Search
Displaying 61 - 70 of 89
March 1, 2015
USDA METSS Project
expenditure on U.S. goods, an event that increases during recessionary … economic stimulant. When these events shift the demand for U.S … trade that influence
the profitability of arbitrage opportunities …
May 22, 2017
Grain Market Outlook
DEC 2017 CME KS HRW Wheat Futures
March 21, 2016 – May 19, 2017
Close = $4.80 ¼ on 5/19/2017
JULY 2017 CME KS HRW Wheat Futures
March 21, 2016 – May 19, 2017
Close = $4.38 on 5/19/2017
Page | 4
DECEMBER (DEC) 2017 CME Kansas hard red winter wheat futures traded as high as $5.90 ¼ on
April 20, 2016, and $5.90 on June 8, 2016. Then DEC 2017 HRW wheat futures declined to lows of
$4.74 per bushel on August 31st, $4.72 ½ on October 12th, and $4.59 ½ on December 1, 2016. DEC
2017 CME Kansas hard red winter wheat futures then traded up to a high of $5.30 ¾ on February 16,
2017. From that February 16th high, DEC 2017 CME KS HRW Wheat futures then traded lower –
down to a low of $4.67 on April 25th before rising to $5.09 on May 2nd before closing at $4.80 ¼ on
Friday, May 19th (Figure 1).
The total futures carrying charge or “term spread” between JULY 2017 and DEC 2017 CME Kansas Wheat
futures contracts on Friday, May 19th was $0.42 ¼ per bushel (i.e., $4.80 ¼ for DEC 2017 less $4.38 for JULY
2017 Wheat), or $0.07042 per bushel per month. This compares to commercial storage charges in Kansas grain
elevators in the range of $0.04 to $0.05 per bushel per month – before interest or additional handling costs or
other discounts are accounted for.
Given these futures carrying charges, commercial storage of wheat from JULY 2017 to DEC 2017 would at
least break even and/or cover costs (i.e., carry of $0.07042 /bu/mo is greater than $0.04‐$0.05 /bu/mo storage
cost) IF local cash wheat basis levels would at least stay unchanged and not weaken further over the May‐July
2017 period. Along this same lines of reasoning, it may be profitable to actually place a stor …
March 26, 2013
1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
Mil. Head
C-N-38
02/04/13
+1.9 … 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
$ Per … and $697/cow
Cow-calf profitability drivers…
• Analysis …
September 6, 2017
Grain Market Outlook
State University that these USDA projections for “new crop” MY 2016/17 have a 55% probability of
occurring.
Four Alternative KSU U.S. Wheat Supply/Demand Forecast for “New Crop” MY 2017/18
To represent possible alternative outcomes from the USDA’s August 10th projection, four potential KSU‐
Scenarios for U.S. wheat supply‐demand and prices are presented for “new crop” MY 2017/18.
KSU Scenario 1) “Lower U.S. Production” Scenario (25% probability) assumes for “new crop” MY 2017/18
that the following occurs. This scenario assumes that there will be 46.657 ma planted, 83.72% harvested‐to‐
planted, 37.500 ma harvested, 44.0 bu/ac yield, 1.650 bb production, 2.984 bb total supplies, 975 mb exports,
150 mb feed & residual use, 2.141 bb total use, 843 mb ending stocks, 39.37% stocks/use, & $5.20 /bu U.S.
wheat average price.
KSU Scenario 2) “Lower U.S. Wheat Exports” Scenario (10% probability) assumes the following for “new
crop” MY 2017/18: Production of 1.739 bb (same as the USDA), 3.074 bb total supplies, 800 mb exports, 150
mb feed & residual use, 1.966 bb total use, 1.108 bb ending stocks, 56.36% stocks/use, & $3.75 /bu U.S. wheat
average price;
KSU Scenario 3) “Higher U.S. Wheat Exports” Scenario (5% probability) assumes the following for “new
crop” MY 2017/18: Production of 1.739 bb (same as the USDA), 3.074 bb total supplies, 1.200 bb exports, 150
mb feed & residual use, 2.366 bb total use, 708 mb ending stocks, 29.92% stocks/use, & $6.00 /bu U.S. wheat
average price;
KSU Scenario 4) “Wildcard Foreign Events” Scenario (5% probability) assumes the following for “new
crop” MY 2017/18: Production of 1.739 bb (same as the USDA), 3.074 bb total supplies, less than 700 mb
exports, 150 mb feed & residual use, less than 1.800 bb total use, more than 1.300 bb ending stocks, greater
than 65% stocks/use, & less than $3.00 /bu U.S. wheat average price;
…
August 20, 2013
Land Buying and Valuing
land parcel’s expected
profitability – because owner equity … financing decision does impact risk; investments using more borrowed … KS 5.56 2.42 6.59 0.23 3.70 1.67 5.43 36.69 1880 1910 -0.12%
AL 5.23 2.39 8.03 0.08 4.68 1.86 6.63 29.81 1881 1911 -0.12%
AR 6.00 2.43 7.61 0.14 3.97 1.81 5.84 31.92 1882 1912 0.00%
AZ 2.41 0.43 4.77 2.07 3.41 1.17 4.62 8.96 1883 1913 0.20%
CA 3.45 0.70 4.89 0.13 2.19 3.14 5.40 14.33 1884 1914 0.36%
CO 5.41 2.04 6.86 0.21 4.41 1.95 6.45 29.72 1885 1915 0.40%
FL 2.21 0.66 3.30 0.18 5.17 2.53 7.83 19.92 1886 1916 0.64%
GA 4.78 1.59 8.02 0.26 5.25 2.34 7.71 19.82 1887 1917 1.18%
IA 5.76 2.62 6.35 0.34 4.87 1.48 6.42 41.30 1888 1918 1.72%
ID 6.62 3.95 8.17 0.36 4.04 1.14 5.23 48.29 1889 1919 2.20%
IL 4.70 2.38 5.33 0.44 4.94 1.33 6.33 44.66 1890 1920 2.70%
IN 5.39 2.48 6.26 0.22 4.90 1.58 6.56 39.60 1891 1921 2.31%
KY 6.02 3.80 8.26 0.18 4.66 1.21 5.93 45.97 1892 1922 2.09%
LA 4.95 2.81 6.12 0.14 4.25 1.23 5.53 45.98 1893 1923 2.15%
MI 3.44 1.25 5.46 1.31 5.03 1.47 6.57 22.94 1894 1924 2.28%
MN 6.15 3.31 7.23 0.36 5.36 1.30 6.73 45.79 1895 1925 2.50%
MO 6.41 2.89 7.20 0.12 4.96 1.56 6.60 40.21 1896 1926 2.54%
MS 6.64 3.42 9.24 0.17 4.80 1.49 6.36 37.01 1897 1927 2.47%
MT 6.28 3.05 7.80 0.26 4.05 1.50 5.61 39.02 1898 1928 2.42%
NC 4.22 1.53 7.32 0.29 3.97 2.20 6.26 20.90 1899 1929 2.42%
ND 7.10 3.14 7.80 0.26 5.32 1.53 6.93 40.32 1900 1930 2.34%
NE 6.33 3.11 6.85 0.51 5.26 1.25 6.57 45.36 1901 1931 2.02%
NM 5.89 4.07 7.61 0.24 4.35 0.93 5.31 53.57 1902 1932 1.52%
NV 6.37 5.41 7.97 0.33 3.10 0.60 3.71 67.84 1903 1933 1.22%
NY 3.64 1.20 5.26 0.90 4.19 2.02 6.30 22.79 1904 1934 1.33%
OH 4.08 2.11 4.84 0.33 4.74 1.37 6.18 43.57 1905 1935 1.41%
OK 4.39 1.99 5.29 0.15 3.66 1.59 5.30 37.54 1906 1936 1.44%
OR 5.50 2.74 6.92 0.51 4.10 1.45 5.61 39.62 1907 1937 1.44%
PA 1.89 0.74 3.22 0.55 4.73 1.89 6.70 23.06 1908 1938 1.50%
SC 3.68 1.56 5.89 0.22 4.21 1.96 6.25 26.57 1909 1939 1.33%
SD 6.73 3.08 7.85 0.38 5.39 1.49 6.95 39.25 1910 1940 1.36%
TN 5.94 2.39 9.08 0.20 3.84 2.00 5.92 26.34 1911 1941 1.53%
TX 3.40 1.25 5.13 0.24 3.15 2.09 5.30 24.35 1912 1942 1.75%
UT 3.94 1.69 5.43 0.22 3.25 1.85 5.16 31.09 1913 1943 1.87%
VA 3.76 0.91 6.60 0.20 3.57 2.90 6.57 13.71 1914 1944 1.88%
WA 7.15 4.99 8.89 0.59 4.01 0.83 4.87 56.18 1915 1945 1.93%
WI 5.02 2.15 6.94 0.74 4.83 1.73 6.64 30.96 1916 1946 1.96%
WV 4.20 1.22 6.65 0.05 3.25 2.64 5.97 18.39 1917 1947 1.87%
WY 5.69 1.82 7.22 0.14 4.03 2.22 6.33 25.15 1918 1948 1.51%
WY 6.16 1.49 7.68 0.11 3.80 2.73 6.63 19.34 1919 1949 1.02%
39-state 1920 1950 0.56%
average 5.05 2.33 6.70 0.36 4.30 1.73 6.10 33.62 1921 1951 1.16%
1922 1952 1.45%
1923 1953 1.44%
1924 1954 1.46%
1925 1955 1.39%
1926 1956 1.42%
1927 1957 1.59%
1928 1958 1.71%
1929 1959 1.76%
1930 1960 1.91%
1931 1961 2.25%
1932 1962 2.67%
1933 1963 2.89%
1934 1964 2.82%
1935 1965 2.79%
1936 1966 2.84%
1937 1967 2.80%
1938 1968 3.00%
1939 1969 3.20%
1940 1970 3.33%
1941 1971 3.30%
1942 1972 3.07%
1943 1973 3.04%
1944 1974 3.33%
1945 1975 3.52%
1946 1976 3.43%
1947 1977 3.18%
1948 1978 3.22%
1949 1979 3.54%
1950 1980 3.86%
1951 1981 3.92%
1952 1982 4.04%
1953 1983 4.14%
1954 1984 4.24%
1955 1985 4.35%
1956 1986 4.35%
1957 1987 4.35%
1958 1988 4.40%
1959 1989 4.50%
1960 1990 4.59%
1961 1991 4.67%
1962 1992 4.72%
1963 1993 4.76%
1964 1994 4.78%
1965 1995 4.80%
1966 1996 4.79%
1967 1997 4.76%
1968 1998 4.66%
1969 1999 4.55%
1970 2000 4.48%
1971 2001 4.40%
1972 2002 4.33%
1973 2003 4.22%
1974 2004 3.96%
1975 2005 3.78%
1976 2006 3.68%
1977 2007 3.55%
1978 2008 3.42%
1979 2009 3.13%
1980 2010 2.83%
1981 2011 2.62%
1982 2012 2.50%
Data …
January 31, 2022
Ag Law Issues
for other significant life events. By waiting until estate … 8th
Cir. 2010). In any event, the transaction must have … Memo. 200437030 (Apr. 30, 2004). As cash equivalents, the …
January 1, 2009
Animal ID & Traceability
The first set of scenarios compare doing nothing (status quo) to adopting
full animal tracing for just the bovine sector. The bovine sector is the
focus here because it is it the sector among bovine, porcine, ovine, and
poultry that would incur the largest adoption cost of NAIS practices.
Under the status quo scenarios, we further explore what the impacts are
if by doing nothing we also lose export market access. We are likely to
lose export market access over time if we do not adopt NAIS practices,
even without any major market or major animal disease event, because
the international marketplace is making animal identification and tracing
systems the norm and any country that does not conform will have less
market access.
Table 2 summarizes the total loss per head to producers in the beef
sector, after all markets adjust as a result of not adopting NAIS practices
(i.e., status quo) under 0%, 10%, 25%, and 50% permanent export
market losses for beef. If we do nothing to adopt NAIS, and nothing
happens to export markets, the result is no cost, no market loss. If we do
nothing and we lose market access, which we believe is likely, the beef
industry will suffer losses. The losses would amount to $18.25 per head if
we do not adopt NAIS and we lose 25% of export market share. To put
this into perspective, this would be about like losing access to the South
Korean export market at 2003 export market shares.
Table 2. Net Annual Loss in Beef Producer Surplus from Status Quo
with Varying Export Market Losses
Export Market Loss Incurred
0% …
that is contingent on future events• A formal claim follows … corporation?
Material participation?
At-risk limitations?
AMT adjustments?
Shareholder … Limitations
Stock and debt basis
At risk
Passive activity loss
pp …
July 18, 2012
Energy
cost variability and greater risk management challenges ...........18
Figure … characterized by natural lag between profits and changes in slaughter … required cuts in use in the event of short-crop conditions.
Livestock …
July 18, 2012
Cash Prices & Marketing Strategies
cost variability and greater risk management challenges ...........18
Figure … characterized by natural lag between profits and changes in slaughter … required cuts in use in the event of short-crop conditions.
Livestock …