Research Reports

Report 2003-01:New Generation Grain Marketing Contracts

January, 2003                                                                                                                

Lewis A. Hagedorn, Scott H. Irwin, Joao Martines-Filho, Darrel L. Good , Bruce J. Sherrick, and Gary D. Schnitkey[1]

Copyright 2003 by Lewis A. Hagedorn, Scott H. Irwin, Joao Martines-Filho Darrel L. Good, Bruce J. Sherrick and Gary D. Schnitkey. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

DISCLAIMER

The information presented in this bulletin is based on promotional materials produced by the companies offering these contracts.  It is important to note that specific features of the contracts, as well their cost and availability, are subject to change.  The selection of contracts described in this bulletin represents neither an endorsement of any product described, nor criticism of products not included.  Farmers should carefully examine the terms and conditions of contracts before signing.

This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Project No. 2001-49200-01275.  Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Introduction

In an informal survey conducted during the 2001 Farm Income Workshops sponsored by the University of Illinois, 77% of participants agreed with the statement, “On average, corn and soybean producers sell 2/3 of their crops in the bottom 1/3 of the price range.”  The popularity of this perception serves to highlight the challenging nature of grain marketing, and the frustration many farmers have about their marketing performance.  Over the last several years, new types of grain marketing contracts have been developed by the grain industry in an attempt to improve the results of the marketing process for farmers.  Referred to here as “new generation” contracts, these products use automated pricing rules, discretionary marketing on the part of a professional advisor, options strategies, or some combination of all three.  The goal of these contracts is to achieve a price for the farmer near or above the “average” price offered by the market over a given time, for a portion of the farmer’s crop.  Reports in the farm media suggest interest in new generation contracts has increased rapidly in recent years.  For example, one set of contracts that use automated pricing rules is now being offered by about 650 grain elevators in a dozen Midwestern states (Smith, 2001).

The purpose of this research bulletin is to summarize the features of new generation contracts and, where possible, to provide examples of how each would perform in different market conditions.[2]  Please note that the examples are presented purely for illustrative purposes and are in no way intended to provide comparative performance information.  In addition, the selection of contracts for this bulletin is not intended to represent comprehensive coverage of all available products.

Types of New Generation Contracts

Traditional grain marketing strategies involve discretionary sales by the farmer or sales based on the advice given by a professional market advisory service, or some combination of the two.  New generation contracts take a different approach to marketing in that they follow prescribed rules for generating sales; they can be classified into three basic categories based upon their features: 

1.      Automated Pricing Contracts

Contracts in this category follow predetermined, nondiscretionary pricing rules for marketing a farmer’s grain.  These contracts give the farmer the average cash or futures price, depending on the contract, over a set pricing period.  If the contract is based on an average of futures prices, the farmer typically has discretion as to establishing the basis.  Companies that offer automated pricing contracts include Cargill, Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB), Decision Commodities, and E-Markets, as well as many independent grain firms. 

Currently, among the large grain firms, only CGB offers a cash averaging contract through its local elevators.  Some contracts in this category feature additional provisions for selling only above the loan rate, or have preset minimum and maximum price levels.

Example:  In January a farmer signs an automated pricing contract to market 5,000 bu. of new crop corn based on the average price of December corn futures over the period February 1 to June 30.  The contract carries a fee of $0.05/bu.  Each day between Feb. 1 and June 30, the closing price of the December corn futures contract is recorded by the elevator.  The farmer decides to establish the basis on March 1, when the local forward cash price is $0.30 below the price of December futures.  At harvest, the farmer delivers 5,000 bu. of corn and receives a final price of $2.15, determined as shown below:

It should be noted that the idea of an automated “averaging” marketing strategy is not really new.  For example, in 1980, Good, Hieronymus, and Hinton discuss a minimum speculation strategy of making several, evenly distributed sales scattered throughout the marketing window.  Such a marketing plan may be relatively easy for a farmer to implement, but requires the discipline to make systematic sales even during periods of “low” prices.  One farmer states the problem this way, “If there’s anything I’ve learned in the past 30 years of studying and marketing grain, it’s this: Even with the right marketing plan and advisories, the critical calls to price grain are often not made.” (Williams, 2001)  A systematic selling strategy that has been written into an automated pricing contract removes much of the guesswork for the farmer.

2.         Managed Hedging Contracts

Managed hedging contracts price a contracted amount of a farmer’s production according to the recommendations of a professional market advisory service, over a set pricing period.  There may be a predetermined minimum price for these contracts, but they offer no guarantee of generating average or above average performance.  Furthermore, the marketing strategy of the advisor is not always transparent to the farmer.  Cargill, as well as several other firms, currently offer this type of contract.  In addition to a service fee similar to the Automated Pricing contracts, these contracts carry additional performance incentive fees if the market advisor achieves a price above a predetermined level. 

3.         Combination Contracts

A combination of the first two contract types, these contracts price the contracted amount of grain according to automated pricing rules, but allow the farmer to share in some of the gains, if any, of a professional hedging firm.  The results of the discretionary component of these contracts are not always transparent, in real time, to the farmer, and service fees apply.  To the best of the authors’ knowledge, Cargill is currently the only company offering this type of contract at this time. 

Examples Used in this Bulletin

To illustrate the results a typical central Illinois farmer might experience from the use of each contract, three example years are presented in each of the following fact sheets.  The 1995 crop year is chosen to represent an up-market -- when prices increased steadily during the crop year.  A “down” year is illustrated with the 1998 crop year, when prices generally declined.  Finally, a “flat” year is represented by the 2000 crop year; it illustrates conditions of relatively stable prices.  For each example year, a basis level is chosen that is closest to the Central Illinois average over the contract period.  Loan Deficiency Payments and Marketing Loan Gain payments are not included in the examples presented in the fact sheets.  

Many contracts listed in the bulletin have variable averaging periods, or contract lengths, and hence three different benchmarks are developed for comparison.  The first benchmark averages cash prices over a 24-month marketing window.  This two-year window begins on September 1 of the year prior to harvest and ends on August 31 of the year after harvest.  The second benchmark averages only pre-harvest cash prices, using the first 12 months of the marketing window.  The third benchmark averages post-harvest cash prices, using the second 12 months of the marketing window.  The timelines of the three benchmarks are illustrated in Figure 1.  Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the path of cash corn prices for the 1995, 1998, and 2000 crop years, respectively.  These figures illustrate the construction of the 24-month, pre-harvest, and post-harvest cash price benchmarks.  A carrying charge, based on commercial storage rates for Central Illinois, is subtracted from all post-harvest cash prices.

Important Issues for Farmers

The different types of new generation contracts provide farmers with alternative means of marketing grain production.  When used in conjunction with traditional forward contracts or cash sales, these tools allow farmers to diversify their marketing plan and manage price risk.  However, the specific characteristics of a contract need to be carefully examined prior to its inclusion in a marketing plan.  Unlike a forward contract, the final price the farmer will receive is not known at the time the contract is signed.

Contracts that do not offer a minimum price feature offer no assurance of performance.  Managed hedging contracts, that involve discretionary sales by a professional, do not necessarily provide a guarantee that the final price received will be at or above the average price over the pricing period.

Because the pricing mechanisms of Automated Pricing contracts are transparent, a farmer should be able to replicate the performance of these contracts, and determine the current net price they would receive.  The features of the Managed Hedging and Combination Contracts make it much more difficult for a farmer to track their ongoing performance.  The trading strategy of the market advisory services used in these contracts is not immediately transparent to the farmer; therefore the farmer must rely on the advisor for performance updates.  It is important for the farmer to understand how grain sales will be made under these contracts, and how often feedback will be available from the chosen market advisory service(s).  Finally, as with a forward contract, the farmer faces counterparty risk; in the case of contracts which require transfer of title prior to the pricing period, it is possible for the farmer to lose the contracted amount of grain if the counterparty were to go out of business (e.g., Williams, 2002).

Index to Contract Fact Sheets

Automated Pricing Contracts

1. Cargill AgHorizons Floored Average^TM

2. Cargill AgHorizons Floored Average Target Range^TM

3. Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB) Equalizer “Classic”®

4. Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB) Equalizer “Select”®

5. Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB) Equalizer “Post Harvest”®

6. Decision Commodities “Harvest Sale Index” / E-Markets “Market Index Forward”

7. Decision Commodities “Weather Index” / E-Markets “Seasonal Index Forward”

8. Decision Commodities “Loan Plus Rally”

Managed Hedging Contracts

9. Cargill AgHorizons ProPricing MarketPros^TM

Combination Contracts

10. Cargill AgHorizons ProPricing A+^TM

11. Cargill AgHorizons ProPricing A+ Ultra^TM

Appendix: Contracts without Historical Examples

1. Cagrill AgHorizons Floored Average^TM

Contract Type: Automated Pricing Contract

Commodities Covered: Corn, Soybeans, Wheat

Based On Average of: Futures

Website: http://www.cargillaghorizons.com/aghorizons/index.htm

Features:

1. “Up” year (1995): A farmer initiated a contract on January 16, 1995, with a minimum price set at $2.40/bu. (December futures were trading at $2.51 ¾)  and a maximum price of $2.65/bu., with an averaging period of February 1 through June 30, 1995.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 2 at -$0.19/bu¹  The average price of December corn futures over this period was $2.67/bu., which exceeded the maximum price.  The final price would have been $2.40/bu. as shown in the table below.

2. “Down” year (1998): A farmer initiated a contract on January 15, 1998 with a minimum price set at $2.75/bu. (December futures were trading at $2.83 ½) and a maximum price of $2.95/bu., with an averaging period of February 1 through June 30, 1998.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 26 at -$0.20/bu.¹The average price of December corn futures over this period was $2.68/bu., which was below the floor price.  The final price would have been $2.49/bu. as shown in the table below.

3.  “Flat” year (2000): A farmer initiated a contract on January 18, 2000 with a minimum price set at $2.45/bu. (December 2000 futures were trading at $2.49 ½) and a maximum price of $2.65/bu., with an averaging period of February 1 through June 30, 2000.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 23 at -$0.31/bu.¹ The average price of December corn futures over this period was $2.48/bu., which exceeded the floor price.  The final price would have been $2.11/bu. as shown in the table below.

3 The maximum price feature of this contract was less than the average futures price in this example, and is used in calculating the final price.

4 The minimum price feature of this contract exceeded the average futures price in this example, and is used in calculating the final price.

5 Based on a two-year marketing window in Illinois.  Marketing Window Averages assume commercial storage, and do not reflect LDP/MLG payments.  Complete details on construction of the marking window averages can be found in The Pricing Performance of Market Advisory Services In Corn and Soybeans Over 1995-2000  Irwin, Martines-Filho, and Good (2002).   

7 Based on the 12 months after harvest, assuming commercial storage costs.

3. Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB) Equalizer "Classic"®

Contract Type: E-Market DRC® "Market Prospector"

• The CGB “Classic” contract gives the farmer the average daily price of the selected commodity (futures – local basis) over the length of the contract.  

• This contract has a “Loan Rate” feature.  Sales of the contracted amount of the selected commodity are limited to days when the price of the reference futures (December for corn, November for soybeans) contract is above a price roughly equivalent to the loan rate.;  Ffor 2001, these loan rate “triggers” were $2.10 for corn, and $5.60 for soybeans. 

• The entire contracted amount must be delivered; this contract has a “price-out provision” which allows all remaining un-priced bushels to be priced on one day, chosen by the farmer.  The use of the price-out provision carries an additional fee of $0.02/bu.

• This contract is available for pre-harvest sales only.  There are two contract periods available: December 1 – June 30 or February 1 – July 31. 

• The cost of this contract is approximately $0.03/bu.

1. “Up” year (1995): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged cash corn prices over the period of February 1 through July 31, 1995.  Daily cash prices were used to compute the average price over the period, which turned out to be $2.51/bu.  Futures prices remained above the loan rate for all days during the pricing window.  The final price would have been $2.48/bu. as shown in the table below.

2. “Down” year (1998): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged cash corn prices over the period of February1 through July 31, 1998.  Daily cash prices were used to compute the average price over the period, which turned out to be $2.40/bu.  Futures prices remained above the loan rate for all days during the pricing window.  The final price would have been $2.37/bu. as shown in the table below.

3.  “Flat” year (2000): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged cash corn prices for the period of February 1 through July 31, 2000.  Grain sales were made only on days when the futures price was greater than $2.10/bu; futures prices remained above this amount until June 9, 2000, after which they were below the trigger.  At the end of the contract, 1389 bu. of corn remained un-priced.  The average cash price on days when the futures price was above the trigger price for this period was $2.25/bu.  A price-out fee of $.02/bu was applied to the remaining grain, which was then priced on July 31 at $1.53/bu. The final price would have been $2.01/bu.2 as shown in the table below.

Examples of Simulated Historical Contract Execution¹

4. Consolidated Grain and Barge (CGB) Equalizer "Select"®

• The CGB “Select” contract gives the farmer the average daily closing futures price of the selected commodity over the contract period.  This contract is the same as the CGB “Classic” contract, but uses futures instead of cash prices in calculating the average.

• This contract has a “Loan Rate” feature.  Sales of the contracted amount of the selected commodity are limited to days when the futures price is above a price roughly equivalent to the loan rate. For 2001, these loan rate “triggers” were $2.10 for December corn futures, and $5.60 for November soybean futures.

• The entire contracted amount must be delivered; this contract has a “price-out provision” which allows all remaining un-priced bushels to be priced on one day, chosen by the farmer.  The use of the price-out provision carries an additional fee of $0.02/bu.

• The farmer must set the basis prior to contract end.

• This contract is available for pre-harvest sales only.  There are two contract periods available: December 1 – June 30 or February 1 – July 31. 

• The cost of this contract is approximately $0.03/bu.

1. “Up” year (1995): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged December corn futures prices for the period of February 1 through July 31, 1995.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 2 at -$0.19/bu.1  Grain sales were made only on days when the futures price was greater than $2.10/bu.  Futures prices remained above this amount for the entire length of the contract.  Therefore, all contracted bushels were priced during the averaging period.  The average futures price over this period was $2.70/bu.  The final price would have been $2.48/bu. as shown in the table below.

2. “Down” year (1998): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged December corn futures prices for the period of February 1 through July 31, 1998.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 26 at -$0.20/bu.1  Grain sales were made only on days when the futures price was greater than $2.10/bu.  Futures prices remained above this amount for the entire length of the contract.  Therefore, all contracted bushels were priced during the averaging period.  The average futures price over this period was $2.63/bu.  The final price would have been $2.40/bu. as shown in the table below.

3.  “Flat” year (2000): A farmer initiated a 5,000 bu. contract which averaged December corn futures prices for the period of February 1 through July 31, 2000.  It is assumed the basis was set on March 23 at -$0.31/bu.1   Grain sales were made only on days when the futures price was greater than $2.10/bu.  Futures prices remained above this level until June 30, 2000, after which they were below the trigger.  At the end of the contract, 830 bu. of corn remained un-priced.  The average futures price on days above the trigger price for this period was $2.49/bu.  A price-out fee of $.02/bu was applied to the remaining grain, which was then priced on July 31 at $1.92/bu. The final price would have been $2.05/bu.3 as shown in the table below.

Examples of Simulated Historical Contract Execution²

Examples of Simulated Historical Contract Execution³

Fact Sheet Notes:

1 Estimate, based on @griculture Online, http://www.agriculture.com/buyersguide/sidebyside/sbs_riskmgmt.html

2 This date reflects the basis level closest to the average for Central Illinois over the contract period.

3 Examples are based on the average daily prices for the December corn futures contract in the example year.

4 Based on a two-year marketing window in Illinois.  Marketing Window Averages assume commercial storage, and do not reflect LDP/MLG payments.  Complete details on construction of the marking window averages can be found in The Pricing Performance of Market Advisory Services In Corn and Soybeans Over 1995-2000  Irwin, Martines-Filho, and Good (2002).   

5 Based on the 12 months prior to harvest.

6 Based on the 12 months after harvest, assuming commercial storage costs.

7. Decision Commodities "Weather Index" / E-Markets "Seasonal Index Forward"

• The “Weather Index” product gives the farmer a weighted average of closing futures prices of the selected commodity over the pricing window.  The farmer specifies a portion of bushels to price during two periods.  For example, a portion of bushels is priced during the period January 1 – June 30, and the remaining amount is priced during the period July 1 – October 15.

• This tool is a pricing mechanism, not a contract; a forward contract is signed with a participating elevator, and E-Markets / Decision Commodities is specified as the pricing mechanism.

• The farmer must set the basis prior to contract end.
• This contract is available for pre-harvest sales only.  It is offered on a flexible basis – starting time is variable, with the contract running to October 15.

• The cost of this contract is approximately $0.03/bu. for corn.¹

Description of Simulated Historical Contract Execution:

1. “Up” year (1995): A farmer initiated a contract for the averaging period January 1 – Oct. 15, 1995, choosing to market 80% of the contracted amount during the period January 1 – June 30, and the remaining 20% during the period July 1 – October 15, 1995.   It is assumed the basis was set on March 2 at -$0.19/bu.² The average price of December corn futures was $2.64/bu. for the period January 1 – June 30, and $2.94/bu. for the period July 1 – October 15.  The final price would have been $2.48/bu. as shown in the table below.

Examples of Simulated Historical Contract Execution⁴

9. Cargill AgHorizons ProPricing MarketPros^TM