In our previous exposé, we dissected StoneX’s eyebrow-raising projection of a 188.1 bushel-per-acre U.S. corn yield for 2025, which is a figure that reeks of market manipulation, designed to crater futures prices and squeeze farmers already teetering on the edge of profitability.
StoneX’s 188 Bushel Corn Yield Estimate: A Market Manipulation Scheme to Undermine Farmers
With corn futures languishing between $4.10 and $4.30 per bushel, far below production costs for many growers, this inflated estimate isn’t just optimistic; it’s a weapon in a broader corporate assault on American agriculture. Now, we delve deeper into the fox guarding the grain house: StoneX’s reliance on biased data from grain-buying behemoths, their symbiotic relationship with these entities, and the shadowy role of BlackRock, the asset management titan that’s StoneX’s largest shareholder and a voracious investor in the very sectors that profit from depressed grain prices.
StoneX’s Data Pipeline: Straight from the Buyers’ Mouths
At the heart of StoneX’s yield projections lies a customer survey that’s anything but impartial. StoneX, a global financial services firm specializing in commodities trading and market intelligence, bases its estimates on input from “primarily commercial grain companies who buy directly from the farmer, and who have agronomists in the field,” according to Chief Commodities Economist Arlan Suderman himself.
Primarily commercial grain companies who buy directly from the farmer, and who have agronomists in the field.
— Arlan Suderman (@ArlanFF101) August 2, 2024
This admission, buried in a response on X (formerly Twitter), confirms what industry insiders have long suspected: StoneX’s data isn’t drawn from a broad cross-section of farmers or independent scouts but from the very entities with a vested interest in low prices.
Commercial grain companies (think elevators, processors, and end-users like ethanol plants and livestock feeders) are StoneX’s bread-and-butter clients. These firms thrive when they can scoop up corn and soybeans at bargain-basement rates, locking in profits on their downstream operations. StoneX’s business model revolves around providing market intelligence, brokerage services, and risk management to these players.
By surveying their own customer base, StoneX effectively amplifies the voices of buyers over sellers. As one commenter on our original piece noted, “With this being a Stone X Customer Survey it tells me that the info comes from buyers. The majority of Stone X business comes from elevators and end users, not farmer accounts.”
This isn’t speculation; StoneX’s own reports highlight their reliance on these surveys for yield models, often pegging corn in the mid-to-upper 180s bushels per acre despite real-world challenges like tassel wrap, delayed planting, and excessive rainfall that left millions of acres unplanted.
The result? Inflated projections that flood the market narrative, driving down futures prices and forcing farmers to sell their harvest at a loss. When grain companies can buy low, they stockpile, process, and resell at higher margins,all while StoneX collects fees on the trades and intelligence services that facilitate this cycle.
The Manipulation Machine: Vested Interests in Devalued Grains
StoneX and its grain company clients aren’t neutral observers; they’re active participants in a system rigged against the producer. Low grain prices directly benefit buyers by slashing input costs for everything from animal feed to biofuels. For instance, when corn dips below $4.50 per bushel, livestock operations and ethanol producers see their margins swell, as feed and feedstock become dirt cheap.
StoneX’s role as a broker means they profit from the volatility and volume these price swings generate, regardless of the direction, but their high-yield estimates conveniently tilt the scales toward depression. This isn’t an accident. Historical patterns show USDA estimates, often influenced by similar industry data, get revised downward late in the season, after farmers have already forward-sold at low prices.
StoneX’s surveys, drawn from agronomists employed by these buyers, introduce inherent bias: Why would a grain company report lower yields when that could drive up the prices they pay to farmers? The answer is they wouldn’t. This closed loop – data from buyers, projections for buyers, profits for buyers – leaves farmers out in the cold, watching their livelihoods evaporate as markets react to these “authoritative” forecasts.
BlackRock: The Puppet Master Pulling Strings from Wall Street to the Wheat Fields
Enter BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with over $10 trillion under management, and StoneX’s top institutional shareholder. As of recent filings, BlackRock holds approximately 6.58 million shares of StoneX Group Inc., equating to about 12.62% ownership, making it the dominant force in the company’s investor base.
This stake gives BlackRock significant sway over StoneX’s strategic direction, including its market intelligence operations that produce these contentious yield estimates. But BlackRock’s tentacles extend far beyond StoneX. The firm is a major player in global agriculture, with billions invested in agribusiness companies and, increasingly, direct farmland acquisitions. Through funds like the iShares MSCI Agriculture Producers ETF (VEGI), BlackRock holds stakes in giants producing fertilizers, farm machinery, packaged foods, and meats, which are sectors that directly benefit from cheap grains as raw materials.
BlackRock also invests heavily in processors like ADM, Cargill, and Bunge, which have been snapping up Ukrainian farmland amid geopolitical chaos, positioning themselves to control supply chains.
More alarmingly, BlackRock is ramping up direct farmland investments. In late 2024, it launched a £100 million hedge fund targeted at British agriculture, aiming to capitalize on “booming food prices” by acquiring land.
While fact-checks confirm BlackRock doesn’t own the “majority” of U.S. farmland, its indirect influence through equity stakes in land-holding entities is undeniable.
BlackRock’s Nutrition Fund and other vehicles pour over $5.2 billion into 20 agribusiness firms, many linked to environmental and human rights issues, further entrenching its grip on the sector.
How Rock-Bottom Grain Prices Supercharge BlackRock’s Empire
Depressed grain prices aren’t a bug in BlackRock’s system; they’re a feature. For investors in downstream agribusiness, low corn and soybean costs translate to fatter profits. Meat and dairy producers, for example, enjoy reduced feed expenses, boosting margins in a high-demand market.
BlackRock’s holdings in these companies amplify returns as grain surpluses (real or projected) keep inputs cheap. But the real windfall comes from distress in the heartland. When prices fall below break-even, currently around $5 per bushel for many U.S. corn farmers, growers face bankruptcy, foreclosures, and forced land sales.
Institutional investors like BlackRock swoop in, acquiring prime acreage at fire-sale prices through subsidiaries or partnered funds. This isn’t theoretical; foreign and institutional ownership of U.S. farmland surged 60% between 2009 and 2019, often amid economic pressures on family farms.
BlackRock’s strategy mirrors this: Invest in processors that profit from cheap grains, then capitalize on the fallout by expanding land portfolios, all while hedging via commodity funds that thrive on volatility.
In essence, BlackRock benefits on multiple fronts: Lower prices pad the bottom lines of its agribusiness holdings, create opportunities for cheap land grabs, and position it to control more of the food supply chain. StoneX, as BlackRock’s proxy in market intelligence, feeds this machine with yield projections that keep the pressure on.
The Call to Action: Time to Cage the Fox
This isn’t just business; it’s a calculated erosion of America’s agricultural independence. Farmers, already battered by weather woes and rising costs, deserve transparency, not manipulated data from a cabal of buyers and Wall Street overlords. Regulators must scrutinize StoneX’s survey methodologies and BlackRock’s influence, demanding full disclosure of data sources and conflicts of interest. Until then, the fox isn’t just guarding the grain house, it’s devouring it whole, one depressed bushel at a time.