WAITE MEMORIAL BOOK COLLECTION DEPT. OF AG. AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 1994 BUFORD AVE. ~ 232 COS Agricultural Economics Department UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA University of Missouri ST. PAUL, MN 65108 U.S.A. Paper Number 1984-39 STRUCTURE, CONDUCT, AND PERFORMANCE OF THE U.S. FARM EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY INDUSTRY by Jorge Angeli and Gary Devino* Tractors and agri cultura 1 equipment constitute the 1argest expenditure for manufactured inputs that farmers make, amounting to over $13 billion in retail sales annually. 1 Together with improved seeds, fertilizers, and other items, agricultural machinery has allowed the American farmer to become one of the world's most efficient food producers. This industry has recently experienced severe financial stress. High interest rates, low commodity prices, and the depressed economy have produced low farm incomes. Sales of tractors and other farm equipment have declined considerably. A number of dealers have gone out of business. Dealer inventories have risen to unhealthy 1eve1 s, and several manufacturers have been on the brink of bankruptcy. The value of shipments dropped from $12 9 998.2 million in 1979 to $9,938.6 million in 1983, a 23.6% drop. (Table 1.) Reports from the Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute (FIEI) show sales of the most important products of the industry have decreased substantially s i nee 1979. The market has decreased for all types of tractors, ranging from 55.5 percent on four-wheelers to 41.4 percent on two-wheelers (Table 2). Massey-Ferguson was reported on the verge of co 11 apse in October 1980 after experiencing a fourth quarter loss of $122 million (U.S.) and an *Jorge Angeli was formerly a graduate student in Agricultural Economics. Gary Devino is a Professor of Agricultural Economics. N TABLE 1 ::z= 'f!l·~::i °""' Farm Machinerv and Equioment: Trend in the United States f{) ey-· ;CJ -- 1 1963 1967 1972 .L 1982 Value of Shipn1ents (Mi 11 ion Dollars) 4531 10282 10856 To ta. l Employment (Thousands) 105 131 109 Production ~Jorkers (Thousands) 80 96 74 Companies 1481 1526 1465 1868 1771 Establishments 1568 16 1548 2004 1906 tablishmer: th ;;.: 80 Employees 558 661 563 664 623 Source: Census of Manufacturers~ Bureau of the Census (STC-3523), TABLE 2 Percentage change 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1979-83 Tvw ivhee 1 drive: 40 - 99 HP 62;529 65,336 65,000 58,,121 50,973 41,134 389083 -4L4 100 HP or more 60, 0 65,527 62 9 50,328 43,179 29,247 28; 154 -55,0 Four wheel drive: 7 t:n""' _lh__ 11,455 10,887 F 763 5,099 -- o •JO.) - 9; 683_ ~~ ----55.5 Total 130,382 139,882 138 '990 119,336 103,835 77. 144 71,336 -48.7 ,.,,.. Self prop~1led combines 28,831 31,494 32,246 25,760 i::::o' 1 16, 12,751 ~60.5 7 Balers (bales under 200 lb.) 24,418 21,086 18 '750 14,022 13,647 8,905 9, ' -51~8 Forage harvesters 13,154 11,523 12,451 9,461 7~604 5,145 4,091 -67.1 2'f 1?1 conditioners L ~A.'-• 24,957 25~600 19,452 18,525 13,981 14,261 -44.3 li>Jindrowers 9,257 8,708 8,615 7,705 6,606 4,162 3,047 -64.6 Grinder-mixers 8s999 10 ,544 11,673 8,468 5,945 5,176 4,018 -65.6 1 1 l ·1F1j Corn heads 20, .I. 21,196 22,374 J,t,10'1· 15,700 9, 29r4 6,830 -69.5 Source: Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute. 4 outstanding debt load of $2.64 billion (U.S.) 2 The firm had a $262~4 million (U.S.) loss in 1978, a modest profit of $36.9 million (U.S.)c in 1979, and a $225.2 million (U.S.) loss in 1980. 3 White Motor Co. for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code or. September 11, 1980. The rm completed the le of its U.S. farm equipment operations early in 198L 4 Manufacturers have reduced production and personnel. Massey-Ferguson closed several plants in the U.S. and Canada. International Harvester, Deere and others also had cutbacks.· In 1979 the industry had 140~300 emp.ioyees on its payroll. By the end of 1983 it had 95,800--a 31. reduction in pc~rsonne l. The majority of the people were 'laid o 1;/ere production 5 11mrkers. In 1983 the industry was running about 50% of capacity. It has been suggested that this 'industry is highly concentrated, and that it wi 11 become more concentrated, 6 {iAe purposes of this paper are: to identify structural changes that have taken place during the nineteen seventies and early nineteen eighties; to detect how these changes have affected the degree of concentration of this industry; to appraise any re-lated changes in conduct of the most important firms; and to evaluate how well the industry is performing.] A. Size and Number of Estab_l!shm~.rrts _i!!1d...f.g_~anies. The census of manufacturers reported that the farm machinery and equi prnent industry in 1982 was comprised of 1906 establishments belonging to 1771 companies. In 1963 there were 1~568 establishments. Most new companies had only one establishment. The growth in the number of establishments occurred in those with less than 20 employees. Previous studies have shown the same In a forthcomi report Serletis found that in 1981 about 2000 firms were producing only rm implements for specialized crops~ livestock and regfona1 markets. 7 i\nother USO/\ study found that the growt[1 in the industy ich occurred between 1958 and 1963 was entirely in establishments t'h 1ess tnan. 1 emp ·1 oyees. g· Larger firms such as Deere have diversified into construction equipment and other markets to attain lower overall costs and bet r economies of scale. They have not become more specialized in farm equipment because they cannot fully integrate production of ricuHural implements e sales are highly seasoned or have only a regfona l demand. This has provided a p that has been filled by new rms. !3, Market Shares. The tractors and combine market is highly concentrated$ and -includes full-line producers and several -iine ones. former manu cture tractors. self-propelled equipment~ attachments~ a other implements. The ·1atter manufacture farm equipment imp.lements and some types of seH-propell machinery. The fui-1-'i"ine producer enjoys a clear advantage at the production and distribution level, The production of most farm imp.lements is seasonal. Tractor production is not seasona 1. Fu 11-· l '.l ne are a e to rotate production and keep their plants continuously working. It is at the distribution level, however, that full-line producers have their greatest advantage. They are able to provide fun·-time employment for thefr dealers, an important factor in the competition for dealers. The most recent tractor and combine market share data published by the USDA (Table 3) shows that in 1980 the four top firms accounted for 67% the tractor sales and 88% of the combine sales. When compared to 1966 there has been some deconcentration at the level of the top four firms. New firms have 6 Tr~BLE 3 Tractors Cornb·i nes 1966 1 1 Deere and Co. 25 35 40 1r International Harvester 23 _,_:) 25 17 Massey-·Ferguson 14 10 0 1Ll Ford 14 17 0 N/A J.I. Case (Tenneco) 7 7 11 0 Allis-Chalmers 6 6 22 17 White Motor Co, 8 3 0 4 r:: Other 6 17 J 8 ----------··-------------..·---- --·--~-------- Top Four Firms 73 67 95 88 ---------------------------------- N/A = Not Available 1Production numbers. ') '-Sales numbers. Source: USDA Economic Resi::arch Send ce 11 Inputs--Out·l ook & Si tu at i on 11 , June 1983. 7 entered the market. One of these is Versatile, a firm that successfu-ily gained a large share of the four-wheel tractor market, about 25% by 1979. 9 Th·is was also the experience of White Motor Co. and Sperry-New Honand 'in the combine market. Deere was able to increase its share in both markets. Ford increased its share of th~ tractor market. Massey-Ferguson gained a 14% share of the combine market. Another recent analysis of tractor and combine sales made by the Miller Agrivertical Uhit showed that in 1979~ seven firms accounted for more than 95% of two-wheel drive tractor sales 10 ~ and more than 90% of the four-wheel drive tractors. (Tables 4, 5, and 6.) Deen~ accounted for a 29.94% share of the most important tow wheel drive market, Harvester accounted for 28.86%. Concentration ratios for the top four firms were 79.9% for two··wheelers, 68.0% for four-wheelers, and 83.4% for combines in 1979. The depressed economy that the industry has experienced is expected to increase the degree of concentration. 11 Leibenluft forecasts that by the late 1980 1 s Deere and Harvester will increase their combined market share to nearly 80%. He expects Deere to have the largest share. Other analysts expect Deere to attain about a 60% share of the industry market. 12 Such advantage is due to its high product loyalty, strong financial conditfon) 1arge research and development expenditure (4% of sales). and the fact that Deere has been the only manufacturer that has not taken money out of this business to reinvest it elsewhere, Some firms that were full-line producers are ded"icating their efforts to 1i nes where they are more efficient.