Table A8.  Predictability of Market Advisory Service Performance by Quantiles Between Pairs of Non-Overlapping Marketing Years, Wheat Revenue, Average for 1995 vs. 1997 and 1996 vs. 1998 Crop Years
             
Average Average Average
Performance Quantile Revenue Rank Return
 in Year t in year t+2   in year t+2   in year t+2  
---$/acre ---percent---
Top Third 128.58 12.50 -33.63
Middle Third 148.42 9.25 -21.97
Bottom Third 154.29 7.69 -15.62
  Top Third minus Bottom Third
          Average -25.70 4.81 -18.01
          t-statistic -1.96 5.61 -2.16
         Two-tail p-value 0.30 0.11 0.28
Top Fourth 123.25 13.13 -37.71
Second Fourth 137.65 10.73 -28.28
Third Fourth 163.10 7.00 -10.76
Bottom Fourth 147.60 8.90 -20.17
  Top Fourth minus Bottom Fourth
          Average -24.35 4.23 -17.53
          t-statistic -1.11 1.64 -1.14
        Two-tail  p-value 0.47   0.35   0.46  
Note:  The selection strategy consists of sorting services by pricing performance in the first year of the pair (e.g., t = 1995) and grouping services by quantiles (thirds and fourths).  Next, the average pricing performance for each quantile is computed for the first year of the pair. Then, the average pricing performance of the quantiles formed in the first year is computed for the second year of the pair (e.g., t+2 = 1997). Return correlations are based on the 24-month average cash price benchmark, with the return for each service computed as the continuously-compounded rate of return (natural logarithm of the ratio of net advisory price to the benchmark price). Three stars indicates significance at the 1% level, two stars indicates significance at the 5% level, and one star indicates significance at the 10% level. Some average differences of the quantiles may not equal the difference of the averages for the quantiles due to rounding.