This is the second in a two-part series related to wood supply agreements and their relevance to analyzing timber markets.
Part I of this series on wood supply agreements introduced basic pricing mechanisms often used in supply agreements and associated concerns raised by parties to these agreements. Bioenergy firms new to local wood markets, in particular, focus on potential conflicts of interest associated with price indices or pricing mechanisms implemented by the same firm that collects and reports the underlying price data. They ask “how reliable and independent are these data sources and indices?”
As a general rule, we find it helpful to avoid swimming in the toilet or peeing in the pool. Clear, verifiable methodologies for collecting data and reporting changes over time facilitate strong wood supply relationships. In specifying these methods, parties in a long-term wood supply agreement may rely on a set of working principles.
We believe the following three criteria for establishing an independent pricing mechanism include the proper principles while maintaining the practical necessities of an operational transfer price in a real world forest products or bioenergy supply agreement:
- Reflects market prices: The log or wood transfer price should approximate an “arms-length”, market based price. While the transfer price may deviate from the market price for a given month, the prices paid by the mill or bioenergy plant for raw matieral over time should minimize the perceived and actual missed opportunities of bypassing other customers and markets. This criterion passes the fairness test and retains the benefits of operating in a market environment.
- Easy to implement and to use: The model should be easy to understand, easy to explain, and easy to use. Complex transfer pricing methods do not create value for business owners; simple transfer pricing models allow managers to focus time and resources on operating the business.
- Retains flexibility: At times, the two parties may feel the transfer price requires an adjustment. Rather than disregard the model to make an adjustment, an approach should be determined in advance for adjusting the model or revising the price. As such, the option would exist for both parties to agree to periodically review and revise, if necessary, the transfer price based on new information or on a region-wide log price index.
Situations exist when both parties want to revisit prices and how they were calculated, and accounting for this in advance based on clear principles can minimize unnecessary costs, friction and arbitration.
For investors and analysts evaluating wood and timber markets, Forisk offers “Timber Market Analysis” on August 12th in Atlanta, a one-day course for anyone who wants a step-by-step process to understand, track, and analyze the price, demand, supply, and competitive dynamics of timber markets and wood baskets. For more information, click here.