Pub Date : 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1108/afr-09-2021-0126
MCarmen Martínez-Victoria, M. Maté‐Sánchez‐Val
PurposeThe particular characteristics of agri-food cooperatives reduce their ability to access external financial resources. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the agri-food cooperatives' trade credit operations by measuring their accounts receivable and comparing the results with agri-food investor-owned firms (IOFs).Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply a partial adjustment model (PAM) estimated using a dynamic panel model with a two-step general method of moments (GMM) estimator to a sample of 11,930 Spanish agri-food cooperatives and IOFs for the period 2011–2018.FindingsThe study concludes that cooperatives and IOFs have an accounts receivable target, which they attempt to achieve rapidly. Cooperatives tend to behave as IOFs do, but they present lower adjustment coefficients. This difference seems to be explained by the unique characteristics of cooperatives which set different economic and social goals, not just profit maximization as IOFs. The findings show differences between the financial and commercial purposes of the cooperatives and IOFs as a result of their internal management policies. Larger cooperatives with access to external financial sources, positive cash flows and operational necessities will grant trade credit.Originality/valueThis study gives interesting implications for cooperative managers and policymakers to help them to understand the strategies behind trade credit policies. Previous empirical studies on the agri-food sector are scarce and focus on IOFs without considering the role of trade credit in European cooperatives.
{"title":"Determinants of trade credit financing: a dynamic analysis comparing agri-food cooperatives and non-cooperatives","authors":"MCarmen Martínez-Victoria, M. Maté‐Sánchez‐Val","doi":"10.1108/afr-09-2021-0126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-09-2021-0126","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe particular characteristics of agri-food cooperatives reduce their ability to access external financial resources. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors influencing the agri-food cooperatives' trade credit operations by measuring their accounts receivable and comparing the results with agri-food investor-owned firms (IOFs).Design/methodology/approachThe authors apply a partial adjustment model (PAM) estimated using a dynamic panel model with a two-step general method of moments (GMM) estimator to a sample of 11,930 Spanish agri-food cooperatives and IOFs for the period 2011–2018.FindingsThe study concludes that cooperatives and IOFs have an accounts receivable target, which they attempt to achieve rapidly. Cooperatives tend to behave as IOFs do, but they present lower adjustment coefficients. This difference seems to be explained by the unique characteristics of cooperatives which set different economic and social goals, not just profit maximization as IOFs. The findings show differences between the financial and commercial purposes of the cooperatives and IOFs as a result of their internal management policies. Larger cooperatives with access to external financial sources, positive cash flows and operational necessities will grant trade credit.Originality/valueThis study gives interesting implications for cooperative managers and policymakers to help them to understand the strategies behind trade credit policies. Previous empirical studies on the agri-food sector are scarce and focus on IOFs without considering the role of trade credit in European cooperatives.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48325211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-27DOI: 10.1108/afr-06-2021-0081
Greg A. Lyons, Jackson Takach
PurposeThis paper uses novel data from a secondary market to assess how loans from nontraditional agricultural real estate lenders (NARELs) differ from traditional sources. Over $2 billion in loans from these entities were purchased by the secondary market between 2011 and 2020, but a lack of data has prevented a robust understanding of how these institutions operate.Design/methodology/approachThe authors review loans from nontraditional lenders through their lifecycle in the secondary market from application to purchase and performance.FindingsThis paper finds no observable differences between nontraditional and traditional volumes with regards to borrower credit characteristics, loan approval rates, interest margins and loan performance. It finds significant differences between loan volumes and variable rate product use.Originality/valueThis is the first paper to use internal lender data to review nontraditional agricultural real estate loans and is the first analysis of nontraditional agricultural volumes in the secondary market.
{"title":"A profile of nontraditional agricultural real estate lender activity in the secondary market","authors":"Greg A. Lyons, Jackson Takach","doi":"10.1108/afr-06-2021-0081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-06-2021-0081","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper uses novel data from a secondary market to assess how loans from nontraditional agricultural real estate lenders (NARELs) differ from traditional sources. Over $2 billion in loans from these entities were purchased by the secondary market between 2011 and 2020, but a lack of data has prevented a robust understanding of how these institutions operate.Design/methodology/approachThe authors review loans from nontraditional lenders through their lifecycle in the secondary market from application to purchase and performance.FindingsThis paper finds no observable differences between nontraditional and traditional volumes with regards to borrower credit characteristics, loan approval rates, interest margins and loan performance. It finds significant differences between loan volumes and variable rate product use.Originality/valueThis is the first paper to use internal lender data to review nontraditional agricultural real estate loans and is the first analysis of nontraditional agricultural volumes in the secondary market.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43885101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-21DOI: 10.1108/afr-05-2021-0054
J. Valliant, Stephanie Dickinson, Yijia Zhang, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo, J. Farmer
PurposeBeginning farmers and ranchers (BFRs) are more likely to access land through an unrelated landowner than through family. Thus, farm and ranch owners who might transfer their land or businesses out of family are potential sources of land access for BFRs and are the most frequent participants in incentive programs to facilitate land transfer to BFRs. To assist in identifying landowners who might transfer out of family, the paper aims to explore similarities and differences between landowners according to their expectations for intra-familial versus extra-familial farm transfer.Design/methodology/approachPairwise and regression analysis of USA Midwestern and Plains landowners' responses to an online survey (n = 322).FindingsLandowners who might transfer out of family were likely to need the proceeds from a land sale to finance their retirement. Landowners' financial needs interacted with their widespread interest in transferring to a BFR such that 97% of owners who expected extra-familial transfer wanted to transfer to a BFR. There were also statistical patterns around the size of owners' landholdings in relation to their transfer plans.Research limitations/implicationsThis exploratory inquiry suggests patterns for future research to examine, especially around landowners' juxtaposition of their retirement income and their interest in transferring to a BFR and how to align these priorities and values.Originality/valueBy exploring the characteristics of landowners who are the most likely to provide land access to BFRs, the authors begin to examine how to target these owners in program outreach. Patterns for further exploration point to landowners' financial needs in relation to their interest in helping a BFR to get started in agriculture.
{"title":"The landowner role in beginning farmer/rancher land access: exploring predictors of landowners' views of extra-familial farm transfer to a BFR","authors":"J. Valliant, Stephanie Dickinson, Yijia Zhang, Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo, J. Farmer","doi":"10.1108/afr-05-2021-0054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-05-2021-0054","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeBeginning farmers and ranchers (BFRs) are more likely to access land through an unrelated landowner than through family. Thus, farm and ranch owners who might transfer their land or businesses out of family are potential sources of land access for BFRs and are the most frequent participants in incentive programs to facilitate land transfer to BFRs. To assist in identifying landowners who might transfer out of family, the paper aims to explore similarities and differences between landowners according to their expectations for intra-familial versus extra-familial farm transfer.Design/methodology/approachPairwise and regression analysis of USA Midwestern and Plains landowners' responses to an online survey (n = 322).FindingsLandowners who might transfer out of family were likely to need the proceeds from a land sale to finance their retirement. Landowners' financial needs interacted with their widespread interest in transferring to a BFR such that 97% of owners who expected extra-familial transfer wanted to transfer to a BFR. There were also statistical patterns around the size of owners' landholdings in relation to their transfer plans.Research limitations/implicationsThis exploratory inquiry suggests patterns for future research to examine, especially around landowners' juxtaposition of their retirement income and their interest in transferring to a BFR and how to align these priorities and values.Originality/valueBy exploring the characteristics of landowners who are the most likely to provide land access to BFRs, the authors begin to examine how to target these owners in program outreach. Patterns for further exploration point to landowners' financial needs in relation to their interest in helping a BFR to get started in agriculture.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47129705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-14DOI: 10.1108/afr-06-2021-0088
Adam N. Rabinowitz, William Glen Secor
Purpose
Nontraditional lenders are important credit providers for farmers. However, previous research has found that farmers who use nontraditional lenders are riskier lending opportunities. Using a unique dataset of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases, the authors analyze the share of payment that is made or allowed by the courts on debt owed to traditional and nontraditional lenders.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors use a Tobit model to calculate parameter estimates and marginal effects of the impact of creditor type (traditional/nontraditional) and debt classification (secured, priority and unsecured) on the proportion of a bankruptcy claim that lenders receive or are expected to receive when a case is discharged.
Findings
The authors find that traditional lenders with secured debt receive a greater repayment than nontraditional lenders. Meanwhile, there are more than twice the number of nontraditional lenders that are owed debt in these bankruptcy claims. While this raises concern for nontraditional lenders, that is mitigated some by the level of debt that is on average about one-sixth the size of the average debt of traditional lenders. Finally, the authors show there are numerous opportunities for future research in this area using case level bankruptcy data.
Originality/value
This paper fills a research gap by focusing on the state of nontraditional lenders in Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases and their treatment in discharged cases.
{"title":"An economic analysis of nontraditional lending in Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases","authors":"Adam N. Rabinowitz, William Glen Secor","doi":"10.1108/afr-06-2021-0088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-06-2021-0088","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\u0000<p>Nontraditional lenders are important credit providers for farmers. However, previous research has found that farmers who use nontraditional lenders are riskier lending opportunities. Using a unique dataset of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases, the authors analyze the share of payment that is made or allowed by the courts on debt owed to traditional and nontraditional lenders.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\u0000<p>The authors use a Tobit model to calculate parameter estimates and marginal effects of the impact of creditor type (traditional/nontraditional) and debt classification (secured, priority and unsecured) on the proportion of a bankruptcy claim that lenders receive or are expected to receive when a case is discharged.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Findings</h3>\u0000<p>The authors find that traditional lenders with secured debt receive a greater repayment than nontraditional lenders. Meanwhile, there are more than twice the number of nontraditional lenders that are owed debt in these bankruptcy claims. While this raises concern for nontraditional lenders, that is mitigated some by the level of debt that is on average about one-sixth the size of the average debt of traditional lenders. Finally, the authors show there are numerous opportunities for future research in this area using case level bankruptcy data.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\u0000<h3>Originality/value</h3>\u0000<p>This paper fills a research gap by focusing on the state of nontraditional lenders in Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases and their treatment in discharged cases.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138518933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-14DOI: 10.1108/afr-06-2021-0075
Zoe T. Plakias, M. Jodlowski, Taylor Giamo, Parisa Kavousi, Keith Taylor
Purpose Despite 2016 legalization of recreational cannabis cultivation and sale in California with the passage of Proposition 64, many cannabis businesses operate without licenses. Furthermore, federal regulations disincentivize financial institutions from banking and lending to licensed cannabis businesses. The authors explore the impact of legal cannabis business activity on California financial institutions, the barriers to banking faced by cannabis businesses, and the nontraditional sources of financing used by the industry.Design/methodology/approach The authors use a mixed methods approach. The authors utilize call data for banks and credit unions headquartered in California and state cannabis licensing data to estimate the impact of the extensive and intensive margins of licensed cannabis activity on key banking indicators using difference-and-difference and fixed effects regressions. The qualitative data come from interviews with industry stakeholders in northern California's “Emerald Triangle” and add important context.Findings The quantitative results show economically and statistically significant impacts of licensed cannabis activity on banking indicators, suggesting both direct and spillover effects from cannabis activity to the financial sector. However, cannabis businesses report substantial barriers to accessing basic financial services and credit, leading to nontraditional financing arrangements.Practical implications The results suggest opportunities for cannabis businesses and financial institutions if regulations are eased and important avenues for further study.Originality/value The authors contribute to the nascent literature on cannabis economics and the literature on banking regulation and nontraditional finance.
{"title":"On the money: characterizing banking and lending in the California cannabis industry","authors":"Zoe T. Plakias, M. Jodlowski, Taylor Giamo, Parisa Kavousi, Keith Taylor","doi":"10.1108/afr-06-2021-0075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-06-2021-0075","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Despite 2016 legalization of recreational cannabis cultivation and sale in California with the passage of Proposition 64, many cannabis businesses operate without licenses. Furthermore, federal regulations disincentivize financial institutions from banking and lending to licensed cannabis businesses. The authors explore the impact of legal cannabis business activity on California financial institutions, the barriers to banking faced by cannabis businesses, and the nontraditional sources of financing used by the industry.Design/methodology/approach The authors use a mixed methods approach. The authors utilize call data for banks and credit unions headquartered in California and state cannabis licensing data to estimate the impact of the extensive and intensive margins of licensed cannabis activity on key banking indicators using difference-and-difference and fixed effects regressions. The qualitative data come from interviews with industry stakeholders in northern California's “Emerald Triangle” and add important context.Findings The quantitative results show economically and statistically significant impacts of licensed cannabis activity on banking indicators, suggesting both direct and spillover effects from cannabis activity to the financial sector. However, cannabis businesses report substantial barriers to accessing basic financial services and credit, leading to nontraditional financing arrangements.Practical implications The results suggest opportunities for cannabis businesses and financial institutions if regulations are eased and important avenues for further study.Originality/value The authors contribute to the nascent literature on cannabis economics and the literature on banking regulation and nontraditional finance.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43287056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-13DOI: 10.1108/afr-05-2021-0067
M. van Asseldonk, Gideon E. Onumah, R. Lensink
PurposeThis research seeks to assess the impact of a credit-linked insurance bundle in Zambia, in terms of the inputs used and the amount of maize subsequently produced and sold.Design/methodology/approachTo estimate the impact of a credit-linked insurance bundle, this research relies on a natural field experiment. A cross-sectional survey, conducted among 409 households that enrolled in a credit-linked insurance program prior to a drought and adverse market conditions, revealed that 252 households dropped out of the program. Of these, 113 households left for an exogenous, involuntary reason (i.e. group loan was not repaid on time).FindingsA comparison of households that used the program and those that dropped out reveals that smallholders who lost the credit-linked insurance bundle purchased less fertilizer (−36%), and this input restriction resulted in diminished harvests (−27%) and less quantity sold (−31%).Research limitations/implicationsRisk-exposed smallholders tend to be severely credit constrained, so they cannot invest in sufficient inputs to increase their yields. A credit-linked insurance scheme provides such risk-exposed smallholders, who lack or have only limited collateral, with commercial agricultural credit services and greater access to input. The current analysis cannot specifically attribute the impact of individual components of the bundle (i.e. credit, insurance and input supply), but the overall impact is substantial. The implication of this research is that policy initiatives which support a credit-linked insurance system should not only encourage upscaling but also resilience of the scheme.Practical implicationsAligning government and public support programs with private initiatives suggests opportunities for greater benefits.Social implicationsAfrican farmers are mainly smallholders, so they face inherent production risks. They also tend to be severely credit constrained, with few means to mitigate these risks, so they suffer from a limited capacity to invest in improved farm technology systems that might increase their productivity. Insured input bundles could help farmers to cope better with adverse risks and facilitate increase productivity.Originality/valueThis research design exploits the peculiarity of the data, including group liability and a strict time window for loan repayments to remain eligible in a forthcoming growing season. This impact assessment approach is rigorous in controlling for self-selection bias and thus offers opportunities to establish how households in each sub-sample (eligible or not) are (un)able to ride out a lean season, following a drought and adverse market conditions.
{"title":"Credit-linked insurance bundles in Zambia: evidence from the aftermath of a shock","authors":"M. van Asseldonk, Gideon E. Onumah, R. Lensink","doi":"10.1108/afr-05-2021-0067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-05-2021-0067","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis research seeks to assess the impact of a credit-linked insurance bundle in Zambia, in terms of the inputs used and the amount of maize subsequently produced and sold.Design/methodology/approachTo estimate the impact of a credit-linked insurance bundle, this research relies on a natural field experiment. A cross-sectional survey, conducted among 409 households that enrolled in a credit-linked insurance program prior to a drought and adverse market conditions, revealed that 252 households dropped out of the program. Of these, 113 households left for an exogenous, involuntary reason (i.e. group loan was not repaid on time).FindingsA comparison of households that used the program and those that dropped out reveals that smallholders who lost the credit-linked insurance bundle purchased less fertilizer (−36%), and this input restriction resulted in diminished harvests (−27%) and less quantity sold (−31%).Research limitations/implicationsRisk-exposed smallholders tend to be severely credit constrained, so they cannot invest in sufficient inputs to increase their yields. A credit-linked insurance scheme provides such risk-exposed smallholders, who lack or have only limited collateral, with commercial agricultural credit services and greater access to input. The current analysis cannot specifically attribute the impact of individual components of the bundle (i.e. credit, insurance and input supply), but the overall impact is substantial. The implication of this research is that policy initiatives which support a credit-linked insurance system should not only encourage upscaling but also resilience of the scheme.Practical implicationsAligning government and public support programs with private initiatives suggests opportunities for greater benefits.Social implicationsAfrican farmers are mainly smallholders, so they face inherent production risks. They also tend to be severely credit constrained, with few means to mitigate these risks, so they suffer from a limited capacity to invest in improved farm technology systems that might increase their productivity. Insured input bundles could help farmers to cope better with adverse risks and facilitate increase productivity.Originality/valueThis research design exploits the peculiarity of the data, including group liability and a strict time window for loan repayments to remain eligible in a forthcoming growing season. This impact assessment approach is rigorous in controlling for self-selection bias and thus offers opportunities to establish how households in each sub-sample (eligible or not) are (un)able to ride out a lean season, following a drought and adverse market conditions.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43240290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-09DOI: 10.1108/afr-05-2021-0070
D. Thilmany, Allison Bauman, J. Hadrich, B. Jablonski, M. Sullins
PurposeBeginning farmers have unique challenges securing credit because they are less likely to have established sales and collateral for secured loans. This article explores US beginning farmers’ financing strategies relative to those of established operations, with a focus on the source of financing and debt structure (short- vs long-term usage). Agricultural operations commonly use nontraditional financing tools and strategies to start, build and/or sustain their businesses. This article provides a comparative overview of financing strategies comparing established operators to operations with only beginning operators, as well as those multigenerational operations with at least one beginning operator.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses 2013–2016 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey data to explore how various financing patterns vary across US beginning farmers and ranchers with a particular focus on understanding differences where (1) all operators are beginning, (2) there is a mix of beginning and established operators and (3) all operators are established.FindingsThis article explores how the nature of beginning farmer status, human capital resources and alternative marketing strategies may influence financial management strategies and lead to differential use of nontraditional financing sources for beginning farmers and ranchers.Originality/valueThough exploratory, the authors hope that attention to patterns among US beginning farmers and ranchers of reliance on human capital resources including off-farm income and type of beginning farm operation, nontraditional government support programs and alternative marketing strategies can provide important information as to the role of nontraditional credit in the US farm economy.
{"title":"Unique financing strategies among beginning farmers and ranchers: differences among multigenerational and beginning operations","authors":"D. Thilmany, Allison Bauman, J. Hadrich, B. Jablonski, M. Sullins","doi":"10.1108/afr-05-2021-0070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-05-2021-0070","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeBeginning farmers have unique challenges securing credit because they are less likely to have established sales and collateral for secured loans. This article explores US beginning farmers’ financing strategies relative to those of established operations, with a focus on the source of financing and debt structure (short- vs long-term usage). Agricultural operations commonly use nontraditional financing tools and strategies to start, build and/or sustain their businesses. This article provides a comparative overview of financing strategies comparing established operators to operations with only beginning operators, as well as those multigenerational operations with at least one beginning operator.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses 2013–2016 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey data to explore how various financing patterns vary across US beginning farmers and ranchers with a particular focus on understanding differences where (1) all operators are beginning, (2) there is a mix of beginning and established operators and (3) all operators are established.FindingsThis article explores how the nature of beginning farmer status, human capital resources and alternative marketing strategies may influence financial management strategies and lead to differential use of nontraditional financing sources for beginning farmers and ranchers.Originality/valueThough exploratory, the authors hope that attention to patterns among US beginning farmers and ranchers of reliance on human capital resources including off-farm income and type of beginning farm operation, nontraditional government support programs and alternative marketing strategies can provide important information as to the role of nontraditional credit in the US farm economy.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46515662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-07DOI: 10.1108/afr-06-2021-0073
Denis Nadolnyak, Valentina Hartarska
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate if access to local branch infrastructure of the farm credit system institutions (FCS), banks and credit unions (BCU), and alternative financial services (AFS) providers is related to the use of credit from non-traditional lenders (NTLs). The focus is on beginning and women operators who are typically credit constrained and thus more likely to suffer from closures of bank branches and consolidation of traditional agricultural lenders.Design/methodology/approachInformed by Detragiache et al. (2000), the authors specify farmers’ use of loans as a function of their access to credit (measured by the branch density of each lender type) along with operator’s and operation’s controls. The measures of loans by NTLs (number, use, share and lender type) require the use of Poisson, Probit, Tobit and Multinomial Logit techniques. This study utilizes individual producer data from the 2018 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and 2018 county-level branch density data for FCS, BCU and AFS providers.FindingsAccess to credit from FCS is helpful to BFRs only, while access to AFS is associated with the use of loans from NTLs by women but not by BFRs. As expected, access to BCU credit matters for the use of loans from NTLs, with a complementary effect for BFRs but a substitution effect for women’s use of such loans.Originality/valueThere are no studies on local agricultural credit markets in the US that evaluate the implications from changes in access to credit on credit-constrained borrowers and their use of NTLs’ credit.
{"title":"Nontraditional lenders and access to local agricultural credit markets by beginning and female farmers","authors":"Denis Nadolnyak, Valentina Hartarska","doi":"10.1108/afr-06-2021-0073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-06-2021-0073","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate if access to local branch infrastructure of the farm credit system institutions (FCS), banks and credit unions (BCU), and alternative financial services (AFS) providers is related to the use of credit from non-traditional lenders (NTLs). The focus is on beginning and women operators who are typically credit constrained and thus more likely to suffer from closures of bank branches and consolidation of traditional agricultural lenders.Design/methodology/approachInformed by Detragiache et al. (2000), the authors specify farmers’ use of loans as a function of their access to credit (measured by the branch density of each lender type) along with operator’s and operation’s controls. The measures of loans by NTLs (number, use, share and lender type) require the use of Poisson, Probit, Tobit and Multinomial Logit techniques. This study utilizes individual producer data from the 2018 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and 2018 county-level branch density data for FCS, BCU and AFS providers.FindingsAccess to credit from FCS is helpful to BFRs only, while access to AFS is associated with the use of loans from NTLs by women but not by BFRs. As expected, access to BCU credit matters for the use of loans from NTLs, with a complementary effect for BFRs but a substitution effect for women’s use of such loans.Originality/valueThere are no studies on local agricultural credit markets in the US that evaluate the implications from changes in access to credit on credit-constrained borrowers and their use of NTLs’ credit.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42023853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-02DOI: 10.1108/afr-06-2021-0074
Iuliia Tetteh, M. Boehlje, A. Giri, Sankalp Sharma
PurposeThis paper examines credit products, operational performance and business models employed by nontraditional lenders (NTLs) in agricultural credit markets.Design/methodology/approachTwo research methods were employed in this study: (1) an executive interview to collect primary data and (2) a case study approach to analyze the findings and develop insights.FindingsThe findings indicate the presence of significant differences among lenders across and within three categories of NTLs (large volume, vendor financing and collateral-based NTLs). For example, collateral-based NTLs employ different strategies focusing on types of loans, funding sources, commodities they support and geographic coverage to further segment the market. NTLs in this study were able to capture market by successfully identifying gaps in the supply side of agricultural credit and developing products that meet the needs of that niche (e.g. heavy renters, large operations, producers seeking fixed interest rates for term loans, financially fragile producers). Most of the interviewed NTLs had credit standards comparable to those of traditional lenders and consider them both competitors and partners since many NTLs partner with traditional lenders on participation loans, loan servicing and/or sourcing funds.Originality/valueThe supply side of a nontraditional lending has not been studied extensively due to the proprietary nature of data. The executive interviews conducted in this study allowed for accumulation of industry data, which is not available otherwise.
{"title":"Strategic behavior of nontraditional lenders in agricultural credit markets","authors":"Iuliia Tetteh, M. Boehlje, A. Giri, Sankalp Sharma","doi":"10.1108/afr-06-2021-0074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-06-2021-0074","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper examines credit products, operational performance and business models employed by nontraditional lenders (NTLs) in agricultural credit markets.Design/methodology/approachTwo research methods were employed in this study: (1) an executive interview to collect primary data and (2) a case study approach to analyze the findings and develop insights.FindingsThe findings indicate the presence of significant differences among lenders across and within three categories of NTLs (large volume, vendor financing and collateral-based NTLs). For example, collateral-based NTLs employ different strategies focusing on types of loans, funding sources, commodities they support and geographic coverage to further segment the market. NTLs in this study were able to capture market by successfully identifying gaps in the supply side of agricultural credit and developing products that meet the needs of that niche (e.g. heavy renters, large operations, producers seeking fixed interest rates for term loans, financially fragile producers). Most of the interviewed NTLs had credit standards comparable to those of traditional lenders and consider them both competitors and partners since many NTLs partner with traditional lenders on participation loans, loan servicing and/or sourcing funds.Originality/valueThe supply side of a nontraditional lending has not been studied extensively due to the proprietary nature of data. The executive interviews conducted in this study allowed for accumulation of industry data, which is not available otherwise.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48653570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-05DOI: 10.1108/afr-04-2021-0039
L. Kuhn, I. Bobojonov
PurposeLack of access to credit is commonly held responsible for slow agricultural and rural development in low- and middle-income countries. This paper aims to investigate the contribution of demand- and supply-side factors, particularly the role of risk rationing, on credit application and uptake in the case example of Kyrgyzstan.Design/methodology/approachToward this aim, the study explores the determinants of credit behavior of 1,738 Kyrgyz sample farm households from 2013 to 2016 waves of the nationally representative “Life in Kyrgyzstan” (LIK) dataset along a hierarchical regression model, differentiating between factors influencing individual demand for credit and factors influencing supply for credit.FindingsThe results of our analysis indicate the relative importance of demand-side factors for credit applications, reflecting farmers' perceived risk of credit default and loss of collateral. Meanwhile, supply-side factors, such as real credit constraints and collateral requests, have a stronger influence on credit uptake rates and overall loan sums. These findings highlight the role of risk rationing for agricultural investment, suggesting a stronger focus of development policy on improving risk-sharing mechanisms for farmers, e.g. by developing the agricultural insurance sector.Originality/valueThe paper contributes novel evidence on the role of risk rationing in shaping the demand for formal credits for increasing agricultural and rural investment in low-income transition economies. Previous research has mostly focused on the role of credit supply, thus underrating the potential contribution of individual risk attitude, risk experience and risk sharing.
{"title":"The role of risk rationing in rural credit demand and uptake: lessons from Kyrgyzstan","authors":"L. Kuhn, I. Bobojonov","doi":"10.1108/afr-04-2021-0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/afr-04-2021-0039","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeLack of access to credit is commonly held responsible for slow agricultural and rural development in low- and middle-income countries. This paper aims to investigate the contribution of demand- and supply-side factors, particularly the role of risk rationing, on credit application and uptake in the case example of Kyrgyzstan.Design/methodology/approachToward this aim, the study explores the determinants of credit behavior of 1,738 Kyrgyz sample farm households from 2013 to 2016 waves of the nationally representative “Life in Kyrgyzstan” (LIK) dataset along a hierarchical regression model, differentiating between factors influencing individual demand for credit and factors influencing supply for credit.FindingsThe results of our analysis indicate the relative importance of demand-side factors for credit applications, reflecting farmers' perceived risk of credit default and loss of collateral. Meanwhile, supply-side factors, such as real credit constraints and collateral requests, have a stronger influence on credit uptake rates and overall loan sums. These findings highlight the role of risk rationing for agricultural investment, suggesting a stronger focus of development policy on improving risk-sharing mechanisms for farmers, e.g. by developing the agricultural insurance sector.Originality/valueThe paper contributes novel evidence on the role of risk rationing in shaping the demand for formal credits for increasing agricultural and rural investment in low-income transition economies. Previous research has mostly focused on the role of credit supply, thus underrating the potential contribution of individual risk attitude, risk experience and risk sharing.","PeriodicalId":46748,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Finance Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41561388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：