The 2024 negative year on the farmland index: noise, or the start of something

Question

I've been going back through the NCREIF farmland numbers because a fund deck I got handed leaned hard on the recovery story and skipped past what happened before it.

The facts as I read them. 2024 produced a rare negative total return for the index, the first in a long stretch. Then values stabilized, USDA cropland came in around $5,830 an acre for 2025, up roughly 4 to 5 percent and the fifth straight annual gain. Net farm income bounced hard, close to $180 billion, up something like 29 percent, as commodity prices firmed and input costs came off their peak.

So two readings.

One: 2024 was a rate story and nothing more. Cap rates on productive ground repriced against a higher risk free rate, the appraisal cycle caught up in one ugly print, and once farm income recovered the asset went back to compounding. The index has been positive for decades. One down year in a leveraged rate shock is what you'd expect from any real asset and it says nothing about the underlying dirt.

Two: it was a warning about the income side. Income returns sit in the 2 to 5 percent range. When cash rent yields 3 percent and financing costs more than that, appreciation is the only thing holding the number up, and appreciation is a decision buyers make. 2024 was what happens when buyers get selective. The recovery in 2025 was concentrated in Grade A ground with proven yield history, which means the average masks a widening gap.

I lean one way but I've been in this eleven weeks and everything is new, so I want to hear the other side properly.

priya_n21 · Answer

I want income without a second job, so the 2 to 5 percent number is where I stall out every time. If the total return depends on appreciation, then I'm not buying an income asset at all, I'm buying a savings account that occasionally reprices. That's fine as a diversifier and it's honest, but the funds selling it as yield are selling something else.

paulgrant17 · Answer

rigging, both of your readings can hold at once and I don't think that's a dodge. The index is a national average across regions and crop types. A single negative print tells you the discount rate moved. It can't tell you whether a specific county's cash rent is sustainable, because the rent gets set by operator margins in that county and those vary enormously.

What I'd actually want from that fund deck is the split between income return and appreciation for each of the last ten years, per region. If income has been flat at 3 percent while appreciation carried everything, you're looking at a duration bet on rates, which is a real position and not the inflation hedge they're describing. If income has grown with rents, different story.

Ask them for the dispersion, not the average. If they won't give it, that's information too.

aaron_fitz10 · Answer

marlow, the funds aren't wrong exactly, they're just quoting total return and letting you hear the word yield. Same trick every asset class runs.

The piece I'd add, rigging, is that farmland's whole argument was never the level of return. It's the correlation. Low correlation to stocks and bonds, low volatility, value that comes from land that has to produce food regardless of what the market does. A single down year actually strengthens that argument rather than weakening it, because it showed the drawdown was shallow and the recovery came from the operating economics rather than from someone bidding it back up.

So I'd call 2024 a rate print. What I wouldn't do is assume that means every acre is fine. Grade B ground with no yield history and a marginal operator is a different asset that shares a name with the good stuff.

The 2024 negative year on the farmland index: noise, or the start of something

3 replies