Search

International audience; Farm transfer is increasingly seen as fundamental to the development of agriculture. One of the major challenges is to assess farm value in the context of an opaque market for farms. We contribute to the scarce literature on farm valuation by empirically applying three valuation methods to the Farm Accountancy Data Network database for France in 2017 and 2018 and for five types of farming. The three methods—the fundamental method, the patrimonial method, and the financial method—are well known for the valuation of companies, but have yet to be implemented widely for farms in the empirical literature. The results show that wine-growing farms have the highest values on average. Pig and beef farms have high average patrimonial values, reflecting their high capital intensity, but beef farms have the lowest average values calculated with methods based on cash flows, revealing unfavorable market conditions for these farms. The results further reveal that total farm output drives the value upward, but that high farm labor, indebtedness, and age contribute to reducing value. Our findings also highlight that, in practice, the differences in values across methods may be substantial.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan mengetahui pengaruh likuiditas, leverage, profitabilitas terhadap nilai perusahaan, dan pengaruh kebijakan dividen sebagai mediasi hubungan pengaruh likuiditas, leverage, profitabilitas terhadap nilai perusahaan pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun 2015-2019. Populasi perusahaan yang diambil dalam penelitian ini adalah sub-sektor Fast Moving Counsumer Good yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun 2015-2019. Sampel yang digunakan pada penelitian ini yaitu sebanyak 16 perusahaan. Pengambilan sampel menggunakan metode purposive sampling. Penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder yaitu data yang diperoleh dari pihak kedua, pihak kedua tersebut adalah Bursa Efek Indonesia. Hipotesis penelitian ini diuji menggunakan analisis regresi data panel dan uji sobel. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Likuiditas bepengaruh negatif terhadap nilai perusahaan. Leverage dan Profitabilitas tidak berpengaruh terhadap nilai perusahaan. Sedangkan dalam pengujian variabel mediasi, kebijakan dividen tidak memediasi hubungan antara Likuiditas, Leverage, dan Profitabilitas terhadap nilai perusahaan. This study aims to analyze and determine the effect of liquidity, leverage, profitability on firm value, and the effect of dividend policy as a mediation of the relationship between the influence of liquidity, leverage, profitability on firm value in Manufacturing Companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2015-2019. The population of companies taken in this study is the Fast Moving Consumer Goods sub-sector which is listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2015-2019. The sample used in this study were 16 companies. Sampling using purposive sampling method. This study uses secondary data, namely data obtained from the second party, the second party is the Indonesia Stock Exchange. This research hypothesis was tested using panel data regression analysis and Sobel test. The results of the study indicate that liquidity has a negative effect on firm value. Leverage and Profitability have no effect on firm value. Meanwhile, in testing the mediating variable, dividend policy does not mediate the relationship between Liquidity, Leverage, and Profitability to firm value.

Capital structure is the combination of debt and equity that finance the organization's strategic plan. The main purpose of this study is to assess the impact of profitability on capital structure in respect of the firm based in India as well as in China. To attain the decision, different theories of capital structure are considered. This article provides a short review of literatures based on the previous published journal. The analysis was taken on 40 literatures out of which 21 taken from Indian articles and the rest 19s are from Chinese articles. The result of the study reveals that 65 of the article shows the inverse relationship, 20 of the article shows the positive relationship and 15 of the article shows no relationship between capital structure and profitability. This study also provides an empirical picture of 3 Chinese iron and steel company and 4 Indian steel companies. Empirical study takes two profitability parameters i.e. return on investment and return on equity. This study also shows that out of 7 companies most of the companies support an inverse relationship between capital structure and firm's profitability. Santu Charan Das "Impact of Profitability on Capital Structure: An Analytical Study" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-2 | Issue-4 , June 2018, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd14265.pdf

Statistics clearly show a continuous decline in the number of farms in Europe. One fourth of farms disappeared in Metropolitan France between 2000 and 2010. With 13,200 entering farmers in 2013, compared to 17,200 exiting farmers, the renewal rate was 77%. In this context, some concerns have been expressed regarding a lack of generational renewal in agriculture despite existing policies targeting this issue. This communication based on a literature review contributes to scientific knowledge and provides new perspectives to farm stakeholders and policy-makers on farm transfers, focusing specifically on the role of the value of the farm in this process. Agricultural sector is particularly affected by succession problems: high farm value due to animals as well as land, buildings and machinery; hence, high transfer cost; low attractiveness due to hard working conditions; and by contrast low profitability. Farm transfer depends on the value of the farm. There are numerous methods to assess the value but they are less used. The ‘patrimonial’ method based on the accounting/market value of the different assets the farm comprises is rather used. Therefore, the farm value depends also on sociological points of view, needs to take into account intangible assets and not only financial considerations., Funding information: French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche‐ANR) with research project FARM_VALUE "Farm value and farm transfer: perspectives from economics and sociology", Grant/Award Number: ANR‐15‐CE36‐0006

Statistics clearly show a continuous decline in the number of farms in Europe. One fourth of farms disappeared in Metropolitan France between 2000 and 2010. With 13,200 entering farmers in 2013, compared to 17,200 exiting farmers, the renewal rate was 77%. In this context, some concerns have been expressed regarding a lack of generational renewal in agriculture despite existing policies targeting this issue. This communication based on a literature review contributes to scientific knowledge and provides new perspectives to farm stakeholders and policy-makers on farm transfers, focusing specifically on the role of the value of the farm in this process. Agricultural sector is particularly affected by succession problems: high farm value due to animals as well as land, buildings and machinery; hence, high transfer cost; low attractiveness due to hard working conditions; and by contrast low profitability. Farm transfer depends on the value of the farm. There are numerous methods to assess the value but they are less used. The ‘patrimonial’ method based on the accounting/market value of the different assets the farm comprises is rather used. Therefore, the farm value depends also on sociological points of view, needs to take into account intangible assets and not only financial considerations.

This paper analyzes the economic effects of agricultural price and merchandise trade policies around the world as of 2004 on global markets, net farm incomes, and national and regional economic welfare and poverty, using the global economy wide Linkage model, new estimates of agricultural price distortions for developing countries, and poverty elasticity's approach. It addresses two questions: to what extent are policies as of 2004 still reducing rewards from farming in developing countries and thereby adding to inequality across countries in farm household incomes? Are they depressing value added more in primary agriculture than in the rest of the economy of developing countries, and earnings of unskilled workers more than of owners of other factors of production, thereby potentially contributing to inequality and poverty within developing countries (given that farm incomes are well below non-farm incomes in most developing countries and that agriculture there is intensive in the use of unskilled labor)? Results are presented for the key countries and regions of the world and for the world as a whole. They reveal that, by moving to free markets, income inequality between countries will be reduced at least slightly, all but one-sixth of the gains to developing countries will come from agricultural policy reform, unskilled workers in developing countries the majority of whom work on farms will benefit most from reform, net farm incomes in developing countries will rise by 6 percent compared with 2 percent for non-agricultural value added, and the number of people surviving on less than US$1 a day will drop 3 percent globally.

This case study reviews the economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with organic agriculture in the U.S. These benefits include measurable impacts and unmeasurable impacts that affect both agricultural and consumer systems in fundamental ways. Both are discussed in this study. Measurable impacts are quantified in two ways – by comparing characteristics of organic and conventional farmers and by comparing indicators of benefits in counties with organic farms and counties without. Statistical differences in counties with and without organic farms are strong evidence that organic farms need not be numerous to generate benefits. There were 1,208 counties containing 4,868 organic farms in the U.S. in 1997, the last year for which location data are available. Findings of measurable impacts include: • Organic farmers are more likely to be female, hold a college degree, and be full-time farmers. The average organic farmer is 7 years younger than the average U.S. farmer. • Retail price premiums for organic foods average 10% to 30% higher than conventional. Farm price premiums are 70% to 250% more than what conventional farmers receive. • Counties with organic farms have stronger farm economies and contribute more to local economies through total sales, net revenue, farm value, taxes paid, payroll, and purchases of fertilizer, seed, and repair and maintenance services. • Counties with organic farms have more committed farmers and give more support to rural development with higher percentages of resident full-time farmers, greater direct to consumer sales, more workers hired, and higher worker pay. • Counties with organic farms provide more bird and wildlife habitat and have lower insecticide and nematicide use. • Watersheds with organic farms and have reduced agricultural impact and lower runoff risk from nitrogen and sediment. Findings of unmeasurable impacts include: • Organic farming under current standards avoids social and economic costs such as pesticide poisonings and costs of testing for genetically engineered foods. • The market in organic foods is more efficient than for conventional foods, because prices reflect more of the cost of producing socially desirable outputs, such as clean water, as a byproduct of food production activities. This reduces the need for government intervention through taxes or subsidies to obtain these benefits. • Innovation and openness to new ideas are necessary for growth in knowledge-based organic systems, and result in rapid development and dissemination of information on nonchemical production methods that benefit all farmers. Overall, the findings of this study are surprising in the strength of support for the hypothesis that organic farming produces more benefits than conventional farming. Nearly every indicator tested across the range of economic, social, and environmental benefits favors organic systems. Even though organic farmers are not a large percentage of the total number of U.S. farmers, their influence is felt through their innovation of management techniques and leadership in meeting the organic standards.

The rise in food prices in 1980 was the smallest in 3 years and well below the inflation rate for all prices in the economy. For domestically produced foods, both the farm value and food-industry charges for processing and marketing rose less than in 1979, limiting the retail price rise. However, retail prices for fish and imported foods, particularly sugar, rose more sharply. The farm to retail price spread rose more than the farm value of foods and was the principal contributor to the increase in food prices. As in past years, about a third of consumer expenditures for domestically produced foods paid for the farm value of foods and the rest was needed to pay for the marketing bill.

This volume describes how the market basket, marketing bill, and food marketing cost index are constructed and used to analyze changes in food prices and expenditures. It identifies sources of current and historical data on food marketing costs and charges., This set of 12 volumes on the Major Statistical Series of the US, Department of Agriculture (Agriculture Handbook No. 671) is the second revision that supersedes the original volumes published during 1957-60. The first revision was completed in 1972.

Retail grocery food prices increased 3.8 percent in 1984, compared with a 2.1- percent rise in 1983. The larger rise reflected tighter supplies of some farm products, higher farm prices, and a bigger rise in the farm to retail price spread. Food price increases for both years were much weaker than in recent years, and the share of income going for food continued downward. The farm value of USDA's market basket of foods rose 5.3 percent in 1984, following a 2.2-percent drop a year earlier. The farm-value share of a dollar spent at foodstores rose to 34 percent from 33 percent. The farm to retail price spread of USDA's market basket of foods rose by 3.2 percent. Food industry marketing costs increased at a moderate rate, largely because of a relatively small rise in wages and salaries of workers.

The marketing bill—an estimate of all costs and profits incurred in transporting, processing, and distributing farm-food products—totaled $92.0 billion in 1974, up 12 percent over 1973. This was double the average increase of the past 10 years. Among major cost components, labor accounted for half of the bill; packaging materials, 12 percent; and transportation, 7 percent. Corporate firms derived $5.3 billion in before-tax profits from marketing farm foods in 1974, almost 6 percent of the bill. Marketing costs and profits of processors were $30.6 billion, a third of the total marketing bill. Costs and profits of other agencies included $26.7 billion for retailing, $20.8 billion for eating places, and $13.9 billion for wholesalers. Consumer expenditures for farm food products rose 12 percent to $147.5 billion in 1974. Farmers received $55.5 billion for farm-foods products, 11 percent more than in 1973., Reprinted from the Marketing and Transportation Situation, August 1975

Retail prices and price spreads for Choice beef have been published by USDA for over 50 years. These data are of interest to a wide range of groups, including market participants, consumers, researchers, and policymakers. The marketing of beef has changed dramatically over the past 20-30 years, resulting in changes in the mix of beef products being sold. As a consequence, conceptual price measurement problems have been raised regarding the validity of procedures used to drive retail prices and price spreads for beef. This report discusses some of the issues regarding the current reporting of retail beef prices and price spreads and presents options for adapting current procedures to reflect changes in product mixand marketing practices for beef.

Food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, increased 4.1 percent in 1987, compared with a 3.2-percent rise in 1986. The larger rise reflected a 4.3-percent increase in prices of food bought in grocery stores for consumption at home compared with a 2.9-percent rise in 1986. The prices farmers received for commodities, as measured by the farm value of USDA's market basket of foods, rose 2.3 percent. Farm value of foods had dropped 8 percent the previous 2 years. The farm-to-retail price spread of USDA's market basket of foods rose by 6.2 percent, partly reflecting higher food industry labor costs from rising employment. Higher advertising, packaging, and other food marketing expenses also contributed to the rise in the farm-to-retail price spread.

Three quarterly models were used, based on 1965-75 data, to examine the statistical relation~hips between the retail value, the farm value, and the spread of a fixed sample of food products included in the market basket. The first model gives quarterly expected price indices and price flexibilities for meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs at retail and farm levels. Quarterly projections for the retail values of nine different product groups of the market basket and their total values were obtained from the second model. The third model gives estimates of the systematic variations between the spread and food values at retail and farm levels of the market.

The farm to retail price spread has been the main contributor to the rise in retail food prices in recent years. This report contains analysis of the farm to retail spread for a market basket of foods and selected items including beef, pork, milk, poultry, potatoes, and bread. The 1981 farm value averaged 35 percent of the price for a market basket of foods, dropping from 37 percent in 1980, and was the lowest in two decades. In 1981, abundant food supplies held down farm prices; retail prices rose faster because of processing and marketing charges. This report also analyzes food industry labor productivity; profit margins; input costs such as labor, packaging, and energy; and consumer food expenditures.

Food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, increased 3.2 percent in 1986, compared with a 2.3-percent rise in 1985. The larger rise partly reflected a 4.3-percent increase in meat, poultry, and fish prices whereas prices declined slightly in 1985. The prices farmers received for commodities, as measured by the farm value of USDA's market basket of foods, declined 1.3 percent. This decline and a much larger one in 1985 brought the 1986 farm value of foods to the lowest value since 1979. The farm-value share of a dollar spent at foodstores fell to 30 percent from 31 percent in 1985. The farm-to-retail price spread of USDA's market basket of foods rose by 3.7 percent, partly reflecting higher food industry labor costs from rising employment. Higher advertising, packaging, and other food marketing expenses also contributed to the rise in the farm-to-retail price spread.

Retail food prices in the United States rose an average of over 9 percent annually from 1973 to 1979. The authors examine why these increases occurred and what can be done to slow the rate of increase. They also provide an overview of the food delivery system. Substantially reducing the upward movement in food prices will require the same long-term effort needed to reduce general inflation. In addition, actions to reduce the volatility in commodity prices and commodity trade flows also appear needed.

Food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, increased 2.3 percent in 1985, compared with a 3.8-percent rise in 1984. The smaller rise reflected large supplies of most commodities, particularly meats. The prices farmers received for commodities dropped sharply. The farm value of USDA's market basket of foods dropped 6.9 percent. This large decline brought the 1985 farm value of foods to nearly the same value as in 1980. In contrast, retail food prices rose 18 percent between 1980-85. The farm-value share of a dollar spent at foodstores fell to 31 percent from 34 percent in 1984. The farm-to­retail price spread of USDA's market basket of foods rose by 5.3 percent, the largest increase since 1982. Food industry marketing costs increased very little, mostly because of a small rise in wages and salaries of workers.

Charges for marketing food products that originated on U.S. farms rose substantially more in 1970 than in any year during the 1960's. The spread between the retail cost and farm value of a market basket of farm foods rose 7 percent last year, compared with 1.9 percent for 1969 and 2.6 percent for 1968. Although marketing spreads for practically all products widened in 1970, major attention centered on pork and beef, which rose 20 percent and 9 percent, respectively. The marketing bill--total charges for transporting, processing, and distributing farm foods--totaled almost $69 billion in 1970, 8 percent greater than in 1969. This increase was almost double the average increase during the past decade, due chiefly to higher labor costs. Marketing charges accounted for two-thirds of the $102 billion spent by consumers for farm foods last year. The remaining third represented the payment or gross return that farmers received for farm food products., Statement Prepared for Hearings Before the Agriculture Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session.