KSU Article on “What Caused Wheat Basis to Widen by a Dollar?” on AgManager.info

What Caused the HRW Wheat Basis to Widen by a Dollar?

Kansas State University Extension Agricultural Economist Daniel O’Brien, Elizabeth Yeager, and Art Barnaby met with several Kansas grain industry participants including farm cooperative grain elevators, independent stock-held grain elevators, flour millers, a House of Representative staffer, a commodity broker, representatives of U.S. Wheat Associates and the Kansas Wheat Growers Association, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) at various locations around the state during April 10-12, 2017 to discuss current Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat marketing issues.  Our meeting tour included both non-delivery and delivery elevators, and our primary question was why non-convergence was occurring between CME Kansas HRW wheat futures and local cash wheat prices.  However, many other topics were covered by this group of professionals with different interests in the wheat market.  At the link below is a summary of the information provided by these various industry professionals.  Thanks to each of them for sharing their time.

Read more at: http://www.agmanager.info/crop-insurance/risk-management-strategies/what-caused-hrw-wheat-basis-widen-dollar

Following are key points from the  complete article.

What Caused the HRW Wheat Basis to Widen by a Dollar?

Point #1) Grain Storage Rates as a function of Supply-Demand

Straight from “Econ 101:” – when something is in short supply (storage), the price increases and rations the available supply.  The storage rate in the HRW futures contract is fixed and is below its real market value at this time. Therefore, the only adjustment to be made in this situation is a widening basis in the futures contract to compensate.  It was argued that allowing the storage rate to increase to reflect the true market value of storage would then allow the basis to adjust, and subsequently cause futures and cash prices to converge.

Point #2) Raising Fixed Storage Rates on Delivered Wheat vs VSR Adoption

The CME considered two primary options that would allow the storage rate in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract to reach market value: a)  an increased fixed storage rate, and b)  a Variable Storage Rate (VSR)

Point #3) VSR Adoption by the CME & Associated Concerns

On April 24, 2017, the CME announced that the Variable Rate Storage (VSR) would be applied to the HRW wheat futures contracts, effective Sunday, March18, 2018. The CME-announced change occurred after our return, but it was clear during our tour that the VSR would be a controversial change.  It was the perception of some participants in these discussions that adoption of a VSR mechanism would add uncertainty to long-term hedgers of Kansas HRW wheat futures.

They were concerned that the VSR mechanism had the potential for increasing the hedging uncertainty for bakers and others who use wheat futures to hedge food production process input price risk.  Under the VSR, these long hedgers have a new risk of a storage rate change without a limit on the increase.  They preferred a fixed rate that provided certainty in the storage cost.  They argued that under an “increased fixed storage rate” scenario, the carry in the futures market would allow an increase in the storage rate to reflect the market value of storage during periods of large inventories.  An increased fixed storage rate would allow for faster storage adjustments than the VSR.

Point #4) Separation of VSR and Storage Rates at Local Elevators

Any adjustments made to the storage rate in the HRW wheat futures contract are unlikely to affect the farmer-paid storage rates at their local country elevator.  Increasing country elevator storage rates will increase the incentive for farmers to build their own on-farm storage.  One could even argue that these country and terminal elevators have kept the storage rate artificially low for both long-term economic and customer relation reasons, causing farmers and competing elevators to under invest in storage.  The idea is that once farmers build their own on-farm storage, they are not likely to return to their local country elevator to store grain, but rather use their own facilities. Many of those elevators would then be left with open storage space earning no return in the future when crops are more normal in size.

Point #5) Determining the Cash Price where Cash-Futures Convergence Occurs

One non-delivery elevator manager challenged the argument there was convergence for 11% protein wheat in KC on a rail car.  He stated that if that were a real cash offer, he would ship them a train load of wheat by the end of the week.  We are not sure if the argument matters, because delivery would take place with the greatest market advantage for the delivery elevator and most of the delivered wheat was in Salina.  From the viewpoint of this manager, he had limited access to the KC rail grain market.  With limited access, there would be no way for arbitrage and/or market participation to occur.  Some even question if KC should even be a delivery point because wheat no longer flows through KC, as most HRW wheat goes from terminal elevators to the Gulf or to millers predominantly located in central Kansas.  Why would one expect wheat shipped from Hutchinson, KS or Enid, OK to go to KC before going to the Gulf?

Point #6) Wheat Protein Issues

The issue of how high-protein wheat was handled in the Kansas grain elevator system was discussed, and the degree to which higher proteins were paid for in the Kansas wheat handling and marketing system. What these elevators really pay on is the average protein for the crop, so if one is harvesting wheat in an area with higher protein, then the bid is higher.  However, in the Kansas wheat market with its predominantly bulk blending practices, farmers are paid based on the average protein for the crop.  Therefore, the farmer with 13% protein gets the same price as a farmer with 10% protein, unless they store wheat on-farm in a segregated manner for later sale and capture the protein premium.  We were also told that because of intense harvest pressures, Kansas grain elevators don’t have the time to separate the wheat crop by protein during harvest.

Point #7) Wheat Genetics Impact on Protein & Regional Market Differences

One manager was of the opinion that the KSU wheat breeding program focused too much on yield and not enough on wheat milling quality and higher protein levels.  However, in the current Kansas grain handling system, there are only limited price signals sent through to farmers for high quality wheat under the current marketing system.  This is because farmers are paid predominantly on crop size or “bushels” only.  Price premiums are “implicit” in the price paid.  Higher wheat prices are paid for regions of the state where protein is higher and lower prices for poorer protein regions within any one year.  However, if there are any protein premiums being factored into local wheat prices they are not generally visible to the farmer.

Point #8) Tie-in Between Onfarm Storage & Marketing High Protein HRW Wheat

The general conclusion of these discussions was that farmers who can consistently produce high-quality, high-protein wheat in the Southern Plains region would need to have their own storage facilities to capture any premiums, given the current bulk handling system that exists.  The question is whether they can consistently produce such high protein wheat in order to gain the price premiums. In addition, farmers who want to capture basis improvement will need to own the physical wheat, either in their own storage or in commercial storage.  However, under current conditions, many experts are expecting it will likely require a couple of years before HRW wheat futures and cash converge.  It is unlikely many farmers can afford to carry grain inventory for two years.  In addition, most Kansas wheat producers would need to make greater use of post-harvest storage hedges and/or forward contracts, to regularly capture market carry.

Point #9) Rail Cost Differences by Type of Grain

Perhaps the most revealing finding of these meetings was the amount of the differential in freight rates for different types of grain.  For example, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway (BNSF) charges a higher rate for wheat than grain sorghum for a unit train going from the same location and with the same total freight weight to the Gulf.  The bottom line, the railroad charges what the market will bear.  Wheat has to go to the Gulf, while grain sorghum can be consumed as a feed grain within trucking distance.  Those higher freight rates are then passed back to the wheat farmer in the form of lower cash wheat prices.  Any legislation or regulations that favor truck traffic for longer hauls of grain would provide more competition to railroads in grain markets.  However, longer hauls of grain are likely to continue to favor rail transportation, given the scale of the economies involved.

Point #10) Non-convergence Impact on Crop Revenue Insurance Coverage

It is true that when there is no convergence in futures and cash, the crop revenue insurance contract pays less for a claim when prices fall.  Some farmers have argued that crop insurance claims should be paid based on cash prices.  The problem is: what cash price to use in the calculations?  The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program settles claims based on USDA’s national average cash price, but that means farmers must wait a year or more for payments.  More importantly, when there is a crop failure and prices increase, then farmers are paid for indemnity bushels only after the deductible measured in bushels is applied.  Farmers will have those indemnity bushels replaced at the futures price.

However if claims were based on cash prices, western Kansas wheat farmers would have their indemnity compensated at a price that would be 40 to 50 cents lower than the current method.  When there is a short crop and the wheat prices increase, most farmers would need to lose at least 25% of their expected bushels before collecting any payments, so it is not a good time to have one’s indemnity payments cut by a change in the price calculation.

Point #11) Other Topics Discussed

There was also extensive discussion of other issues such as:

  1. whether the use of shipping certificates would be advantageous for the Kansas wheat contract;
  2. if some form of rail or track delivery on either an individual rail car or a 110 car train basis were feasible;
  3. the tradeoffs between carrying charges and basis levels in Kansas wheat price determination;
  4. the pattern of grain storage utilization in Kansas and the U.S. grain system, and how growth in inventories has contributed to the current “wide basis” situation in wheat;
  5. whether inclusion of a cooperative elevator among designated delivery facilities would impact price convergence; and
  6. the important role of Gulf wheat export prices in cash wheat price determination in Kansas after transportation adjustments.

In addition, the pattern of increasing rail rates to the Gulf over time and its impact on Kansas wheat basis levels was also examined.

Point #12) Inability of Farmers to Deliver Against CME KS HRW Wheat Futures

It was clear from our discussion that farmers have no right to deliver wheat (any grain) on a futures contract.  Therefore, farmers should not enter the delivery period holding a short future’s position thinking they have delivery rights.  In addition, it was argued that the change to VSR would be of the greatest benefit to farmers who already have their own on-farm storage.  However, at least one person suggested that farmers may over-invest in storage and eliminate farm storage returns in the future.

Final Thoughts: The Need For “Balance” in Grain Futures Deliver Mechanisms

These discussions were of great benefit to those of us from Kansas State University, and provided us a practical, industry level perspective, a viewpoint that is often missing from more “esoteric” academic theory-oriented viewpoints about how markets function.

If a market delivery system is “unbalanced” between the “short” sellers who at times may seek to make delivery of grain, and the “long” buyers who may be forced to take those same deliveries, it hurts the longterm viability and usefulness of the futures contract. In this case the disadvantaged side of these transactions will likely act to limit their risk exposure – possibly by just not participating in trading the futures contract at all.  Consequently, for the sake of market liquidity (i.e., maintaining a healthy pool of both sellers and buyers) and effective futures contract function, such grain futures market delivery mechanisms need to be “fair” to both sides of the transaction.

If the settlement and/or delivery mechanism for an agricultural futures contract such as CME Kansas HRW Wheat futures is not thought to be “fair” by one side of the transaction or the other, then either “shorts” or “longs” may choose not to use the contract at all.  Then if trading volume of the futures contract decreases as traders take their business elsewhere, the effectiveness and usefulness of the CME Kansas HRW Wheat futures contract as a price discovery and risk management tool would drastically decline.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Key Supply-Demand Factors “Driving” Grain Markets (KSU Extension Ag Economics)

The following presentation on “Key Supply-Demand Factors ‘Driving” Grain Markets” was given on Tuesday, March 14, 2017 to the AgEcon 605 class on “Price Analysis and Forecasting” as a guest lecture.  The class is regularly taught by Dr. Richard Llewelyn of the Kansas State University Department of Agricultural Economics.

This presentation focuses on the key factors that have been “driving” or influencing grain markets over the last 15-25 years.   The full presentation will be available on the KSU Agricultural Economics website at the following web location:

http://www.agmanager.info/sites/default/files/pdf/OBrien_GrainMarketDrivers_03-15-17.pdf

 

 

 

Grain Market Update (4th of 5 parts) – Graphics of U.S. Wheat Market Outlook

In the following charts is the fourth of five (5) blog posts illustrating parts of the “Grain Market Outlook for 2017” presentation given by Kansas State University Extension Agricultural Economist Daniel O’Brien.  The complete presentation will be available on the www.AgManager.info website provided by the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University .

This fourth of five (5) related blog posts provides information on Wheat Market Situation and Outlook.

slide65 slide66 slide67 slide68 slide69 slide70 slide71 slide72 slide73 slide74 slide75 slide76 slide77 slide78 slide79 slide80 slide81 slide82 slide83 slide84 slide85 slide86 slide87 slide88 slide89 slide90

 

Non-Convergence of CME HRW Wheat Futures and the DEC 2015, JULY 2016, and SEPT 2017 Contracts

An article on “Non-Convergence of CME HRW Wheat Futures for the DEC 2015, JULY 2016, and SEPT 2017 Contracts” is available on the KSU AgManager website (www.AgManager.info) at the following web address:

http://www.agmanager.info/non-convergence-cme-kansas-hrw-wheat-futures-dec-2015-july-2016-and-sept-2016-contracts

Following is a summary of the article, with the full text, figures, and data table on the AgManager website:

*****

Summary

Since the delivery period for the SEPT 2015 Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Kansas Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat futures contract, basis bids at designated delivery elevator locations during futures contract delivery periods have been markedly wider than the futures-cash price differentials at delivery designated in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications.  This market condition seems to be due to a combination of excessive supplies of wheat and to non-convergence of futures with cash wheat prices during delivery periods at designated delivery elevators.

During the late-August delivery period for the SEPT 2016 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract, truck bids for ordinary wheat in Kansas City, MO – where a number of the designated delivery elevators for the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contracts are located – were $0.55-$0.58 per bushel under futures.  At other CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract delivery elevator locations in Wichita, Hutchinson, and Salina, Kansas, wheat basis levels (i.e., the difference between futures and local cash prices) of $0.80-$0.85 per bushel under futures were recorded.  These basis levels are markedly wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur during delivery according to CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, MO truck bid locations.

While this lack of convergence at designated delivery elevator locations between cash and futures prices for HRW wheat has been due partly to a combination of wheat market supply-demand factors, it seems that issues related to the design of the futures contract itself are also contributing significantly.  This is particularly true in regards to grain delivered by short futures position holders on CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contracts.

Potential remedies to non-convergence in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract include instituting a VSR on this contract as well as the Chicago wheat futures contract, or to raise the fixed storage rate paid on warehouse receipts in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract high enough to motivate “load out” cash sales instead of storage on the part of long position holders.

Causes of Current Wide Wheat Basis Levels in Kansas

Wide wheat basis levels that have existed in Kansas wheat markets since July 2016 are primarily the result of a) a large 2016 Kansas wheat crop, b) only a moderate pace of usage of U.S. hard red winter wheat in terms of exports, milling, and wheat feeding, and c) large inventories of wheat relative to available storage space at grain elevators in the state. And with large Kansas 2016 fall crop harvests occurring following the large 2016 wheat crop – the Kansas grain elevator system is expected to be filled beyond its constructed storage capacity, with the excess being placed temporarily in outdoor piles of grain (much of it to be covered with plastic, etc.).

While the supply-demand situation for wheat and other crops in Kansas is the primary factor leading to lower cash grain prices and wide basis levels, the lack of convergence between the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Kansas Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat futures contract and cash prices at designated delivery elevator locations in Kansas during the delivery periods for the JULY 2016 and SEPTEMBER 2016 contracts has also been a contributing factor.

Non-convergence of HRW wheat futures and cash prices in Kansas has been an ongoing, periodic problem since at least early 2009.  Table 1 and Figure 1 show wheat cash prices for truck bids and basis levels for Ordinary HRW wheat at Kansas City, Missouri for the MARCH 2009 through SEPTEMBER 2016 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contracts.  Kansas City, Missouri one of the – if not the primary – designated delivery elevator location for the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract.  Table 1 and Figure 2 show basis levels during these same CME HRW wheat futures contract delivery periods in Kansas City, Missouri as well at other designated delivery locations in Wichita, Hutchinson, and Salina-Abilene in Kansas. The cash prices and basis levels for Wichita, Hutchinson, and Salina-Abilene represent the reported upper ends of the cash price trading ranges for these locations from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) daily reports for central Kansas grain markets.

Wheat Basis During Delivery Periods for the DEC 2015, JULY 2016 and SEPT 2016 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures Contracts

During calendar years 2009 through 2014, there were periods of extremely wide basis levels for the Kansas HRW wheat futures contract during delivery periods at Kansas City, Missouri delivery locations.  This was especially true during delivery for the DEC 2009 through MAY 2011 Kansas HRW wheat contracts. During this time frame, delivery period basis levels at Kansas City, Missouri delivery locations widened to $0.50 to $0.90 per bushel under associated expiring futures contracts.

This widening of wheat basis levels was primarily responsible for motivating changes that were made to the Kansas HRW wheat futures contract by the Kansas City Board of Trade in year 2011 – consisting of higher fixed storage rates on delivered warehouse receipts and tighter wheat protein and quality standards are delivered wheat.

Following is a record of the wheat basis levels that occurred at designated delivery elevators for the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract from the DEC 2015 futures contract forward through the SEPT 2016 futures contract.

  1. DECEMBER 2015 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

Non-convergence of HRW wheat futures and cash prices during delivery periods has occurred consistently during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 marketing years.  Following what is more likely to be “convergence-like” performance for the JULY 2015 and SEPTEMBER 2015 CME Kansas wheat futures contracts, the DEC 2015 contract appeared to not converge with cash prices during the contract delivery period.

During the November 19-24, 2015 time-frame, truck bids for cash wheat in Kansas City, Missouri ranged from $4.17 to $4.25 per bushel.  Wheat basis levels ranged from $0.38-$0.40 under nearby DEC 2015 futures for November 19-20, and under MARCH 2016 futures for November 23-24 (Table 1, Figures 1 & 2).  During this same period, wheat basis bids at designated delivery locations in Salina ranged from $0.25-$0.30 under, compared to $0.20-$0.25 under in Hutchinson, and $0.25-$0.30 in Wichita.

These cash basis levels for the DEC 2015 Kansas HRW wheat contract were wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, Missouri truck bid locations.

  1. MARCH 2016 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

After seeming non-convergence during delivery for the DEC 2015 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract, the basis levels during delivery for MARCH 2016 futures for the 2/23-2/26/2016 period were consistently $0.18 under in Kansas City, Missouri, and $0.35 under in Salina, $0.30 under in Hutchinson, and primarily $0.32 under in Wichita (with a late one day “jump” to $0.55 under on 2/26/2016) (Table 1, Figures 1 & 2).

As for the DEC 2015 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract, these cash basis levels for the MARCH Kansas HRW wheat contract are wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur according to CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, Missouri truck bid locations.

  1. MAY 2016 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

Basis levels during delivery for MARCH 2016 futures for the 4/26-4/29/2016 period were consistently $0.17 under in Kansas City, Missouri, and $0.45 under in Salina, $0.40 under in Hutchinson, and $0.35-$0.50 under in Wichita (i.e., $0.50 under on 4/26-27, and $0.35 under on 4/28-29) (Table 1, Figures 1 & 2).

As for the DEC 2015 and MARCH 2016 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contracts, these cash basis levels for the MAY Kansas HRW wheat contract are wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur according to CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, Missouri truck bid locations.

  1. JULY 2016 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

During the June 27-30, 2016 period truck bids for cash wheat in Kansas City, Missouri ranged from $3.74 to $3.88 per bushel.  Basis levels were $0.25 under nearby JULY 2016 futures for the June 27-30 period (Table 1, Figures 1 & 2).  During this same period, wheat basis bids at designated delivery locations in Salina were $0.65 under, compared to $0.55 under in Hutchinson, and $0.65 in Wichita.

As has consistently occurred since the DEC 2015 CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract delivery period, these cash basis levels for the JULY 2016 Kansas HRW wheat contract are markedly wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, Missouri truck bid locations.

  1. SEPTEMBER 2016 CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

Truck bids for cash wheat in Kansas City, Missouri ranged from $3.10 to $3.51 per bushel for the August 25-30, 2016 period.  Basis levels were $0.55 under nearby SEPT 2016 futures for August 25-26, and $0.58 under DEC 2016 futures for August 29-30 (Table 1, Figures 1 & 2).  During this same period, wheat basis bids at designated delivery locations in Salina, Kansas were $0.85 under, compared to $0.80 under in Hutchinson, and $0.85 in Wichita.

In what has developed to be a consistent pattern since late 2015, these cash basis levels for the SEPT 2016 Kansas HRW wheat contract are markedly wider than the location-based price differentials formally designated to occur according to CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, i.e., $0.12 per bushel under at Salina/Abilene delivery elevators, $0.09 per bushel under at Hutchinson, $0.06 under at Wichita, and no discount or “par” at Kansas City, Missouri truck bid locations.

Possible Solutions to Non-Convergence in CME Kansas HRW Wheat Futures

It appears that this lack of convergence at designated delivery elevator locations between cash and futures prices for HRW wheat has been due to a combination of wheat market supply-demand factors as well as issues concerning the design of the futures contract itself.  This is particularly true in regards to grain delivered by short futures position holders on CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contracts.

In the Chicago wheat futures contract, the CME has instituted a Variable Storage Rate (VSR) mechanism that systematically increases or adjusts the rate of storage paid on the warehouse receipts by long position holders during times periods when the true price of storage moves higher.   During times of tight storage when the implicit market value of storage space increases, this increased storage rate on warehouse receipts (as driven by the automatic VSR adjustment mechanism in the Chicago wheat contract) provides a disincentive for continued holding of warehouse receipts by long position holders, and tends to motivate “load out” cash sales in the wheat market.  Increased “load out” or cash sales are a primary means of helping to bring about cash-futures convergence.

According CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract specifications, long position holders who have been delivered on can choose to “load out” (sell the grain in the cash market) or pay fixed, contract specified storage rates charged on the warehouse receipts that they are have been forced to accept delivery of.  These warehouse receipt storage rates are calculated on a daily basis, and are approximately $0.09 per bushel per month during the July-November period, and approximately $0.06 per bushel per month during December-June.  During times when excessive inventories of wheat exist, available storage space is at a premium, and the cash price penalty for “loading out” and selling cash wheat as opposed holding warehouse receipts and paying designated contract storage costs is high. As a result, long position holders who have been delivered on have an incentive to hold the warehouse receipts – continuing to pay designated futures contract storage costs on them – rather than selling in the cash market (i.e., loading out).

In summary, supply-demand conditions for wheat in Kansas and the U.S. are certainly a major factor encouraging wide wheat basis levels at this time.  However, during key futures contract delivery periods wide differences between CME Kansas HRW wheat futures and cash prices at the designated delivery elevators can be attributed to a lack of convergence between cash and futures prices – contrary to the intended original design of such futures contracts.

Among potential remedies to non-convergence in the CME Kansas HRW wheat futures contract include instituting a VSR on this contract as well, or to raise the storage rate paid on warehouse receipts high enough to motivate “load out” cash sales instead of storage.  An August 11, 2016 newsletter by Kansas State University titled “Non-Convergence of CME Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures and the Impact of Excessive Grain Inventories in Kanas” goes into more detail on the causes and potential remedies of non-convergence issues in HRW wheat futures.

slide1 slide2

 

KSU Weekly Grain Market Analysis: Approaching Fall Harvest in Kansas with Storage Challenges & Wide Grain Basis

Grain market summary notes, charts and comments ahead of the KSU Agriculture Today Grain Outlook to played on Friday, August 26th will be place up on  the Kansas State University www.AgManager.info website tomorrow at the following web address:

http://www.agmanager.info/sites/default/files/pdf/KSRN_GrainOutlook_08-26-16.pdf

The recorded radio program will be aired at 10:03 a.m. central time, Friday, August 26th on the K-State Radio Network (here) – web player available.  Later today the program can also be listened to via a link from the following website in the “Radio Interviews” section: http://www.agmanager.info/news/default.asp

Following are sections of the Working notes for this week’s radio program up on the KSU AgManager.info website…

Slide1 Slide2 Slide3 Slide4 Slide5 Slide6 Slide7 Slide8 Slide9 Slide10 Slide11 Slide12 Slide13 Slide14

Non-Convergence of CME Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures and the Impact of Excessive Grain Inventories in Kansas

An article on “Non-Convergence of CME Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures and the Impact of Excessive Grain Inventories in Kansas” is available on the KSU AgManager website (www.AgManager.info) at the following web address:

http://www.agmanager.info/non-convergence-cme-hard-red-winter-wheat-futures-and-impact-excessive-grain-inventories-kansas

Following is a summary of the article, with the full text on the AgManager website:

*****

Summary

The current “wide wheat basis” situation that exists in the Kansas wheat market has resulted mainly from large, plentiful inventories of available wheat in combination with other grains in Kansas grain elevators.  These large inventories of grain have led to increased demand for storage space in Kansas grain elevators – including those at approved delivery locations for wheat futures contracts.  Because of this increased demand for grain storage space, the true value or price of physical grain storage at delivery locations has risen above the storage costs written into the CME Kansas hard red winter wheat contract.  This difference is called a “wedge”, with a positive “wedge” occurring when the true value or price of physical grain storage is greater than the futures contract storage rate on delivered grains at delivery location grain elevators.

When short position holders of CME Kansas hard red winter wheat futures contracts make delivery on their futures contract positions in the form of warehouse receipts, they force long futures position holders to take delivery of those same warehouse receipts.  Then because of the positive “wedge” that currently exists between the true price of physical storage space and the storage costs in the CME Kansas hard red winter wheat futures contract, these long position holders have an incentive to hold and “store” these warehouse receipts that they have taken delivery of indefinitely rather than to “load out” and convert them to grain in the cash market.  Long position holders have a financial incentive to continue to accumulate and store warehouse receipts they have taken delivery of as long as a positive “wedge” exists at delivery location elevators – contributing to wider wheat basis levels and increasing non-convergence of Kansas wheat cash and futures prices over time beyond the specific delivery elevator locations.

Possible solutions to the formation of such positive “wedges” between the true value or price of physical storage and lower contractual storage rates and the occurrence of non-convergence of cash and futures prices in Kansas hard red winter wheat markets would be to either raise the contractual storage rates to a level as high as physical costs of storage have even been or are likely to be, or to establish a variable storage rate (VSR) mechanism for the CME Kansas hard red winter wheat futures contract as exists for the CME Chicago wheat futures contract.  The solution of raising the fixed storage rate on delivered grain that currently exists in the CME on the Kansas HRW wheat futures contract would help to solve the problem of non-convergence between cash wheat prices and wheat futures at delivery point location elevators and the broader Kansas wheat market.

Low interest costs are another factor leading to non-convergence of Kansas wheat cash and futures prices. Low interest expenses reduce the economic total opportunity cost to long position holders how have been delivered on of holding warehouse receipts rather than “loading out”, stopping interest costs, and generating revenue in the cash grain market.

If these periodic times of non-convergence in the Kansas wheat market were eliminated or reduced in frequency of occurrence and degree of price impact, it would benefit Kansas farmers in terms of more effective and efficient crop revenue insurance programs and wheat marketing strategies.  It would also help Kansas farmers and agribusinesses make more accurate and profitable decisions in regards to crop enterprise selection and profit maximizing decisions in regards to use of farm assets.

This topic will be discussed at the Kansas State University 2016 KSU Risk and Profit Conference, to be held August 18-19 in Manhattan, Kansas (http://www.agmanager.info/risk-and-profit-conference).

Slide1 Slide2 Slide3 Slide4 Slide5 Slide6 Slide7 Slide8 Slide9 Slide10 Slide11

 

Soybean Market Outlook – KSU Ag Profitability Conference, Saint John, KS, January 21, 2016

Following is an updated presentation on “2016 Soybean Market Outlook” to be presented at the Kansas State University Ag Profitability Conference in Saint John, Kansas on Thursday, January 21, 2016.   The full presentation is available  on the KSU www.AgManager.info website at the following web address:

http://www.agmanager.info/marketing/outlook/crop_outlook/GrainOutlook_StJohn_01-21-16.pdf

Slide72 Slide73 Slide74 Slide75 Slide76 Slide77 Slide78 Slide79 Slide80 Slide81 Slide82 Slide83 Slide83 Slide84 Slide85 Slide86 Slide87 Slide88 Slide89 Slide90 Slide91 Slide92 Slide93 Slide94 Slide95 Slide96 Slide72