appetites from emerging markets and the push for increased use of bio-fuels.
That's not news, but what is new this year is that China, Russia and India
have made policy moves that should bolster U.S. prices in 2008. These countries
have raised export duties while simultaneously lowering import
duties on many agricultural commodities in an attempt to satisfy the demand
inside their own booming economies. For example, starting January 1, 2008 China
raised export duties 25% on wheat flour and starch and added a 10% charge to
outgoing rice, soybean and corn flour shipments. India, meanwhile, removed
a 36% import duty on wheat flour until April 2009 and Russia raised export
duties on wheat from 10% to 40%!
Ag as an Energy Resource
Meanwhile, despite the fact that rising corn prices are making ethanol increasingly
un-economic, the U.S. is upping the ante on bio-fuels. The mantra from the
USDA, which dreams of creating an energy-independent America, was that we must
break the economy's addiction to oil. This explains the 60 ethanol plants currently
under construction to go along with the 140 already in existence here. Indeed,
last year's 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the U.S. is projected
to reach 8 billion in 2008. And the goal of this government agency is to take
1.2 million traditional gas vehicles off the road next year while helping to
increase the production of ethanol from cellulose, as well.
Worthy goals, perhaps, but of paramount importance at this conference were
Robert Dinneen, President and C.E.O. of the Renewable Fuels Association and
Dr. Roger Conway of the Office of the Chief Economist from the U.S.D.A. Their
contention was that it takes only .7 gallons of fossil fuel to produce a gallon
of ethanol.
Here there exists much debate. According to the International Monetary fund,
for example, it takes .82 gallons of fossil fuels to create a gallon of ethanol
-- some yield!
Yet the story might be even worse. According to David Pimentel of Cornell,
it takes 29%, more fossil fuel to create a gallon of ethanol than energy yielded
from the resulting fuel, a net energy loss! Cellulose and wood biomass seem
even less efficient, requiring 45% and 57% more fossil fuel energy than they
yield, respectively!
Included in Dr. Pimentel's analysis are the costs associated with producing
the crops including fertilization, irrigation, transportation and processing.
Not included in his assessment are the costs for Federal and State subsidies
or the costs associated with any resulting environmental pollution.
This professor and ecologist was quoted as saying, "The government spends
more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not
provide a net energy gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical
fuel." He has also stated that ethanol production leads to natural gas and
oil imports and U.S. deficits. And these doubts don't come from someone who's
biased against alternative fuels; Dr. Pimentel endorses the use of wind power
and photovoltaic cells in lieu of ethanol fuel.
How Best to Invest in Agriculture
Economics be damned, we're apparently going to keep flushing money down the
ethanol toilet, which will continue to put upward price pressure on grain prices
at precisely the wrong moment in history, but so be it -- we must simply focus
on how best to invest in this trend, then.
Along these lines, I wanted to highlight one other interesting set of comments,
these from C. Larry Pope, President and C.E.O. of Smithfield Food, whose honesty
and candor was quite refreshing to hear. In reference to the current market
situation he stated it was "...an unsustainable condition for livestock producers," pointing
out, "input prices have never been higher." He continued, saying, "There will
be a dramatic reduction in meat production and food inflation is set to rapidly
increase much higher...it has to happen."
While I have written
in the past about how to invest in this agriculture theme -- by owning
growers, seed and ag chemical companies -- what he said further underscored
my contention that investing in livestock companies is a very ineffective
way to participate in rising agricultural commodity prices.
This also explains why we avoid including companies such as Tyson (TSN),
for example, in the Delta
Global Agriculture Portfolio on which we advise (CDGACX);
such producers are hurt by rising grain prices.
Attending this year's conference, then, only strengthened my beliefs in both
the bull market in agriculture and in the right way to invest in it. Regardless
of whether you agree that the use of food for fuel makes sense, it is imperative
not to underestimate the devotion from our government to pursue that endeavor.
Investors should continue looking to invest in agricultural commodity producing
companies and those that help increase crop yields, as the most likely ways
to profit from ongoing food price inflation.
|