Email us at info@servantfinancial.com to talk to a financial advisor today!

Email us at info@servantfinancial.com

Tag: Agriculture

Russia and Ukraine… One Year Later

Written by Ailie Carlene Elmore

By The Numbers

One year ago, the lives of millions of Ukrainians were uprooted, and many more lives around the world were indirectly impacted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  The human toll alone has been considerable.  As it stands today, 8,000 civilians, between 175,000 and 200,000 Russian soldiers, and between 40,000 and 60,000 Ukrainian military members have lost their lives in this crisis. More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their country.  This is equivalent to the population of the Chicago Metropolitan Area being forced to flee their homes. The largest group of refugees are women and children.  A further 6,000 Ukrainian children have been taken to refugee camps and facilities in Russia, subject to Russian re-education.

The United States government has provided $68 billion in total economic support with $29.8 billion of that being direct military aid and the rest being humanitarian assistance and economic support. The White House is requesting an additional $37.7 billion in aid in the coming year. The U.S. has given more military aid than any other country; however, the European Union (EU) leads in financial support at $30.3 billion provided to Ukraine within the last year. On the Russian side, communist-led Venezuela, Sudan, Cuba, and Nicaragua have all pledged their allegiance to Russia. While the U.S. has not confirmed China giving direct military aid to Russia, Chinese authorities do not deny their willingness to support their communist ally.

 

Source: CSIS

In addition to the horrific human toll, the war has also caused a wide swath of economic damage, sending shock waves to financial markets, agricultural markets, energy markets, and world economies. The outcome of the war is still largely unknown as concerns continue to be raised about Russia’s potential use of tactical nuclear capabilities and the uncertain form of Chinese support for Russia. Russia recently suspended its participation in the last remaining nuclear arms deal with the U.S., the 2021 extension of the START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks).  Russia can now begin expanding its nuclear weapons inventories.  One year ago, some speculated that Russia would swiftly overtake Ukrainian armed forces, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his army have proven their mettle in fighting off close to 320,000 Russian soldiers. While the results of this brutal fight are still hanging in the balance, we will now look back at how this conflict has disrupted global markets.

Agricultural Impact

Agriculture generally flies under the radar for many investors and consumers as a sufficient food supply is generally taken as a given, particularly in the developed West.  However, the invasion shed light on the tenuous nature of global food and commodity supply as the stomping of Russian boots on Ukrainian soil was felt from the sunflower fields in Ukraine to the amber waves of grain in the United States. Agricultural commodities such as wheat, sunflowers, corn, and soybeans all depend on the trifecta of fertilizers for plant growth: Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash. While the United States is not significantly dependent on Russia for imports of these vital crop nutrients, Brazil and other agricultural-producing countries import a significant portion of their fertilizer needs from Russia and its allies in China and Belarus. The fertilizer pressure globally has sent fertilizer prices skyrocketing with energy, seed, and financing costs for farmers also following suit. Input prices increased 20-30% for U.S. farmers in just one year as Brazil and others scowered the global market for alternative sources of supply. Global fertilizer prices remain firm and/or continuing on an upward trend.

Source: Farmdoc Daily

On the flip side of rising fertilizer prices, agricultural commodity prices have generally offset these rising input costs with corn, soybeans, and wheat prices all hitting 8-year highs in the past year. A relatively favorable growing season for much of the corn belt meant strong net farm incomes across the United States. Prices for agricultural commodities however have begun to fall off recently as the world has begun to adjust grain and input risk premiums to discount expected war outcomes with the war at a seemingly painful stalemate.

Globally, Ukraine supplies the world with 30% of the world’s sunflower and its byproducts (oil and meal). It is also a significant producer of corn, wheat, barley, and rapeseed. The conflict has brought about many uncertainties about whether the fields in Ukraine will be turned into battlefields or if they can produce a crop, will there be open ports for them to take their harvest to for export to global markets. Speculation about the war’s impacts on agriculture production are ongoing; however, if the COVID pandemic and Russia-Ukrainian war have taught us anything, it’s that regardless of what is happening in the world and whether there is war or peace, people still need to eat.

Energy and Financial Markets

Investors have been riding a wave of economic turmoil throughout the last year as the Russian ruble tumbled early on against the US Dollar and then climbed the mountain upward as capital controls and petrodollars came in. The ruble began to sell off once again when US and EU energy sanctions threatened a stranglehold on Russia’s critically important energy and gas business. Crude oil has been volatile as a result of the war with the oil price peaking at $128 last March after the Russian invasion began. Importantly, Russia is Europe’s largest oil exporter and although sanctions have been placed on Russia from the West, Russia has been able to re-direct most of its oil sales to China, India, and Southeast Asia. Natural Gas has been subject to similar turmoil as Europe was one of the main customers of Russian natural gas through the Nord stream gas pipeline system. Europe imports 83% of its natural gas and the war has brought about additional sanctions on Russian gas imports impacting the price European consumers pay for heat and energy. Europe has been forced to find new import partners such as the U.S., Qatar, Nigeria, Norway, and Algeria to keep people’s homes heated and the lights on.

Source: exchangerates.org.uk

A stock market repricing for a looming recession or economic slowdown and the Federal Reserve’s ongoing fight against inflation have eaten up investors’ returns over the last year.  However, there are sectors of financial markets that have profited from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Aerospace and defense stocks are up 11% in past year according to a subindex of the S&P 500. Commodities and raw materials have also remained strong as both sellers of agricultural products and energy commodities benefitted from higher prices and the uncertainties about a region that produces 14% of the world’s energy (Russia) and is a leader in sunflower oil, corn, and wheat production (Ukraine). Price pressures and volatility will remain in global commodity markets until the conflict is resolved. Amundi, Europe’s largest asset manager, says the probability of a long, drawn out war is up to 30%.

Source: WSJ

Global investors have been adjusting their strategic asset allocations for these geopolitical uncertainties and attempting to benefit from strong commodities and defense stocks. The uncertainty surrounding how the U.S. will respond if Russia deploys tactic nukes has some speculating around domestic defense stocks.  Some also believe military spending may be in a secular uptrend as U.S. munitions and defense equipment inventories have been depleted and the White House begins saber rattling against the Chinese.  The military industrial complex will likely adopt Rahm Emanuel’s approach by “never letting a serious crisis go to waste” to push their military spending agendas.  For those looking to go long a secular defense spending spree the iShares U.S. Aerospace and Defense ETF (ITA) has a low expense ratio of 0.39% with concentrated exposure in defense companies such as Raytheon (21.4%), Lockheed Martin Corp (16.14%), and Boeing Co (7.42%) among others. ITA is not cheap; however, as it trades at 24 times projected 2023 net earnings with a dividend yield of 1.4%.   For more a narrow, internationally focused play, BAE systems (BAESY), has experienced strong growth over the past year as Europe’s leading defense contractor.  BAESY trades at a more modest 18 times trailing earnings and yields 3.0%.  Generally, the stock has benefitted from higher military spending which doesn’t seem like it will be tapering off anytime soon.

How the Russia-Ukrainian war will end is still highly uncertain; however, it is clear that sadly global markets will be actively repricing its extended effects long after the last solider leaves the battlefield.

 

Carbon-Nation: Intro to Carbon Markets

Written by Sarah Sellars

Although agriculture is the fourth leading source of greenhouse gas emissions (see Figure 1), agricultural land also has the unique ability to store carbon dioxide in soils, plants, and trees. Because of this unique ability, recently, there has been a lot of focus on agriculture as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One report suggests that U.S. agriculture and forestry sectors can provide 10-20% of the sequestration and emission reductions needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Current carbon sequestration on U.S. cropland is 8.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents  per year (“CO2–eq  per year”) and the estimated annual sequestration potential is 100 million metric tons of CO2–eq  per year (source).

When considering the chart of emissions by economic sector, we see the three largest emitters are the transportation, electricity generation, and industry sectors. These three sectors alone account for approximately 77% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions in these sectors typically requires long-term changes. For example, a shift toward electric cars in the transportation industry or solar or wind power in the electricity generation industry requires infrastructure changes and technology shifts, which have long lead times. One advantage of agriculture is its ability to make changes relatively quickly compared to the other larger emitting sectors. Within one growing season, farmers can adopt a practice such as cover crops or no-till that sequesters significant carbon and reduces greenhouse gases.

Several traditional agricultural seed and input companies and emerging agricultural technology (“agtech”) companies have been working to quantify and monetize the environmental benefits of agriculture. These agtech companies have begun launching private agricultural carbon markets for farmers.   Farmers can enroll their acres and adopt new practices that sequester carbon in the soil such as planting cover crops, adopting no-till or reducing their tillage, or reducing their nitrogen application. The sale of carbon credits presents an opportunity for farmers to receive financial benefits from changing to more environmentally beneficial agricultural practices, although carbon prices offered to farmers may not currently be high enough to cover their cost of switching practices. Information about carbon markets can be opaque and challenging to navigate because each carbon company typically has a different structure for payments, verification, and data ownership.  Many farmers are skeptical of these unregulated, “market” based programs.

 

Why Now?

The increased interest agricultural carbon markets stems from President Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad from January 27, 2021. This order specifically mentions “America’s farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners have an important role to play in combating the climate crisis and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by sequestering carbon in soils, grasses, trees, and other vegetation and sourcing sustainable bioproducts and fuels.” As part of this executive order, the USDA collected input from the public about how to encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices. Stakeholders were also requested to make specific recommendations to the USDA for an agricultural and forestry climate strategy. The result of this initiative is the recent announcement by the USDA to use the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to invest $1 billion in funding for pilot programs that use climate-smart practices and develop methodologies and practices to accurately and efficiently measure the greenhouse gas benefits4.

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)

Previously, there was a greenhouse gas reduction and trading project for emission sources and offset projects that could also be used for agriculture. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was a stock exchange for emission sources and offset projects that traded carbon credits from 2003 to 2010 (source). Some ways farmers could participate in CCX were through soil best management practices (continuous conservation tillage and grazing land best management practices), methane capture and destruction, reforestation, and fuel switching. In 2009, the CCX had over 9,000 farmers and ranchers enrolled, covering 16 million acres (source).

One significant challenge the previous CCX platform faced was a greater supply of carbon sequestration practices than market demand, driving down the price of credits. Today, the situation and market structure may be completely different. One-fifth of the world’s largest publicly listed companies have announced net-zero emissions targets. Furthermore, the U.S. has also pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Some companies who purchase agricultural goods may need to specifically reduce their scope 3 emissions, which are the indirect emissions contained in the goods. For example, if a company purchases corn, the scope 3 emissions are emissions that went into producing the corn, such as fertilizer and fuel. One example of a company who purchased agricultural carbon credits is Microsoft, who purchased $2 million in carbon credits from Truterra, a subsidiary of the U.S. farmer cooperative Land O’Lakes in 2021. The new policy initiatives and public sector investment in climate smart agriculture by the USDA may catatlyze the market for agricultural carbon credits by providing more regulatory structural certainty for the carbon market today compared to the past.

How Farmers Participate

The main way farmers participate in agricultural carbon markets is through private companies who help farmers produce, verify, and sell carbon offsets in a marketplace or directly pay farmers for adopting new practices. Some select agricultural carbon market programs are shown below:

These companies typically use an estimation model to estimate the change in a farmer’s soil carbon from adopting a new practice and then pay the farmer based on this change. Many companies also use periodic soil testing in conjunction with modeling to verify results. Typically, most companies are guaranteeing farmers a minimum of $15 to $20 per carbon credit, where a credit is equal to one metric ton of CO2–eq. Many carbon industry experts are projecting that price to go up to $30 per credit in the upcoming year based on projected demand growth for carbon.

Opportunities for Carbon Market Investment

Although there is not a specific investment offering for agricultural carbon markets yet, there are broad-based carbon markets available that could indirectly affect those who own and invest in farmland. The opportunity of landowners and farmers to participate in these private agricultural carbon markets could generate some extra revenue on the farm, especially if carbon credit prices increase. More broadly, there are already existing opportunities for farmers, landowners, and environmentally conscious investors to allocate capital to carbon allowance ETFs.

Regulators across the globe are experimenting with policies to try force a transition to more renewable energy sources while attempting to minimize the economic fallout.  One such policy tool is carbon taxation and the associated carbon credit (or allowance) market prevalent in the European Union (EU).  One carbon allowance allows a firm to emit one metric ton of CO2. These allowances are auctioned off by the governing body that oversees the emissions trading system (ETS) and major carbon emitters are forced to buy an allotment of allowances equivalent to their estimated CO2 emissions. As all carbon emitters in a particular region need to buy these credits, the market sets a price based on the demand for fossil fuels and the restricted supply of carbon allowances.

Major markets have been established for carbon allowances in Europe, the United States, Asia and Australia. In the aggregate, it is estimated that the total size of these markets has reached $600 billion in 2021. The largest market is the EU ETS, which governs the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway and accounts for 41% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are four carbon allowance ETFs available at this time –  KraneShares Global Carbon Strategy ETF (KRBN) (link), KraneShares California Carbon Allowance Strategy ETF (KCCA), KraneShares European Carbon Allowance Strategy ETF (KEUA), and iPath Series B Carbon ETA (GRN).

The largest and most liquid ETF KRBN tracks the major European and North American cap-and-trade programs (European Union Allowances (EUA), California Carbon Allowances (CCA) and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emission trading systems.  KRBN ETF’s assets total $1.8 billion.

The following chart summarizes the historical performance of KRBN ETF versus West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) and All Country World Equity Index (ACWI).

Servant Financial has no formal recommendation on KRBN at this time given the volatile inflation and energy market dynamics and the Ukraine war.  In particular, the EU dependence on Russian oil and gas makes for a potential backdrop for easing of environmental standards to alleviate populous backlash on rising energy costs.  An allocation to KRBN may be a suitable consideration for more risk tolerant investors wishing to invest with purpose in an environmentally more sustainable planet for future generations.

Organic Agriculture: Fad or Durable Trend?

Written by Ailie Carlene Elmore

Background on Organic Agriculture

Walking down the aisle of the grocery store, a shopper can find a variety of different food labels attempting to win their attention such as “No Added Sugars”, “Gluten-Free”, or “No Artificial Dyes or Flavors.” More recently, labels such as the one below have been popping up in grocery stores across the U.S.

 USDA Organic Seal

It used to be that organic products were only found in select stores that specialized in organic or sustainable food products, but more and more organic products are going mainstream and can be found in big-name grocery stores such as Walmart, Costco, and Target. In fact, Walmart, is the #1 seller of organic products offering more than 400 different organic products. That figure surprises some people that expect traditional specialty stores such as Whole Foods or Trader Joes to dominate the space, but the market share of Walmart outpaces both of these popular organic store chains.

But what actually constitutes a product as organic? While this definition could be different based on who you ask, the Environmental Protection Agency defines “organically grown” as food that is grown and processed without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. However, natural pesticides that are derived from animals, plants, bacteria, or minerals are allowed. Organic production has been taking place in the United States since the 1940s but it started to gain steam in the 1970s as consumers demanded more environmental awareness and became increasingly concerned about how food was grown. In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act to develop national standards around organic production in both livestock and crop production. The National Organic Program which is a marketing program managed by the USDA aims to create and monitor uniform standards around organically produced products to aid consumers in their decision-making.

Drivers for Organic Products

Organic sales currently account for more than 4% of total U.S. Food Sales and that number is projected to continue rising in the future. Total sales of organic products grew 31% from 2016 to 2019 domestically and are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 10% through 2025. The dominant organic product in the U.S. market is fruits and vegetables with large growth in 2020 in the pantry stocking and meat, poultry, and fish sectors.

Organic sales are on the uptick with sales reaching $56 billion in 2020.

While there are a variety of factors driving organic food demand such as environmental or health concerns, the largest reason is consumer preference and affordability. Historically, organic products cost anywhere from 10-50% more than conventional products. When it comes to one of the U.S. largest agricultural exports, corn, the price of organic corn is more than double its conventional counterpart. Organic production is more costly for producers.  In addition to higher seed and land costs, producers face a costly 3-year transition period in the land to become certified organic. During this time, the land must be “cleansed” of any conventional pesticides or fertilizer. Once a farm is deemed USDA certified organic, the returns are considerably higher than conventional methods for corn and soybeans in particular. The table below from the USDA presents data that shows that although organic production costs are higher than conventional costs, the higher prices received for organic crops more than offsets the higher production costs for corn and soybeans.  The same can also be said for organic meats and produce however there is less widely available information about those markets.

While the costs of organic production are higher, this is offset by higher prices received.

After investigating the returns to organic production, you might ask, why aren’t more farmers producing organic products? The biggest hurdle for farmers is the three year transition period and capital expenditures needed to become organic. The three-year transition can cause a financial hit to producers that can be difficult to recover from. Another difficulty for organic producers is the lack of infrastructure in the organic industry. Unlike, conventional products like corn and soybeans, there is not a centralized market such as an exchange for organic products to be bought and sold. Organic products often require more specialized handling and storage and there are not as many facilities able to handle these needs. While government policy is working to change this, there is much work to be done in this space if the U.S. is to meet its own domestic demand for organic products.

Investment in Organic Agriculture

An investment in organic agriculture could be attractive for investors not only in investment performance but also may fit their preferences to actively support environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. Many organic companies share these beliefs and would seek to leverage capital from ESG investors to transform and grow the organic marketplace and infrastructure. Investors looking to capitalize on organic investing have a variety of options. They could invest in the common stock of companies selling organic products such as WhiteWave Food (WWAV) which owns 4.2% of the organic market share with popular brands such as Horizon Organic. In 2017, WhiteWave Food was acquired by Danone, one of the largest multinational food companies.

Another common stock option could be to invest directly in organic grocers such as Sprouts Farmers Market (SFM) which specializes in premium organic foods and performed quite well against large grocery competitors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sprouts delivers a unique farmers market experience with an open footprint of fresh produce at the heart of the store and welcoming look and community feel.  Sprouts offers an assortment of fresh, high quality food that is sought after by its more affluent and educated consumers. Because they are able to capitalize on health and quality conscience consumer base, their profit margin is 4.5% which is strong compared to one of the largest grocery stores in the U.S., Walmart, who has a profit margin of 1.4%. Sprouts’ ESG operating focus has also impressed its stakeholders, particularly its efforts to reduce food waste by 78,000 tons.  Sprouts has an equity market cap of $3.2 Billion and trades at a reasonable 11 times trailing twelve month earnings.  Sprouts is ramping its growth plans and intends to add 300 – 400 new stores in expansion markets of Texas, Florida, California, and New England.

In last month’s article, we discussed the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund which provides investors the opportunity to deploy capital in farmland which has historically provided strong returns with inflation hedging capabilities. The farmland in this fund lies within an opportunity zone, providing tax benefits to investors. The Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund is looking to deploy capital to organic conversions in opportunity zones as part of its broader opportunity zone investment in farmland. If you are interested in learning more about the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund, please contact Ethan Rhee at ethan@servantfinancial.com.

Another option for investment in a private fund that is more of a pure play in the production of organic food, an investor could invest in an organic farmland REIT such as the Vital Farmland REIT LLC (Fund II) managed by Farmland LP. Farmland LP’s has assets under management valued at more than $200 million across its two farmland funds, totaling close to 15,000 acres. Farmland LP earned the highest corporate sustainability rating by HIP Invest Inc. in 2021 for its ESG efforts.

For ETF investors, there are fewer options for direct organic investment however several ETFs are investing in food production and food processing. The First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (FTXG) has $6.4 AUM and also has a AAA rating (best) for ESG impact by Morgan Stanley Capital International. Their primary holdings are in food processors such as Bunge, Tyson, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and General Mills. These companies are all making significant strides towards increasing processing capabilities for organic products.

While organic agriculture has made substantial advances in the past ten years, this emerging agricultural sub-sector is still in need of capital to grow productive capacity and reach its full potential. An investment in organic food production provides for diversity of consumer preferences as well as environmental and sustainable production benefits for American farmers and farming communities. The historical and projected organic sales data and savvy investor capital flows suggest that organic agriculture is a durable trend that is here to stay.

One Up On Main Street – A Farmer’s Daughter’s Guide to Farmland Investing

Written by Ailie Carlene Elmore

Author’s Note

“This past month, I defended my master’s thesis on the Role of Farmland in a Mixed Asset Investment Portfolio. Under the direction of Dr. Bruce Sherrick at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I explored how an investment in farmland can interact in an investment portfolio of equities, bonds, and treasuries in addition to how it can hedge against inflation. Using data maintained by Dr. Sherrick and courtesy of the TIAA Center for Farmland Research, I analyzed the returns to farmland from 1970-2020 and some of my results are discussed below in addition to introducing farmland as an asset class to institutional and individual investors.” – Ailie

Background on US Farmland

Farmland is a unique asset class in that it has a limited supply and potentially an unlimited useful life. Only 17.2% of the United States landmass is considered arable.  With a growing world population projected to reach 9.7 billion by the year 2050, farmland is well positioned as a production source for a basic human need: food. Not only is the population rising but income levels are also expected to follow suit with world GDP projected to double by 2050. These statistics suggest that demand for food is going to go up and the composition of caloric intake is expected to change. Research shows that protein consumption rises with rising income levels.  With a significant portion of farmland acres dedicated to either feeding livestock or producing other protein sources like chickpeas or lentils, farmland owners and operators are uniquely positioned to meet this demand and profit from it. So long as humanity needs food, there will be economic rewards for the cultivators and landowners.

Farm Balance Sheet

If an institutional or individual investor was investing in a company’s common stock or buying a corporate bond, they would typically examine the balance sheet of the company. The same is true for investing in farmland. Farmland has grown in value significantly over the last 50 years with a 55% increase in the last 10 years alone. Farmland (Real Estate in the table below) dominated the asset side of the farm sector’s balance sheet encompassing close to 83% of total assets. Under the recent low-interest-rate environment, farmland’s debt level has also grown but this is still significantly less than the portion of farm assets it supports. The overall low debt to equity ratio of 16.2% demonstrates a very conservative leverage position relative to other real asset sectors and the relative strength of the U.S. Agriculture industry as a whole.

Data maintained by the TIAA Center for Farmland Research based on data from the Economic Research Service, a sector of the USDA

Returns to Farmland

Like any real estate asset, farmland receives returns when held by an investor in two ways: appreciation in value and cash flow generated from rental income. In 2021, the U.S has experienced a rise in both. According to the USDA, farmland prices are up 8% from last year.  Record sales prices of farmland have been occurring throughout the U. S.’s key growing regions.

August 2021 USDA Land Values Summary

On the rental income side, most investors would be participating in a straight cash rent system meaning a farmer pays the landowner a fixed amount per year for the use of the land. Recently, the U.S. has experienced growth in cash rent values along with the rise in farmland prices.  Fueled by strong commodity prices, healthy farming profits, and appreciating land value, cash rental rates are projected to rise 10% in 2022.

To examine a longer-term horizon of historical returns to farmland, data from the TIAA Center for Farmland Research was utilized from the years 1970-2020. During this period, the average return to all U.S farmland was 9.7% with a standard deviation of 6.4%. This composite return encompasses all 50 states.   However, not all regions of the U.S. are suitable for farming or have optimal productivity. An institutional investor also has to consider that that are nine anti-corporate farming states that would make it difficult for them to invest in certain key production states like Iowa.

One way for an investor to maximize their potential returns while gaining operational efficiencies from scale is to invest in a farmland fund that provides broad diversification with farms in several key states. The Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund (“PLOZ” or “Promised Land”) is one way for investors to capitalize on the durable returns of U.S. farmland while also receiving favorable tax benefits such as a reduced capital gain taxes depending on how long the asset is held. The government defines opportunity zones as urban and rural communities that need significant investment to foster economic revitalization. The current PLOZ portfolio is managed by Farmland Partners in conjunction with Servant Financials’ founder, John Heneghan. Currently Promised Land owns 10 properties of 8,000 acres in North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, and Mississippi. These states encompass some of the highest performing states in the U.S.

Using this state composite for Promised Land, the weighted average return of states represented in the fund can be used as a proxy to compare farmland returns with other traditional investments. This is done by weighting the allocation to each of the 5 states by purchase price then finding the average return of these states using the TIAA Center for Farmland Research’s data on cropland return. The return from 1970-2021 across the Promised Land proxy states was 11.1% with a standard deviation of 8.4%. Looking at the more recent term, this farmland proxy had a return of 8.2% with a lower standard deviation of 5.2%.

Note: This analysis uses USDA state-level averages to compare historical returns and does not necessarily represent the returns that an investor would achieve with an allocation to the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund.

Relationship of Farmland with Traditional Investments

The proxy returns in the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund can be compared with other traditional assets such as corporate bonds, stock indices, REITS (real estate investment trusts), treasuries, and gold. Using a risk-return plot under two different time horizons, the position of farmland as an investment can be compared with other investments. Performance metrics from 1970-2020 were examined to show farmland as a longer-term investment compared to a shorter time horizon of 2000-2020. See the figures below for full details.

Data maintained by the TIAA Center for Farmland Research.

The Promised Land OZ proxy demonstrated the highest risk-adjusted return compared to the other asset classes over both time periods.  PLOZ has the optimal position in the upper left-hand quadrant of the graph with a high return and overall lower risk compared to equities, REITS, and gold. Even in the last 20 years, the PLOZ proxy still yielded high, relative returns with lower risk.

The relationship between farmland and other investments can be further compared by examining the correlation of returns in the chart below.  A value of 1 means two asset classes are perfectly correlated and would be expected to move up or down in tandem.  A negative number suggests the two assets move in the opposite direction over time.

Promised Land’s negative correlation with stocks (S&P 500, Dow Jones, NYSE) gives reason to believe that farmland would provide diversification benefits and offset some of the volatility of these assets with high standard deviations (risk measure). In the more recent past (2000-2020), farmland’s negative relationship with stocks is even stronger with a -.32 correlation with the S&P 500. Note that when the S&P 500 dropped 48.6% in 2008 after the great recession, the Promised Land proxy maintained a positive return of 8.9%.

Relationship of Farmland with Inflation

Recently, investors have been concerned about inflation and how they will affect investment portfolios.  The Labor Department recently reported that inflation had hit a 31-year high in October with the consumer price index (CPI) rising to 6.2%. Investors and economists across the globe are wondering if we are witnessing the death of Fed’s “inflation is transitory” narrative.  Historically, stock indices have had a negative correlation with inflation and investors are concerned that these inflationary trends are long-term and secular in nature. Farmland on the other hand has historically provided a nice hedge against times of inflationary pressure. Examining the PLOZ proxy returns with CPI trends shows a positive correlation of .71, meaning historically an increase in the CPI will also increase returns to farmland. Recently this trend has held as some Midwest land is up 20% in value along with the higher consumer prices. See the figure below for more details.

Investment Opportunities

With its potential return and diversification benefits along with its track record as an inflationary hedge, farmland is positioned well to have a complimentary role in a traditional 60/40 (equity/bonds) investment portfolio. To optimize on this potential, investors have a few different options to partake in farmland investing. The most obvious option is to buy farmland directly.   However, this could be costly and comes with the requirement that the investor find capable management for the parcel. Buying a single parcel of farmland also puts the investor at more risk that comes from regional concerns like weather or farm-level (or idiosyncratic) risks like loss of production due to water or soil nutrient levels.

To alleviate some of the parcel management burden while still participate in farmland’s return and diversification benefits could be to invest in the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund. The fund is targeting internal rates of return between 8% and 14%, before consideration of the tax benefits it would provide to OZ investors. PLOZ’s mission is to help investors and agricultural communities achieve mutually beneficial outcomes through profitable, durable investing in farmland and the revitalization of rural American communities.  In addition to its core “opportunity zone” impact, Promised Land is evaluating other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles, such as farmland preservation, wetland and forestland restoration, organic conversions, and soil health and carbon management practices.  Promised Land’s vision is for these agricultural communities to prosper by feeding the world while OZ investors do well by doing good for these communities and the environment.  If you are interested in learning more about the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund, please contact Ethan Rhee at ethan@servantfinancial.com.

Another option for investors would be to invest in Promised Land’s partner: Farmland Partners Inc. Farmland Partners Inc. (FPI) is a publicly traded company that acquires and manages high quality farmland throughout North America. FPI manages the farmland in the Promised Land Opportunity Zone Fund as well. FPI’s current portfolio consists of 157,000 acres in 16 different states. Currently FPI’s stock is trading for just over $12 per share which is up 50% from this time last year. We believe this is an attractive entry point below the fair value of the farmland that FPI owns.   On their third quarter 2021 earnings call, CEO Paul Pittman, commented that the net asset value of the farmland was closer to $14-$15 per share. FPI has also restarted its growth and consolidation strategy.  In addition to direct farmland acquisitions, FPI is growing its asset management business with its property management arrangement with Promised Land and its recent acquisition of Murray Wise & Associates.

With the risk of secular inflation on the rise and the inherent portfolio diversification, an investment in farmland is something all investors should be considering. By including an allocation to farmland in your investment portfolio, you’ll have a much more efficient portfolio and be “one up on Main Street” investors enamored with a traditional 60/40 investment portfolio.

Rural Broadband: An Investment in Connectivity

Written by Ailie Carlene Elmore

Author’s Note

“Growing up on a farm in rural Illinois, access to internet was always a hinderance in my family’s household. The screeching sound of the dialup internet starting up was all too familiar until about 7 years ago when my family was finally able to have WIFI connectivity (wireless local area network). Even then, video streaming was still out of the question, and it would take several minutes to send an email. When my brother and I moved home in March of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were both finishing up graduate school then both had to start jobs working remotely in May. We needed to coordinate Zoom calls because we would easily overload the WIFI network if both of us were on one at the same time.  Even then, our internet would crash at least once a day. This is a familiar story for many rural American households that has been heightened as millions of Americans began working or learning from home due to the pandemic. Investment in broadband coverage is something that I happen to find very important if we are to be socially responsible investors.” – Ailie Elmore

Current Status of Rural Broadband

The need for digital interaction is increasingly becoming a necessity for people around the world. From working remotely, learning virtually, telehealth appointments with providers, and accessing other essential goods and services through E-commerce, the world has never been quite this connected. However, that isn’t quite true for all Americans. 22.3% of rural Americans and 27.7% of Americans in tribal areas still lack basic broadband coverage. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines broadband as 25 megabits per second (mb/s) of download speed and 3 megabits per second (mb/s) of upload speed, however this continues to evolve with technological advances. For reference, the size of this article is roughly 1 megabyte which would take around .32 seconds to download with an internet speed of 25mb/s.

Unfortunately, many rural communities have been left behind in this technological advancement which has not only cost the United States socially, but economically as well. For example, many jobs have moved to remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and companies have realized they can cut down on costs by not having employees come into a physical building. McKinsey estimates that remote work offerings will continue to grow as a result of the pandemic which could mean more job opportunities for those living in rural areas. However, improved access to jobs traditionally performed in an office setting only increases the demand for rural broadband connectivity.

Broadband Subscription by County in the United States.

Last month, we focused on education technology advancements that are reshaping the way we learn. However, 12 million school-aged children are left without broadband access in their home, inhibiting virtual learning potential. The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on this as these children were left without broadly available resources to complete their schoolwork. Likewise, remote employment has also been one of the positive outcomes of the pandemic, however the rural workforce struggles to keep up with the connectivity needs for video conferencing, transferring files, or collaborating virtually. The need for a digital infrastructure exists however the upfront costs for providers to initially invest becomes a tough pill to swallow. The initial cost to create a fiber network costs around $80,000 per mile which makes it difficult for companies to recoup their investment in rural areas where the population per square mile is much lower. This cost alone has disincentivized many major providers from investing in high-speed internet in rural areas.

The United States government has worked to spark growth in rural broadband through investing in broadband infrastructure. $47.3 billion was invested from 2009 through 2017 in this industry, and the USDA has invested heavily in programs, loans, and grants for rural connectivity infrastructure. In August of 2021, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced $167 million in capital deployment for 12 states lacking access to high-speed internet in rural areas. “Broadband internet is the new electricity. It is necessary for Americans to do their jobs, to participate equally in school learning and health care, and to stay connected.” – Secretary Vilsack.

However, is this enough to bring rural America up to speed? In an analysis performed Deloitte on behalf of the USDA, they estimated an investment totaling between $130 billion and $150 billion would be needed to fully support rural broadband coverage and ensure high speed access. The U.S. government’s targeted, minimalist approach to rural broadband has left the door open for private companies to capitalize on this investment opportunity.

The Potential Economic Impact of Rural Broadband in the United States

While the need for rural broadband is apparent, it begs the question what kind of impact could investment in this space have? The USDA projects that if rural broadband enhancement was realized to its full potential, then it would boast an additional $18 billion of annual economic improvements in the United Sates. Furthermore, $1 billion in additional e-commerce sales would occur if broadband coverage was equivalent in rural areas to that of urban regions. Not only would rural broadband access improve the economic environment, but would also improve the quality of life for rural Americans. 60% of Americans who live more than 70 minutes from a physician do not have internet coverage that can handle telehealth visits. Additionally, lack of broadband inhibits peoples’ ability to connect digitally to sources of entertainment, knowledge, and social interaction.

A revitalization of rural communities could also occur if people are able to have the comforts of an urban digital infrastructure anywhere in the country from improved access to rural broadband. Improved rural internet connectivity could give people the capability to work remotely and more affordably live anywhere in America. The COVID-19 pandemic has already sparked a movement away from cities to the suburbs. Adequate investment in rural broadband could drive that movement even further away from metropolitan areas to the ex-burbs and towards the pristine, scenic mountains of Colorado, the beautiful deserts of New Mexico, or amber waves of grain of Iowa.

Not only would investment in broadband help the everyday person in rural America, but it could have substantial benefits to the agriculture industry, the lifeblood of many rural communities. Like many industries, technological advancements in agriculture have pushed the industry into digital integration. Precision agriculture has had substantial impacts on the productivity and efficiency of U.S. food production which has been driven by the farmer’s ability to connect to a digital universe. Currently, broadband is giving farmers access to a wide array of digital technologies, but the USDA projects that $47-$65 billion (Table 2 below) could be added in gross benefit to the economy if the full potential of broadband, and the digital landscape was reached in America’s heartland.

The impact rural broadband could have on the U.S. Agricultural Economy. 

Row-crop farming operations have more widely adopted precision agriculture technology but there is still room for improvement in broadband infrastructure for livestock and specialty crop production. An investment in digital infrastructure could reap substantial environmental benefits as the USDA projects an 80% reduction in chemical application and up to 50% reduction in water usage as a result of precision agriculture. The World Economic Forum estimates that if just 15-25% of farms adopted precision agriculture technology then by 2030 there could be a 15% decline in greenhouse gas emissions and a 20% decline in water usage. A reduction in water consumption like this could provide 64.4 billion gallons of water additionally to Americans every day. Achievement of these kinds of broad-based outcomes would be major milestones across many of the United Nation’s 17 sustainable development goals, particularly 2) Zero Hunger, 3) Good Health & Wellbeing, 6) Clean Water & Sanitation, 8) Decent Work & Economic Growth, 11) Sustainable Cities & Communities, and 12) Responsible Consumption & Production.

Investment in Rural Broadband

In addition to the U.S. government making targeted investments in rural broadband, many private industries are also taking part in the broadband rollout only where investment is economically viable. Cellular-based internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon offer rural broadband coverage, but internet speeds are still troublesome for many consumers. There has also been a push to deploy fiber optic internet infrastructure by several private companies. However, this option is questionable economically for lower density communities with cost estimates of up to $80,000 per mile for broadband lines. The Federal Communications Commission offers assistance through the Alternate Connect America Model to private companies building fiber infrastructure in underserved areas. Unfortunately, this assistance is again targeted as the program is usually only available for very remote areas. As a result, private investment in rural broadband is economically constrained and limited in its scope and effectiveness.

A potential champion for rural broadband deployment has recently emerged in the founder of Tesla, Elon Musk. Through his company, SpaceX, he is revolutionizing the way that internet is provided in a capital intensive, winner-take-all approach. Using low-orbit satellites that are closer to earth than standard satellites, SpaceX has launched a program called Starlink that can provide internet service at triple or quadruple standard “high speed” internet. Currently, Starlink can provide between 80Mbps and 150Mpbs in download speeds and 30Mbps of upload speeds which is close to 6 times the definition for rural broadband mentioned earlier. Starlink advertises it will be able to provide its broadband coverage to anywhere in the world.  While there is an initial consumer setup cost of $499 for a satellite and router then a monthly fee of $99, Starlink is a highly, attractive alternative to many Americans yearning for faster internet.  The estimated payback on setup costs for a rural broadband subscriber at $150 per month is about 10 to 12 months.  Musk said in May 2021 that the company had received more than 500,000 pre-orders for Starlink service.

Starlink has deployed more than 800 satellites thus far and says it still plans to launch 12,000 satellites costing around $10 billion to provide high speed internet to the masses.

Opportunities for Investment

As an industry that is experiencing rapid growth and is likely to continue to do so, rural broadband could be attractive for investors seeking to deploy capital in a socially responsible space. An investment in broadband coverage could take a variety of shapes as there are many players in the telecommunications industry. An investment in Starlink could be a particularly attractive long-term investment given its unique ability to provide high speed internet around the globe.  The resulting business moat achieved through Starlink’s highly capital intensive ($10 billion) business plan could boast substantial returns in the future if Starlink is successful in establishing their low orbit satellite network and achieve subscriber goals.  It is unlikely that another competitor will emerge with the boldness to spend $10 billion or more to compete.  A publicly available Starlink would be an intriguing pure play on the rollout and associated societal and economic benefits of rural broadband deployment.

Musk has not announced a target date for the IPO for Starlink yet, but it is projected to come in the near future.  In advance of a potential Starlink IPO, the First Trust Index NextG ETF – NXTG offers a broadly diversified play on the digitization of rural communities across the globe.  NXTG’s strategy is to invest in public companies applying substantial resources to the research, development, and application of fifth generation (“5G”) and next generation digital cellular technologies within two sub-themes of 5G: infrastructure & hardware and telecommunications service providers.  5G infrastructure & hardware consists of data center REITs, cell tower REITs, equipment manufacturers, network testing, validation equipment, software companies, and mobile phone manufacturers.  Telecommunications service providers consist of companies that operate the mobile cellular and wireless communication networks that offer access to 5G networks.

Our expectation is that NXTG would likely capitalize on a Starlink IPO when it becomes available. Currently, NXTG’s current holdings include companies developing digital technology such as Apple, Nvidia, HCL technologies, and NEC Global. NXTG’s 1 year return is just over 33% and has just over $1 billion in assets with exposure domestically and in foreign markets.

The deployment of rural broadband has the potential to provide for lasting economic and societal benefits that touch a variety of industries and rural communities left behind in the digitalization of commerce and social interaction. From an improvement in agricultural production and sustainability, to better access to health care and education, an investment in rural broadband will widely benefit mankind economically and socially and potentially achieve clients’ investing with purpose goals and objectives.

Controlled Environment Agriculture: the Inside Scoop on Indoor Ag

Written by Olivia Glunz

Raging wildfires. Extreme droughts. Violent hurricanes. Rogue tornadoes… Nature is unpredictable.

2020 was a record-setting year for natural disasters, and 2021 has already witnessed numerous extreme weather events. Meanwhile, experts predict that the frequency and severity of storms is only rising.

California’s Dixie Wildfire, August 2021.

Nature is unpredictable, yet her whims govern our most fundamental need: food. Worldwide, droughts, flooding, and famine are an all too familiar story. One in every nine people is hungry, while one in three is malnourished.

As our global population nears 8 billion, it is imperative that we create a reliable, resilient agriculture system, one insulated from nature’s caprices. A solution may lie in CEA.

What is CEA?

CEA, or Controlled Environment Agriculture, wields cutting-edge horticultural, engineering, and computer technologies to produce high-quality crops in efficient, indoor environments. Bringing crops indoors shields them from pests, disease, and extreme weather, permits year-round growth, and facilitates cultivation of plants in any climate zone.

A rapidly evolving field, CEA nevertheless started simply: beginning in the first century A.D., the Romans used rudimentary greenhouses to protect crops during the winter. Over time, greenhouses became more sophisticated: their walls were built of glass, warm water heated them in winter, and electric light bulbs provided supplemental lighting. Today, advanced greenhouses optimize plant growth conditions: computer systems control brightness, temperature, humidity, and even carbon dioxide levels.

Vertical Farming: the Up- and Downsides

Traditional greenhouses, however, are only the beginning of CEA’s many techniques. Global population projections—over 10 billion people (80% of whom will live in cities) by 2050—encourage scientists to develop new, compact farming methods like vertical farming. Vertical farms turn traditional farms sideways. In vertical farming, plants are stacked one atop another as they grow. The resulting farm is both space efficient—vertical farms can be placed in basements or old shipping containers—and water efficient—vertical farming’s water use is 5% that of standard agriculture.

Nevertheless, vertical farming has downsides. One major challenge is lighting. Each plant contained in a vertical stack requires adequate light to grow. Because the uppermost plants shield lower plants from overhead light, each individual layer of a vertical farm must also be lit. The resultant need for numerous LED lamps increases input costs (and, in turn, crop prices) and lowers vertical farming’s energy efficiency. Additionally, vertical farms pose challenges to workers, who often spend their days ascending and descending costly, cumbersome scissor lifts to complete tasks like planting and harvesting on each layer.

A vertical farm.

The benefits of indoor horizontal farms, therefore, should not be underestimated. One innovative horizontal farming operation is Pure Green Farms. Located in South Bend, Indiana, Pure Green Farms’ horizontal greenhouse relies on natural light and uses minimal artificial lighting to increase energy efficiency. Additionally, the entire planting and harvesting process is automated, creating a more uniform product and labor savings compared to traditional production.

Horizontal farms also offer opportunities to combat microclimates, unintentional byproducts of CEA. One greenhouse contains numerous microclimates—slight shifts in location can significantly alter plants’ growing conditions. For instance, a plant directly beneath a growth lamp may be subjected to higher temperatures and brighter light than the plant beside it. Such inconsistent growing conditions in turn produce inconsistent crops.

Purdue University researchers recently constructed an automated horizontal greenhouse to address this problem: plants constantly circulate around the greenhouse on conveyor belts. Consequently, no plant remains in one microclimate for too long, and all plants are exposed to nearly uniform conditions. This innovation allows horizontal farms to produce more consistent crops.

Hydroponics

In both vertical and horizontal CEA agriculture, farmers are looking beyond soil. For instance, many CEA farms are hydroponic: plant roots are submerged in regulated, nutrient-rich water solutions rather than soil. Hydroponics not only allows detailed regulation of nutrient and pH levels but also minimizes water usage by recirculating water. Further, hydroponics allows plants to grow more quickly and closer together.

A hydroponic greenhouse.

One variation on hydroponics is aeroponics: plant roots are placed not in soil but simply in the air. Surrounded by oxygen, vital for cellular respiration, plants are frequently sprayed with mist containing water and dissolved nutrients. This process not only reduces water usage by up to 98% but also increases plant nutrient levels, offering potential health benefits for consumers.

Another twist on hydroponics is aquaponics, in which a plant growth environment is coupled with a fish tank. Fish provide nutrients for the plants, which in turn clean the water for the fish. Nevertheless, the aquaponic system is not perfectly self-sufficient: aquaponics requires significant electricity to heat and circulate water and often utilizes supplemental water filtration systems.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The benefits of CEA are numerous. By growing plants inside, CEA minimizes or even eliminates the need for pesticides, which are not only potentially detrimental to human health but are highly water-intensive to produce. Additionally, grown in optimal conditions, plants mature faster and more consistently. With CEA, crops can be grown in population-dense urban areas; thus, fresh, nutritious, locally grown crops can be delivered at reduced transportation costs.

CEA’s advantages, however, come at a high monetary cost. CEA technology is expensive. Simply building a modern greenhouse equipped with LED lights, O2 and CO2 monitors, and ventilation systems is a costly enterprise. Additionally, CEA requires a constant supply of electricity, which is both expensive and poses environmental risks. Even greenhouses powered solely by renewable energy create challenges: solar panels, for instance, are expensive. Further, using solar energy to simulate sunlight for indoor crops seems convoluted, especially considering that outdoor crops simply use free, natural sunlight. CEA also requires space. In urban areas, where CEA offers great potential, real estate is especially expensive.

The many costs of CEA often translate to higher prices for consumers, especially for commodity crops. For instance, producing a loaf of bread with CEA-grown wheat costs roughly $11. Currently, CEA is most economically viable for expensive, highly perishable specialty crops, such as tomatoes and lettuce, grown on a large scale.

Investment Opportunities

Although CEA is not set to replace traditional agriculture in the near future, investors are nevertheless exploring CEA’s potential for feeding our growing population sustainably. There exist several private fund investments in the space. Ceres Partners, for instance, is investing in greenhouses, aquaculture, and specialty crops as well as CEA artificial intelligence systems. Equilibrium Capital, a sustainability-focused investment company, manages an extensive CEA private equity fund platform.

An exciting new investment opportunity in this area is Global X AgTech & Food Innovation ETF – KROP, first listed on Nasdaq in July of 2021. KROP identifies and invests in trailblazing companies in the food and agriculture sectors. The focus of these companies ranges from food waste minimization to agricultural robots to dairy alternatives to CEA. KROP has only $2.3 million under management today, but we will continue to monitor its development as a potential purposeful investment in the essential food and agriculture sector.

As the global population continues to grow, nature’s unpredictability poses a hazard to the traditional agricultural system. Boasting efficiency and reliability, CEA offers a promising niche complement to traditional outdoor agriculture and an exciting opportunity for sustainable innovation for the benefit of humanity and the planet. To learn more about sustainable, ethical investing, contact Servant Financial today.

white-arrow