Are growers being ripped off with Ravensdown DAP price?

And more from our Aussie commentator - something that we as shareholders have suspected.

"They are ripping off growers blind on DAP at NZ$827/t. DAP has been selling on the world market at US$300-US$330 since the beginning of the year, current prices are at the bottom of the range anticipating additional Chinese capacity for June/July, it is well documented and highlighted recently at IFA Shanghai that DAP pricing will continue to be low due to low demand and expected to trade range bound for the medium term. Freight is roughly US$30/t and port/discharge/handling costs roughly US$25/t. This should mean a co-op that sells at “cost” should be more like US$400/t, maybe US$420 which I believe equates to around NZ$620/t?"

All this when Rodney promised Mid Canterbury arable farmers a forward fixed price no higher than $900 plus per tonne for spring delivery. Surely they're market intelligence research must have been better informed...which puts further questions over their honesty with growers and they're research on the Australian venture.

What an Australian commentator is predicting for Ravensdown and it isn't good for Kiwi shareholders...

This just sent to Farmgirl today from a rural Australian follower of the blog.

"In essence Ravensdown is only offering granular urea and they have made a right royal mess of it in my opinion. They have offered growers a “cost” price of A$525/t, however, the current urea price is $480/t, admittedly at the time Ravensdown spruiked to its Kiwi brethren, the price was over $600/t but blind freddy could see the price was tumbling as world urea prices had already started the forecast fall. The Ravensdown marketing machine (double speak in a suit), managed to fear the Australian growers into prices were going up or remaining high and managed to greed NZ shareholders that the price was hugely profitable. Both of these claims are of course...let’s say...less than honest.
The model that Ravensdown are using is causing a backlash in our rural communities, essentially Ravensdown are attempting to cause the demise of the rural store, it is highly unlikely this will be tolerated once the smoke has cleared and this alone will create a huge cost impost for Ravensdown in order for it to compete long term. Secondly, the idea that there was only one large, unloved player in the Queensland market that need be conquered is a major underestimation, not sure whether by design or folly. The notion that the second tier players, us included, along with our large multi-national, are going to sit by and watch our markets get eroded and rural communities and infrastructure become decimated is ridiculous. Ravensdown are in for a fight they have never encountered before, I think there will be significant focus on reducing their profitability and exposing their integrity.
Already we see Ravensdown are showing off their true colours, a part of the deal with Australian growers was that they must belong to Ravensdown in order to access “cheap” fertiliser, and in fact they forced growers to pay $80/t up front partial share payment at time of order but cannot collect it themselves as they are illegally setup for such a transaction (not only has this decimated possible Ravensdown cash flow, but a very expensive court case at NZ shareholders expense in the making we presume). In order to get the first vessel possible, Ravensdown were forced to sellout the growers and offer large parcels to another fertiliser importer in South Australia, paid for by its NZ shareholders.
There are now several large risks at question, the Townsville warehouse is reportedly full of holes, was never suitable for fertiliser and come September when the wet season arrives, any fertiliser remaining will be dumped or relocated at presumably NZ shareholder expense. The vessel calling Brisbane (our major port) is apparently under question as sales volumes flounder and the vessel has to also go to South Australia to satisfy the non-shareholder customer. Rumours for sure, but where there’s smoke there’s fire. Rest assured, any cracks in the Ravensdown venture will be seized upon, exploited and capitalised on to the detriment of NZ shareholders."

Shareholders should be concerned about Ravensdown...

Farmgirl wants to share some important comments passed on to her by a follower of the blog.

"Have you seen the latest Ravensdown Hot off the Press on their web site.What has been said about having to make profits, banking covenants,pressure to retain bank funding facilities, selling foreign exchange,having to restructure etc is just the tip of the iceberg. No wonder they have the pressure on (you) not to let their true financial position be know to shareholders, but the truth will come sooner or later especially with this Australian nonsense and the current banking squeeze.

In the market Ballance are deliberately squeezing them on prices. Ballance set the price and Ravensdown follow a few days later at about the same level. But with sales back and profits and cashflow required to satisfy their banks they desperately need higher prices in New Zealand -they will never achieve this.

This is a deliberate tactic by Ballance - they want a weaker and weaker Ravensdown in the market in order to grow their own market share and improve operational capacities.

Rodney Green said some time ago a 50:50market was not sustainable and he would grow Ravensdown to be 20% larger than the number two in the market. Ballance are effectively following his advice.

The Australian venture and non fertiliser activities is the only way Green can boast that he has been successful and grown Ravensdown - that is his driving force and the force that dominates Ravensdown's activities - but at what cost - he was not in the industry when other misguided fertiliser co-op's collapsed.

Their accounts may just be legal - but their presentations and PR in explaining their true position are on very thin ice - no doubt they will blame the current economic conditions - but their problems are more fundamental and getting to be terminal."

The worrying truth about Ravensdown's cashflow

An adviser thinks Farmgirl should be focusing on the fact there has been such a large cashflow deficit ($109 million) from Ravensdown 'operating activities' (i.e.core fertiliser activities) in the past year and that the current ratio (85.4%debt/assets) is in such bad shape.

"Paying a rebate with those numbers in such poor shape would seem risky, especially when you compare what Fonterra is doing (no unshared supply, no contract milkers, retaining a large portion of the payout). Fonterra seems to be taking a cautious/prudent approach that should see them through these difficult times."

Is Ravensdown doing the same?

Ravensdown not doing anything illegal

Let's be clear about this.
Ravensdown is not doing anything illegal in its financial accounting or in any of its business and Farmgirl is not suggesting anything of the sort.
What Farmgirl is suggesting is that shareholders are not fully aware of the situation financially - by that she means that under the new international accounting standards, although Ravensdown is showing a $40 million profit for the past financial year, the statement of cashflow reflects something entirely different.
This is not opinion - it is fact.
As a shareholder Farmgirl is concerned that on that basis many shareholders may not be as happy about the expansion into Australia as Ravensdown suggests.
Shareholders should always ask questions, and should always question the performance of their company - and for that they should never be punished.

Serious questions need to be asked about viability of Ravensdown's move into Australia

They hate us - those Aussie fertiliser companies that Ravensdown is playing dirty with. And why wouldn't they...Rodders comes in on his big white shining horse to take over the industry, offers the farmers cost price fertiliser and then some, even though it is not maintainable and with a fair wave of his royal hand he wipes out competitors but does he endanger his own shareholders?
Who is paying for Rodney's expansionist ideas? Who indeed...come on Kiwi shareholders, it doesn't take a maestro to work out that if he's not making a profit on the much heralded Aussie advance, the money generated to continue must be coming from somewhere.

Are Australian farmers being put ahead of Kiwi shareholders?

How profitable is the core Ravensdown fertiliser business at present?

And how truthful is Ravensdown being about its profitability, cash flow and debt levels in its annual accounts?

The truth might surprise you.

Keep watching this space over the coming days and ask the questions that need to be asked of your so called 'co-operative'.

Farmgirl talks dairy pay-out and animal welfare with Farming Show host Jamie Mackay

Last week Farmgirl talked to Jamie Mackay on the Farming Show about the dairy industry and pork issues. You can hear what she had to say on:

http://www.farmingshow.com/farming270509.html