Search
Displaying 541 - 550 of 707
March 30, 2018
Grain Market Outlook
gularly occurring in South America and the United States. Strong demand for
soybean imports from China, Japan, and other Asian countries have supported World soybean prices.
Longer term, from MY 2007/08 to “old crop” MY 2017/18, this strong upward trend in World soybean
production (up 5.6% annually) has “out‐paced” increases in World soybean use (up 5.0% per year). As long as
growth in World soybean production continues to outpace World soybean usage, then World soybean stocks
will remain at high levels with prices continuing at their current “moderate” levels – being affected positively
be ongoing strength in demand, but held “in check” by more than adequate world supplies.
The potential for soybean market disruptions from trade policy‐related confrontations between the U.S. and
China has emerged as an issue in early 2018. These economic – geopolitical tensions so far have not resulted
in official direct tariffs or import limitations by China on U.S. soybeans. However, it is reported that Chinese
buyers of soybeans have responded by aggressively pursuing Brazilian soybean imports, and to a degree have
at least moderated their purchases of U.S. soybeans in recent months. So, although no official action has been
taken by China against U.S. soybean imports, such tensions have to a degree already affected U.S. soybean
trade by “pressuring” Chinese buyers to redirect their buying focus toward Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and
wherever else globally they can secure soybean and oilseed products.
B. Soybean Market Response to the March 8th & 29th USDA Reports
Since the USDA released its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report on March 8th
soybean futures prices had moved primarily lower. From the March 8th close of $10.64, CME MAY 2018
Soybean futures prices have traded from a high of $10.63 on 3/9/2018 down to a low of $10.09 ¼ on March
23rd, before closing at $10.18 on Wednesday, March 28th – the day prior to the USDA Quarterly Stocks &
Prospective Plantings reports on March 29th. Then on the day of the March 29th USDA reports, CME MAY
2018 Soybean futures responded positively, trading from a low of $10.12 ½ to a high of $10.50 ¾ before
closing at $10.44 ¾ – up $0.26 ¾ per bushel for the day.
Kansas cash soybean prices at terminals in central and eastern Kansas ranged from $9.42 ¾ to $9.89 ¾ /bu on
March 29th – with basis ranging from $1.02 under to $0.60 under MAY 2018 Soybean futures. That same day
in western Kansas, major grain elevator bids ranged from $9.10 to $9.45 per bushel – with basis ranging from
$1.35 under to $1.00 under.
C. World Soybean Supply‐Demand Findings in the March 8th WASDE USDA Report
On March 8th for the “old crop” 2017/18 marketing year (MY) to end on August 31, 2018, the USDA projected
the following.
Page | 2
First, that World soybean total supplies would be 437.5 million metric tons (mmt) (down 3.0%) with total use
of 34.8 mmt (up 4.2%) for “old crop” MY 2017/18. With supplies moving lower and demand increasing, there
has been a moderate “tightening” of projected World ending stocks of soybeans.
Second, that World soybean exports will continue trending higher – up to a record high to 150.6 mmt in the
“old crop” 2017/18 marketing year. This amount of World soybean exports of 150.6 mmt in “old crop” MY
2017/18 would be up from previous records of 147.5 mmt last year, and 132.6 mmt two years ago. World
soybean exports have been growing annually at a 9.1% rate since the 2007/08 marketing year.
Third, that World soybean ending stocks would be a 94.4 mmt in “old crop” MY 2017/18 ‐ down from the
record high of 96.65 mmt in MY 2016/17, but still up from 78.3 mmt in MY 2015/16. Overall, World soybean
ending stocks have grown at an 8.0% rate annually since the 2007/08 marketing year.
Fourth, that World soybean percent ending stocks‐to‐use (% S/U) would be 27.5% ‐ the 2nd highest on record
but down from the record high of 29.3% last year, while being up from 24.9% and 25.7% the two years prior.
D. USDA U.S. Soybean Supply/Demand for “Old Crop” MY 2017/18 & “New Crop” MY 2018/19
The USDA released their soybean production, supply‐demand and price projections for the U.S. for “old crop”
MY 2017/18 in the March 8th WASDE report, for “new crop” MY 2018/19 in its February 23rd USDA Ag Outlook
Forum projections, for 2018 planted acres in the March 29th Prospective Plantings report, and for November‐
February 2018 usage of U.S. soybeans and March 29th Grain Stocks report.
U.S. soybean plantings are forecast to be 88.982 million acres (ma) in 2018, down from 90.142 ma in 2017, and
83.433 ma in 2016. Harvested acres are forecast by Kansas State University to be 88.222 ma in 2018 (99.15%
harvested‐to‐planted – latest 5 year average), down 1.45% from 89.522 ma in year 2017, but up 6.7% from
82.696 ma in 2016.
The 2018 U.S. average soybean yield is forecast at 48.5 bu/ac, down from a KSU‐adjusted estimate of 49.79
bu/ac in 2017, and from the 2016 record of 52.0 bu/acre. This KSU adjustment to the most recent official
USDA estimate on March 8th was made following the March 29th grain stocks report. The USDA estimate of
March 1, 2018 U.S. soybean stocks came in approximately 65 mb larger than trade estimates. Given that
estimates of U.S. soybean domestic crush, exports, and seed use for the November‐February 2018 quarter are
known with some accuracy, it seems that the unexplained increase in U.S. soybean stocks on March 1st may be
due to the USDA underestimating the size of the 2017 U.S. soybean crop. As a result, if 2017 soybean planted
and harvested acreage are left unchanged, and 65 mb is added to the size of the 2017 U.S. soybean crop, then
this KSU‐adjusted estimate of 2017 U.S. soybean yields is raised to 49.79 bu/ac – up from the latest USDA’s
official 2017 U.S. soybean yield estimate of 49.1 bu/ac.
Soybean production in the U.S. in 2018 is forecast to be 4.279 billion bushels (bb), down from the KSU‐
adjusted record high of 4.457 bb in 2017 (vs the latest USDA estimate of 4.392 bb – see discussion above), but
up from 4.296 bb in 2016. After these adjustments, projected “new crop” MY 2018/19 U.S. soybean total
supplies are forecast at 4.924 bb, up from a KSU‐adjusted 4.783 bb in “old crop” MY 2017/18, and from 4.515
bb in MY 2016/17. Record high U.S. soybean total use of 4.415 bb is forecast for “new crop” MY 2018/19, up
from 4.163 bb in “old crop” MY 2017/18, and from 4.213 bb in MY 2016/17.
With previously mentioned changes in 2017 U.S. soybean production resulting from the outcome of the March
29th Grain Stocks report, the KSU‐adjusted USDA projection for “new crop” MY 2018/19 U.S. soybean ending
Page | 3
stocks equals 509 million bushels (mb) (11.52% stocks/use), down from a KSU‐adjusted estimate of 620 mb in
“new crop” MY 2017/18 (14.89% stocks/use), but up from 302 mb in MY 2016/17 (7.17% stocks/use).
United States’ soybean prices are projected to average $9.40 /bu in “new crop” MY 2018/19, up from $9.30
/bu in “old crop” MY 2017/18, but down from $9.47 in MY 2016/17, and comparable to $8.95 /bu in MY
2015/16, and $10.10 /bu in MY 2014/15. It is estimated by Kansas State University that these KSU‐adjusted
USDA projections for “new crop” MY 2018/19 have a 55% probability of occurring.
D. Two Alternative KSU U.S. Soybean S/D Forecasts for “New Crop” MY 2018/19
To represent possible alternative outcomes from the KSU‐adjusted USDA February 23rd projection for “new
crop” MY 2018/19, two potential KSU‐Scenarios for U.S. soybean supply‐demand and prices are presented.
KSU Scenario 1) “HIGHER 2018 U.S. Soybean Production” Scenario for “new crop” MY 2018/19 (25%
probability): 88.982 ma planted, 99.15% harvested‐to‐planted, 88.222 ma harvested, 52.0 bu/ac average
yield, 4.588 bb production, 5.233 bb total supplies, 2.350 bb exports, 2.000 bb domestic crush, 135 mb seed &
residual use, 4.485 bb total use, 748 mb ending stocks, 16.68% Stocks/Use, & $8.50 /bu U.S. soybean average
price.
KSU Scenario 1) “LOWER 2018 U.S. Soybean Production” Scenario for “new crop” MY 2018/19 (20%
probability): 88.982 ma planted, 99.15% harvested‐to‐planted, 88.222 ma harvested, 42.0 bu/ac average
yield, 3.705 bb production, 4.350 bb total supplies, 2.000 bb exports, 1.960 bb domestic crush, 135 mb seed &
residual use, 4.095 bb total use, 255 mb ending stocks, 6.23% Stocks/Use, & $11.00 /bu U.S. soybean average
price.
…
December 26, 2018
Grain Market Outlook
Kazakhstan wheat exports are forecast to be 8.50 mmt in “current” MY 2018/19, down from 9.00 mmt
in “old crop” MY 2017/18, but up from 7.40 mmt in MY 2016/17.
World total usage of wheat is projected to be a record high of 745.25 mmt in “current” MY 2018/19 – up
marginally from 744.16 mmt in “old crop” MY 2017/18, and from 739.86 mmt in MY 2016/17 (Figure 13).
World wheat ending stocks are projected to be 268.10 mmt in “current” MY 2018/19 – the 2nd highest in
history following the record high of 279.94 mmt in “old crop” MY 2017/18, and 261.04 mmt in MY 2016/17
(Figure 13). Since MY 2007/08, World wheat ending stocks have been growing an average of 12.7 mmt per
marketing year (by 9.9% annually) from the 10‐year low of 179.02 mmt in MY 2012/13 – out‐pacing the annual
growth in total use of 11.9 mmt per year (+1.9% annually) (Figures 14a‐b).
The distorting effect perpetually large Chinese wheat ending stocks on World wheat ending stocks figures
of will be examined in the following section.
World wheat percent ending stocks‐to‐use (% S/U) are forecast to be 35.97% in “current” MY 2018/19 ‐
the 2nd highest on record (Figures 14a‐b). The record high is 37.62% in “old crop” MY 2017/18, up from
35.28% on MY 2016/17 (3rd highest on record). World wheat % stocks‐to‐use have consistently increased each
year from the recent low of 26.02% in MY 2012/13 to the present – increasing to 28.5% in MY 2013/14; 31.7%
in MY 2014/15; 34.2% in MY 2015/16, 35.3% in MY 2016/17; and to the record high of 37.6% S/U in “old crop”
MY 2017/18; before a projected moderate decline to 36.0% in “current” MY 2018/19.
C. “World‐Less‐China” Wheat Supply‐Demand – “11‐Year LOW Ending Stocks”
The broader “large crop‐over supply‐low price” situation in the World wheat market continues to
“obscure” or “mask” the effect of large but somewhat isolated Chinese wheat stocks on actually available
World wheat supplies and stocks.
From a “World‐Less‐China” perspective, forecast ending stocks‐to‐use of 20.01% for “current” MY 2018/19
would be the lowest level in 11 years – since 17.54% S/U in MY 2007/08 (Figures 15a‐b). “World‐Less‐China”
wheat ending stocks‐to‐use are forecast to be down sharply from 23.86% in “old crop” MY 2017/18, and from
the range of 22.05% to 27.48% during the MY 2008/09 – MY 2017/18 period.
Page | 3
This “World‐Less‐China” perspective compares to the aggregated “World” perspective, in which forecast
World wheat ending stocks‐to‐use of 35.97% for “current” MY 2018/19 would be the 2nd highest level in 12
years – down only from the high of 37.62% S/U in “old crop” MY 2017/18 (Figures 14a‐b).
IF in coming months this “China supply isolation factor” eventually leads to noticeably tighter available
global supplies of purchasable wheat for buyers to gain possession of to meet their domestic needs, it could
yet have a significant positive impact on U.S. and World wheat market prices during the January‐May period of
“current” MY 2018/19. However, unless there is such a noticeable “tightening” in accessible, available wheat
supplies for buyers in the broader, with a predominant move AWAY FROM a large aggregate global supplies
perspective over TO tight available “World‐Less‐China” supplies situation, the market’s attention on this factor
may not positively affect the pro‐active purchasing of World wheat market participants. The information in
the following section may be an impetus for that change.
D. Wheat Futures & Kansas Cash Markets Since the December 11th
CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures
Since the USDA’s December 11th Crop Production and World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates
(WASDE) report, CME MARCH 2019 Kansas Hard Red Winter (HRW) Wheat futures have traded first higher,
and then lower. On the day of the reports, MAR 2019 Kansas HRW wheat futures opened at $5.10 ¼ /bu, and
traded in the range of $5.01 ½ to $5.14 ½ before closing $0.05 ½ lower to $5.02 ½ . Since then, MAR 2019
HRW wheat futures first trended higher, trading as high as $5.24 ½ on December 14th, but then trended down
to a low of $4.97 ½ on December 24th , before closing at $5.02 ½ /bu on that same day (Figure 1).
Kansas Cash Wheat Prices & Basis
On December 21st – the 8th trading day after the USDA reports – Kansas cash wheat price terminal quotes
for ordinary U.S. no. 1 HRW in central Kansas ranged from $4.68 ¾ to $4.87 ¾ per bushel – with basis ranging
from $0.34 under to $0.15 under MARCH 2019 KS HRW Wheat futures. Cash wheat prices in eastern Kansas
grain terminals ranged from $4.52 ¾ to $4.87 ¾ /bu with basis ranging from $0.50 under to $0.15 under MAR
2019 futures. These prices are still up 27%‐32% from the range of $3.42 ¼ to $3.83 ¼ /bu in late December
2017 in eastern and central Kansas – with basis at that time being from $0.80 under to $0.39 under nearby
MARCH 2018 futures.
In western Kansas on December 21st bids for ordinary U.S. no. 1 HRW wheat at selected grain elevators
ranged from $4.48 to $4.61 /bu, with basis being $0.55 under to $0.42 under MAR 2019 futures. Recent wheat
cash price bids in western Kansas are up 27% to 29% from $3.47 to $3.64 /bu in late December 2017 in this
same area – when local basis varied from $0.85 under to $0.58 under MARCH 2018 futures.
A Hard White Wheat (HWW) grain terminal bid was available in Wichita, Kansas on 12/21/2018 for $4.82
¾ /bu, with a basis of $0.20 /bu under MAR 2019 Kansas HRW wheat futures.
E. U.S. Wheat Supply/Demand – …
September 1, 2009
Assessing Business Opportunities
Abstract
Business development is crucial for sustained economic progress and individual well‐being.
This paper describes how to provide support for business development efforts in communities
in conflict environments or only recently emerged from conflict environments. It uses the
Cascade Approach® to provide a clear and practical framework for developing businesses that
are carefully and deliberately discovered by people who are passionate about them and are
capable of marshaling the requisite resources to transform ideas into exploitable value.
The author is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State
University. He may be reached by telephone at (785) 532‐3520 and by email at
vincent@ksu.edu.
There are worksheets accompanying this paper and they are available at www.Agmanager.info.
Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
Research Problem and Paper Outline ......................................................................................... 1
PART I: PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 3
The Geography of Economic Thought ........................................................................................ 3
Our Assumptions Are Not Necessarily Universal ........................................................................ 4
Establishing the Purpose for Action ............................................................................................ 6
PART II: OPPORTUNITY DISCOVERY AND ASSESSMENT.................................................................. 8
Defining the Person Searching for Opportunities ....................................................................... 8
The Conscious Search for Opportunities .................................................................................... 9
Assessment of Identified Opportunities ................................................................................... 11
Transforming Opportunities into Exploitable Value ................................................................. 12
Marshaling of Strategic Resources ........................................................................................... 16
Assigning Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 18
PART III: FROM STRATEGIC THINKING TO STRATEGIC ACTION .................................................... 19
There Are No Islands ................................................................................................................. 19
Executing the Ideas ................................................................................................................... 20
There Are No Linearities, Expect Breakdowns .......................................................................... 22
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 23
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 24
1
Practical Strategies for Business Development in
Conflict and Post‐Conflict Environments
Vincent Amanor‐Boadu
August 2009
INTRODUCTION
Conflicts can have adverse effects on people’s decision‐making capacity
and influence their relationships. This is because conflicts affect the
sensemaking that people bring to events and situations. Entrepreneurial
actions are based on creativity. They are driven by a way of thinking and
seeing that presents valuable opportunities which may be exploited for
the value they present. Given that entrepreneurs in conflict and post‐
conflict environments can be affected immeasurably by the subtle and
not‐so‐subtle events that define and characterize their experiences, their
ability to see opportunities and assess them is frequently affected by
these events. Thus, working in conflict or post‐conflict environments can
arduous because one has to negotiate one’s own sensemaking processes
as well navigate those of the people with whom one is working.
Despite these challenges, the work can be very rewarding if those
working on business development in these environments can develop the
right appreciation of the fundamentals of entrepreneurial business
development and understanding resource availability and constraints.
Their efforts can yield some positive effects if they can understand their
entrepreneurs’ capabilities and their capacities to overcome these
constraints as well as their audacity to drive towards their defined
objectives. These fruitful outcomes were observed in Japan and Europe
after the Second World War, when U.S. economic support under the
Marshall Plan helped leverage the inherent capabilities of Europeans and
Japanese to overcome the scourge of that conflict.
Research Problem and Paper Outline
This paper is framed to guide people working with nascent entrepreneurs
in conflict or post‐conflict environments embark on business
development initiatives. It focuses on the strategic aspects of business
development—opportunity discovery and assessment, resource
marshaling and execution of strategic plans. The tactical issues related to
business formation and marketing of products and services are treated
under a different title. Besides, the strategic issues discussed here are
less culture and location‐dependent than the tactical issues, allowing us
to discuss them in more generic terms. The paper’s overall objective,
2
then, is to provide the strategic processes that may be used to help with
business start‐ups and entrepreneurial renewal in conflict and post‐
conflict environments.
The people in conflict and post‐conflict environments are generally
different from the people who offer help and support that go beyond
culture. As Richard Nesbitt observed in his book The Geography of
Thought, these differences are embedded in the way people are
conditioned to “see” and interpret what they see. The tools for
seeing and interpreting are thought and language. Therefore,
the paper is divided into two principal parts. The first part
provides the philosophical framework for enhancing our
geography of thought capacity to facilitate business
development. It encompasses the development of a shared
seeing and a common language to communicate the thoughts
emanating from what is seen. Following that, I make the case
for clarity and completeness in the definition of the objectives
or the things that the business initiative seeks to achieve.
Stephen Covey defines this as “first things first” in his highly popular
bestseller, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
The second part of the paper uses the foregoing philosophical framework
to lay out a process for embarking on entrepreneurship‐driven business
development. The process presented here is based on the Cascade
Approach® I have developed and have been using with various
organizations for the past 15 years. The process involves the crafting of a
strategic direction for the business initiative—encompassing a vision,
mission and core value—and the development of an operations plan to
achieve the vision. We define the business’ objectives within the context
of specific business initiatives, developing a process for scoping for
opportunities and crafting strategies for translating the selected
objectives into exploitable value. The execution of the resulting plan
depends on resources and this is presented and discussed in the final
section of the paper.
The foundational philosophy of the strategic processes presented in this
paper is the metaphor of the river’s ultimate purpose: the desire to
empty itself into a larger body of water. The river’s commitment to this
purpose is such that it cannot be stopped regardless the size and might of
the obstacles in its path. It may be slowed down, but in the end, it
always achieves its purpose. This thought is reflected by Margaret
Wheatley in her book Leadership and the New Science. This metaphor is
appealing because the river exhibits the primary characteristics of
successful entrepreneurial business developers: tenacity, commitment
and passion.
3
PART I: PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK
The Geography of Economic Thought
Many years ago, I was a graduate student in Nigeria, working on the
economics of small farmer agriculture. My major professor, a respected
Nigerian production economist, invited me to accompany him to a
seminar at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) one
afternoon. The seminar was on the price response of Senegalese rice
farmers and was being presented by a visiting World Bank economist.
The essence of the presenter’s story was that an increase in rice price led
to a decrease in rice supply. He concluded from this that the African
small farmer is irrational because supply should increase with price
increases.
The room, filled with many of my professors, was very quiet after the
visiting economist completed his presentation. I could not understand
their silence because there was, obviously, something drastically wrong
with the irrationality conclusion. I knew this because I have lived with
some of these small farmers. But beyond my individual anecdotal
evidence, my master’s thesis was showing similar results—a negative
supply response—but I could not believe irrationality was a reasonable
explanation.1 I think my old professor invited me because he thought the
seminar will help me.
I asked the presenter what was measured as the farmers’ response to
price. “Did you measure production, acreage, marketed surplus or did all
of these return the same sign on price?” I asked.
After a little discussion, it became obvious that the measured response
variable was marketed surplus. That is, they measured how much the
farmers offered for sale, and not how much they produced.
“African small farmers will sell less of their total production when price
goes up and vice versa,” I heard my professor say something to that
effect. This is because African small farmers have a constant demand for
money—just enough to meet their purchase needs (school uniforms and
fees, books, salt, fish, etc. The negative sign on price was not due to
irrationality of the African small farmer at all, but to the capturing of the
wrong response metric to price.
Martin Brownbridge and his colleagues provide empirical support for the
constant demand for money theory as well as the low rate of savings
1 …
March 7, 2025
Methods and Supporting Information
roast, beef
sandwiches and other beef-based meals. “Pork” … pork roast, ground pork, and other pork-based meals.
“Chicken” … chicken, chicken sandwiches and other chicken-based meals.
“Fish/Seafood” …
March 7, 2025
Methods and Supporting Information
roast, beef
sandwiches and other beef-based meals. “Pork” … pork roast, ground pork, and other pork-based meals.
“Chicken” … chicken, chicken sandwiches and other chicken-based meals.
“Fish/Seafood” …
March 7, 2025
Methods and Supporting Information
roast, beef
sandwiches and other beef-based meals. “Pork” … pork roast, ground pork, and other pork-based meals.
“Chicken” … chicken, chicken sandwiches and other chicken-based meals.
“Fish/Seafood” …
August 1, 2018
Breakout Sessions
income-§108(f)(5). (does not affect other Fed. Programs where discharge … 500,000 (MFJ); $250,000 all others• Indexed• Applies at … and higher life assets to other entity with more income– …
February 20, 2013
Risk Management Strategies
with interim financing to meet cash flow
needs without … plus accrued interest and other charges p p p g
Alternative …
February 4, 2016
Land Use Value Research, Land Rental
Rates
pasture lease for activities other than livestock. Moving
from … percentage of leases for purposes other than
livestock increased … had leased for activities other …
March 13, 2020
Land Use Value Research, Land Rental
Rates
Bluestem Pasture Survey. All
other results are based solely … pasture leases for activities
other than livestock (Table 3 … percentage of leases for purposes other than livestock increased …