Search

Displaying 211 - 220 of 247
Supply, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012) vacated.  The Supreme … A226 KEY COLLECTION POLICY CLARIFICATIONS Page A227 K … S Page A227 KEY EXAMINATION POLICY CLARIFICATIONS ITIN CERTIFICATION PROCESS • …
October 1, 2023 2023 Crop Insurance Workshop Presentations
from farming both vary by commodity. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY … Miller 2007, Keller et al., 2012). MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY … https://ersrs.hrsa.gov/ReportServer?/HGDW_Reports/BCD_HPSA/BCD_HPSA_SCR50_Qtr_Smry_HTML&rc:Toolbar=false• Herbert, J. (2012). Cortisol and depression …
October 1, 2025 2025 Kansas Crop Insurance Presentations
from farming both vary by commodity. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY … Miller 2007, Keller et al., 2012). MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY … https://ersrs.hrsa.gov/ReportServer?/HGDW_Reports/BCD_HPSA/BCD_HPSA_SCR50_Qtr_Smry_HTML&rc:Toolbar=false• Herbert, J. (2012). Cortisol and depression …
May 1, 2024 Meat Demand Research Studies
is useful when analyzing policies or supply shocks, for examples … where one region enacts a policy governing pork that differs … 2004), Okrent and Alston (2012), and Wohlgenant (2011).3 …
August 15, 2025 Crop Insurance Papers
apply to your crop or known policy information. (1) Farm Location … Insurance Revenue Protection Policy (HPO) Information The values … details of your crop insurance policy using the pull down menus ARC …
Breakout Sessions
market risk, government commodity programs, crop insurance … crop insurance and public policy. Art was 1 of 30 people … measuring basis risk for commodity grains, understanding the …
September 22, 2011
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 Percent I-N-07 09/13/11Livestock … of 800 lb steer March 1, 2012 is $137.37/cwt • … 26,154 -0.6 2012 I 7,934 -4.6 …
April 28, 2025 Recent Videos
the “leader,” but each commodity, especially soybeans will … 7.13 $0.20 ($0.20) ($0.40)2012 $6.36 $6.35 $6.47 ($0.01 … alternatives offer.• Each involve commodity options, allowing you to …
June 24, 2025 Recent Videos, Risk and Profit Online Mini-Conference Presentations
11,647 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 … 2.81 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 … SUNFLOWER EU SELF‐SUFFICIENCY RATES FOR SELECTED AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (%) Note: Self‐sufficiency rates are calculated as production/consumption. A value above 100 indicates the capacity to exportSMP ‐ …
June 28, 2018 Hedging & Options
  INTRODUCTION  The CME Live Cattle Futures Contract has been an important risk management tool available to  the cattle and beef industry for more than 50 years. The magnitude of capital at risk in the  industry together with elevated market volatility present today makes having a viable live cattle  futures market of immense importance in price risk management. The viability of this market  hinges on how effectively its use mitigates fed cattle price risk for hedgers.     The performance of the live cattle futures market rests heavily on contract specifications. One  debated contract specification in live cattle futures is physical delivery as a way to settle the  obligation of a short position in the market. The delivery option is the main way cash and  futures prices for delivery settled contracts can be aligned in the delivery period near contract  expiration. Convergence of cash and futures in the current contract is conditioned on delivery  potential. However, a variety of concerns surround live cattle futures contract delivery. The  magnitude of concerns prompted industry and CME Group discussions to consider eliminating  delivery in live cattle futures and switch to a cash settled contract.2 Though certainly not new,  as switching the contract to cash settlement was considered in the mid‐1990s,3,4 the debate has  elevated again in recent years.     NCBA has an established policy position supporting physical delivery settlement of the live  cattle futures contract.5 However, concerns surrounding delivery need to be carefully assessed  and evaluated to potentially improve this component of the live cattle futures contract. This  project was designed to identify and document concerns with current delivery and to provide  practical guidance to NCBA as they consider alternative physical delivery mechanisms in the live  cattle futures market.     The range of sentiments of cattle market participants we interviewed for this study ranged  from those who thought the contract worked very well to those who see the contract and  physical delivery as outdated and inconsistent with the modern live cattle industry.    …