Title : 
 Analyse des Liquiditätsmanagements in landwirtschaftlichen Unternehmen am Beispiel von niedersächsischen Milchviehbetrieben 

 Abstract : 
 Dairy farms are increasingly exposed to volatile prices for both milk and input factors in milk pro- duction . Price fluctuations in the world market are more strongly reflected in the EU internal mar- ket than before due to the gradual liberalization of the EU dairy market over the past two decades . In periods of low milk producer prices and/or high production costs , it is therefore a challenge for farm managers to ensure solvency in their businesses . Especially in the milk price crises of 2009/10 and 2015/16 , milk revenues were often insufficient to cover the costs incurred . Many dairy farms therefore had to contend with liquidity bottlenecks or even situations threatening their existence or illiquidity , especially when no liquidity reserves were available . Against this background , liquidity management has become much more important alongside the business goals of " profitability and stability " . More than ever , systematic planning , management and control of cash flows should be an essential part of professional business management . This is especially true for fast - growing or rapidly expanding dairy farms , which are often characterized by a high proportion of rented land , increasing outside labor and rising use of loans as a result of major investments . Such farms are mainly found in the dairy regions of northern Germany . As the demands on liquidity management in dairy farms increase , so do the demands on farm en trepreneurs . The entrepreneurial skills and attitudes of farm managers are seen as decisive factors in the development and orientation of farms and their handling of finances . Their professional qualifications and knowledge , coupled with their character traits , personality and attitudes are of importance . This raises two questions with regard to liquidity management , which are still largely unanswered in the prevailing literature : ( 1 ) Do dairy farmers carry out systematic liquidity management in their dairy farms and , if so , with which concrete measures ? ( 2 ) What are the main factors influencing liquidity management , both at farm level and at the level of farm managers ? The focus is on the entrepreneurial competencies and attitudes of the farm managers . This paper uses a mixed - methods research design to analyse , the status quo of liquidity manage- ment and its influencing factors in agricultural enterprises using the example of dairy farms in Lower Saxony . For this purpose , a quantitative survey is conducted in dairy farms , which is flanked by qualitative expert interviews and a final validation workshop . At the beginning of the paper ( chapter 2 ) , a brief overview of liquidity management and factors influencing liquidity management is given . In addition to various definitions , " managing liquidity " is seen as the ability of business managers to implement business management in such a way that the business can carry out all its activities in order to fulfill the company 's purpose while always meeting its payment obligations on time . This conceptual explanation already includes the need to align liquidity management with the business 's objective and the motives of the business 's man- agement . Examples of indicators used to measure the liquidity situation in a business are the cov- erage ratio ( ratio of cash and cash equivalents to payment obligations ) and cash flow ( balance of cash inflows and outflows ) . However , in addition to these measures of liquidity , the point in time at which a corresponding financial framework must be available is of particular importance in order to avoid liquidity bottlenecks ( point - in - time liquidity ) . The core message and goal of successful liquidity management is the systematic planning , man- agement and control of cash flows . Only in this way can solvency in the business be achieved at all times and cash flow be used as economically as possible for the business . In order to identify possible factors influencing liquidity management , selected studies and data sets ( test business network data , data from a consulting ring ) are evaluated in addition to the lit- erature analysis and own theoretical considerations . Numerous scientific publications and data from official statistics deal with corporate success , usually profitability , and its influencing varia- bles . These are also used to derive factors influencing liquidity management . The influencing factors identified in this way are validated and further substantiated by practical knowledge in expert interviews ( chapter 4 ) . The factors influencing liquidity management are con- sidered at two levels ( a ) influencing factors at the farm level and ( b ) influencing factors at the farm manager level . a ) At the farm level , these are : Farm size , legal form , location , structure ( diversification ) , staffing , profitability , stability , capitalization , business relationships with banks . b ) At the level of the business manager : Entrepreneurial competencies and attitudes . Based on the findings obtained from the literature and data analysis as well as expert interviews , hypotheses are derived as to how the influencing factors may work with regard to liquidity man- agement . For the following empirical analysis ( chapter 5 ) , based on the preceding analysis steps , a research model is first established to capture the complexity of liquidity management with its multiple in- fluencing factors . The empirical investigation determines the status quo of the liquidity situation in the dairy farms , records the measures of the dairy farmers for liquidity management in their dairy farms and identifies the influencing factors and ultimately serves to test the hypotheses . The study is based on a written survey of 1,131 dairy farms in Lower Saxony . The quantitative data analysis is carried out using simple and multivariate evaluation methods . The presentation of the results of the empirical study is divided into three sections : The first de- scribes the sample of participating dairy farmers on the basis of farm structure , financial situation and farm management . On the level of farm management , entrepreneurial competencies and at- titudes are presented . As far as possible , the surveyed farms are classified into the population of all dairy farms in Lower Saxony . In the second section a measurement tool is developed : The Liquidity Management Score . The aim is to make the liquidity management of the dairy farms measurable and assessable in a single var- iable in order to be able to analyze the farms with regard to their liquidity management . The score is developed with the involvement of experts and is based on a Delphi approach . The liquidity management score is an expression of the intensity of the liquidity management prac- ticed and comprises two dimensions whose measurement level is ordinal . The starting point is the two concrete measures recorded in the survey , " Control of solvency " and " Cash flow planning " , which are statistically correlated and form the two dimensions of the score ( with 5 ordinal catego- ries each ) . In the Delphi analysis , the 25 possible answer combinations were classified into four ordinal values of the liquidity management score with the aid of a traffic light scale ranging from red ( no / low liquidity management ) to yellow ( medium liquidity management ) , light green ( high liquidity management ) and green ( very intensive liquidity management ) . The distribution of the liquidity management score in the sample shows that 37 % of the companies surveyed have very intensive liquidity management , and just under 10 % have no or very low liquid- ity management . Overall , therefore , the sample shows a tendency toward " more intensive liquidity management . " The liquidity management score is used as the basis for the further calculations and empirical anal- yses as an expression of the intensity of liquidity management . The third section of the empirical study identifies the factors influencing liquidity management at the farm level and at the level of the farm managers . In the first step , the possible influencing factors ( both at the farm level and at the farm manager level ) were examined individually in biva- riate statistical tests for their association with liquidity management as measured by the liquidity management score . Those factors that show a statistical correlation are taken into account for further analysis . In the second step , the interaction of these factors is the subject of multivariate investigations ; this is based on the assumption that the influencing factors ( at least in part ) have a simultaneous effect on liquidity management - as already shown ( schematically ) in the research model . Using ordinal logistic regression analysis , the following factors influencing liquidity management are identified , recorded in terms of their impact strength ( odds ratio ) and confirmed : At the operating level : • Capitalization • legal form • Profitability • stability At the level of the farm managers : • professional qualification • strategic thinking • motivation • Ambition / goal orientation • propensity to take risks The results obtained in the empirical analysis are discussed in an expert workshop and interpreted with regard to their theoretical background , validated and further developed with practical knowledge . As a result of the multivariate analysis and the expert workshop , the factors influencing liquidity management at farm level in terms of their direction of effect are as follows : • Capitalization ( measured by leverage ): Dairy farms with a high debt ratio ( > 50 % ) have a more intensive liquidity management than dairy farms with less or no debt ratio . The reason for this effect is the bank - induced increased reporting obligation and also the dependence on the capi- tal provider , which subsequently lead to a more intensive control and also planning of the cash flows . Conversely , the companies with little outside capital have a low liquidity management , since there is less cause there . • Profitability ( measured by " satisfaction with the economic situation " - as a proxy for profitabil- ity ): Farms whose farm managers are " partly / partially " , " less satisfied " or " not satisfied " with the economic situation of their farm have more intensive liquidity management than those who are " satisfied " or " very satisfied " with the economic situation . Since liquidity management is often only carried out on an ad hoc basis in practice , it is logical that in farms where the eco- nomic situation is assessed as unsatisfactory , the need for intensive liquidity management is seen and acted upon more than in farms where the farm managers assess their economic situ- ation as better . • Stability ( self - assessment ): Farms whose managers assess their farm ( even in phases of low milk prices ) as " not stable " , " less stable " or " partly / partially stable " have a more intensive liquidity management in their farm than those who assess their farm as " stable " ( robust , resilient ) . Here , too , the reason ( analogous to profitability ) is assumed to be occasion - related . • Legal form : Dairy farms in the legal form of a company have a more intensive liquidity manage- ment than sole proprietorships . The reasons for this are presumably the different farm struc- tures in the usually significantly larger corporate enterprises ( higher proportion of leased land , borrowed capital and external labor , which must be fully remunerated even in financially diffi- cult times ) and the necessary transparency among the parties involved with regard to financial circumstances . As a result of the multivariate analysis and the expert workshop , the factors influencing liquidity management at the level of the farm managers are as follows : • Professional qualification ( measured by " financial education " ): Farm managers who consider themselves to be well trained in the field of finance carry out more intensive liquidity manage- ment in their farms than those who consider themselves to be rather / very insecurely trained in the field of finance . The background with regard to the entrepreneurial competence " professional qualification " ( hard fact ) is the assumption that among farm managers a combination of interest and skills leads to a higher value of the area of finance and thus to more intensive liquidity management in the farm . • Strategic thinking skills ( measured by " eliminate operating branches " ): Farm managers who agree with the statement " Operational branches that are not economically successful will be abolished or phased out " with " fully agree " and " rather agree " have a more intensive liquidity management than farm managers who answer this statement with " partly agree " , " rather dis- agree " or " do not agree at all " . This result on the strategic thinking ability as an entrepreneurial competence ( hard fact ) of the farm managers in connection with liquidity management is critically discussed in the validation . Due to the nature of the survey question , the managers ' wishful thinking may have overridden the answer ( social desirability bias in the survey ) . • Motivation ( measured by propensity for " new ideas / improvements " ): Farm managers who agreed with the statement " I like to implement new ideas or improvements for my farm " with " strongly agree , " " tend to agree , " or " partially agree " practice more intensive liquidity manage- ment in their farm than those who answered this statement with " tend not to agree " or " do not agree at all . " The " entrepreneurial type " can be cited as background to the entrepreneurial competence mo- tivation ( soft skill ) . If this is perceived as " curious , willing to grow and invest , " the associated companies are generally " growth companies " with above - average investments and compara- tively high levels of borrowed capital , which in turn goes hand in hand with relatively more in- tensive liquidity management . • Ambition / goal orientation ( measured by " making decisions easily " ): Farm managers who agree with the statement " it is easy for me to make decisions ( also of a larger nature ) in and for the farm with " fully agrees " as well as " tends to agree " have more intensive liquidity management in their farm than those who answer this statement with " partially agrees , " " tends not to agree " or " does not agree at all . " The background to addressing ambition and goal orientation as an entrepreneurial competence ( soft skill ) of farm managers is the connection with the willingness to innovate and thus the implementation of investments and the raising of outside capital . This in turn is linked to inten- sive liquidity management ( see capital resources ) . • Risk propensity ( measured by " acquiring a safety cushion " ): Farm managers who practice more intensive liquidity management aim for a higher level of liquidity reserves or consider more fi- nancial safety cushions to be appropriate . This result regarding the attitude of the farm manag- ers was to be expected . It underlines the creation of liquidity reserves as the most mentioned and " easiest " instrument of liquidity management . These results confirm some of the hypotheses made earlier . Thus , the hypothesis on capital re- sources , according to which a higher share of debt capital in the business leads to more intensive liquidity management , can be confirmed , as well as the hypothesis established on professional qualification - " the higher the qualification of the business managers the more intensive the liquid- ity management " . The two - part hypothesis on risk attitude - " the more risk - averse the farm man- ager , the more intensive his liquidity management " ( including the formation of larger liquidity re- serves in the farm ) - can only be confirmed with regard to the sub - hypothesis safety cushion ( li- quidity reserves ) . In contrast , the sub - hypothesis on risk propensity can not be supported statisti- cally ; cause and effect direction in the expert workshop were discussed very controversially . The concluding discussion of the results ( chapter 7 ) suggests that the chosen mixed - methods ap- proach ( combination of three qualitative and one quantitative method ) succeeded in achieving a higher significance of the results than with a single method ( e.g. exclusively survey - based ) . How- ever , the written survey method has some limitations , especially in terms of capturing entrepre- neurial competencies and farm manager attitudes , as well as complex enterprises and diversified incomes . Future studies could benefit from a modified form of micro - level written data collection in this regard , for example , by combining written surveys and interviews with farm managers or supplementary data collection ( accounting and other business records ) from advisors of the sur- veyed farm managers . Based on the results of the study , recommendations for action are derived for various actors , in- cluding advisory services , associations and politics , science and the dairy farms . For advisory ser- vices ( consulting ) , associations and politics , it is recommended to offer regular training and further education on the topic of " liquidity " and to develop guidelines on liquidity management . Pragmatic guidance and optimization similar to production topics is desirable . In terms of researchers , the research model used and the " liquidity management score " developed are suitable instruments for mapping the complexity of liquidity management . However , future research should focus on the further development of this score and other influencing factors . In- depth research into the risk attitude and risk experiences of farm managers is necessary in order to be able to analyze the cause and direction of effect with regard to liquidity management in more detail . Further interdisciplinary research should be carried out to identify the obstacles that pre- vent farm managers from systematically dealing with liquidity management and how these can be overcome . For the dairy farms themselves , it is recommended that liquidity management ( planning , manage- ment and control of cash flows ) be established as a permanent element of farm management . The appropriate time to implement liquidity management is during periods of high liquidity , when it is possible to act without time pressure with the help of advice . Continuous communication with lenders is essential . In the face of volatile markets , proactive and systematic liquidity management is essential for dairy farms in order to ensure constant solvency and optimize the use of cash flow on the farm . The necessary tools ( e.g. computer - based liquidity planning , price hedging via futures markets , etc . ) are available and are being further developed . They should be used ( more intensively ) by the dairy farms .