Emerald disputes pool claims

25 Apr, 2013 02:00 AM

IN the wake of its disappointing 2011/12 wheat and barley pool performance, Emerald Grain has disputed grower claims its pools dropped by up to $40 a tonne since the company provided its January guidance numbers.

Emerald told Farm Weekly the balance sheet didn't perform as terribly as recent media reports would have its audiences believe.

Last week the company confirmed the final results for all four of its 2011/12 wheat pools.

It announced its headline Dynamic pool delivered a final estimated pool return (EPR) of $269/t ($10/t ahead of the EPR indicated to growers in January), which was a competitive figure when compared to similar pool products in the market.

It was what Emerald's general manager of distribution Tom Howard called an actively-managed pool because it was marketed and hedged throughout the pool's life.

But it was Emerald's Stable and Traditional 2011/12 pools which caused grief for the company's WA growers - both of which were lowered by $10-$20/t.

Last week the company said the Stable and Traditional pools (which paid $231/t and $234/t respectively in WA) used prescriptive, conservative marketing strategies in line with the marketing strategy published and outlined for both pools.

They were hedged early on in the life of the pool and because of this, missed the May-July 2012 rally.

Emerald said the returns on these pools were at the lower end of the pool range and like growers, it was disappointed with the outcome.

Bencubbin's Stuart Putt who spoke with Farm Weekly last week, said this didn't change the fact his budget was still out by about $60,000 because of Emerald's terrible pool performance.

Others included two Wickepin farmers who were out of pocket by $40,000 and $150,000 respectively.

"For nearly a year Emerald has been encouraging growers to look at cash and structured cash products as a grain marketing alternative to pools," Mr Howard said.

"We have received very positive feedback on these products.

"We have also said in the past that EPRs are not a perfect guide and growers cannot rely on EPRs as an accurate indication of final pool return."

Mr Howard also said recent speculation in the market place by industry commentators had led to unsubstantiated statements that Emerald pools dropped by up to $30-40/t since the company provided its January guidance numbers.

He said the numbers weren't given in a statement released by Emerald and therefore were not correct.

"Some of the pools have actually risen since the January guidance while others have fallen," Mr Howard said.

"It's critical at this time that growers have the correct information and aren't being misinformed."

Emerald has this week written to growers advising them on 2011/12 pool finalisation and expects to make final payment by April 29.

Last week CBH also finalised its 2011/12 wheat harvest pool with a final pool return of $280.04/t for APW2.

At the moment the CBH wheat harvest pool provides the greatest return (by an average of $11/t) when compared to other wheat pools offered for the 2011/12 season.

CBH's head of trading Don Campbell said despite the pool's grain being 75 per cent sold and hedged prior to the mid-year rally, the portfolio was able to partially participate through option structures and active management.

"Throughout the life of the pool Australian dollar hedging was focused on tracking physical sales over the course of the season," he said.

"As global market conditions soured on Eurozone concerns, hedging was increased to participate in the depreciating currency."

Most Australian pool providers have finalised their 2011/12 pool numbers and announced them within the last two weeks.

Date: Newest first | Oldest first


Farmer Joe
25/04/2013 10:41:23 AM, on The Land

Well I feel so much better! Emerald pools will not underperform to advertised expectation as much as first thought. Get real, the problem is that these products are habitually oversold on estimated returns with no recourse or accountability when they underperform. No other financial service can get away with this, why should growers be forced to tolerate it.
25/04/2013 2:11:39 PM, on The Land

Pools are only worth considering by growers when they are owned by 100% grower co-ops or under monopoly single desk export conditions with growers in charge. It is not that Growers are better at achieving a price than traders; it is just that Traders have a totally different objective than growers. The Trader's first objective is to buy grain as cheap as possible to enable the highest possible profit margin for the Trader. His next objective is to turn over the grain as often and as frequent as possible. Pools work best for growers when markets are cornered by a monopoly grower seller.
25/04/2013 2:17:46 PM, on The Land

Rule number one is to sell for cash or fixed price contract when dealing with a Trader. Traders must always protect their fixed long positions before their open positions such as Pools. So if a grower pools with a Trader, his pool grain will always come second in importance to that Trader. Welcome to the deregulated market growers! No longer do you have the monopoly seller position you once enjoyed. Now it is dog eat dog and guess who is the smallest dog?
27/04/2013 2:08:05 PM, on Farm Weekly

Emerald's EPR for 11/12 ah2 was estimated to be 290/295 in dec 2011, might be lucky to reach 220. Emerald's parent company is Sumitomo aka Summit Fertilizer. Perhaps farmers who participated in 11/12 pools should recieve a discount 12.5% for their cropping fertilizer. REMEMBER emerald+summit = SUMITOMO.


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who