What we're seeing is true. I really think high equity has carried a lot of us to this point. I thought when land got to $2,000 an acre it couldn't go any higher. I thought when it got to $6,000 an acre they were absolute fools. When it gets to $10,000 an acre you're thinking you should jump in because you can't lose.
Farmers are probably their own worst enemy. I was thinking about this the other day. In the early 1970s we blamed all the urban people for moving out of London into Middlesex County and buying these farms because they all wanted to get back to their roots, get out of the city. It's not those people who are bidding up farms; it's farmers who are bidding up farms. The ones who can do it, who have equity, can afford to go out and buy another farm for $1 million. Is it right? No. Should the bank be looking at that as a reason they should be lending you money? Probably not, but do they? Absolutely, because if you have nothing in equity, they're not likely to lend you anything on a cashflow basis.
I think we can do a cashflow every year, and probably everybody can do the same thing here, with all our projections and all that, and I bet you by year end we end up where we were supposed to, but it wasn't how we were supposed to get there. Maybe we had a fantastic crop of wheat or markets changed so quickly. In terms of doing a cashflow for a bank every year, it's an exercise we all have to do. We end up making money, but when you look back at the end of the year, maybe you were right; probably not.
It's tough. And don't ever blame a bank for not wanting to lend money if it doesn't look profitable. I don't care whether that's agriculture or General Motors or Chrysler--whoever it is. Don't lend it. I don't think the banks are to blame for a whole lot right now. Twenty years ago I wouldn't have said that.