1. Weekend Reading: Have not done one of these for awhile. This one is on a brand spanking new article coming out in Energy Economics "Biodiesel hedging under binding renewable fuel standard mandates." sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
2. Hopefully that link is in front of the paywall. I can never tell from publishers page. I really think this is a fun little article. My co-authors are my long-time partner in crime Phil Garcia and Jason Franken of Western Illinois.
3. The genesis for this article was from following trade conversation on biodiesel pricing and hedging. Always much discussion about the leading role of heating oil/diesel futures on biodiesel prices, and by implication, how one should hedge biodiesel.
4. This never made sense to me from studying the basic economics of the RFS mandates. If biodiesel mandate is binding then this simple economic model predicts that soybean oil prices lead ("cause") biodiesel prices, not the other way round.
5. With a binding mandate, the red mandate line above the price of diesel becomes the demand curve for biodiesel. Then for a wide range, shifts in supply curve determine biodiesel prices. What shifts supply curve? Soybean oil feedstock prices.
6. This has a radical implication for hedging biodiesel. Taken at face value, it says that a biodiesel hedge should be placed 100% in the soybean oil futures market not the heating oil/ULSD futures market. Of course, this should be tested with real data.
7. Empirical hedge estimates here for different locations in the US. Key is the encompassing regression lambda estimate. Notice it is 0.89 in IA and near and above 0.50 in other locations. So soybean oil futures are important for hedging biodiesel.
8. Theory was not entirely correct because both soybean oil and ULSD futures important for hedging biodiesel. But soybean oil is at least as good a hedge as ULSD and likely much better at the biodiesel plant level
9. The punch line is that heating oil/ULSD should not be the only hedging instrument used for biodiesel. Using soybean oil and ULSD will work much better, and this makes economic sense.
1. One more quick thread on the biodiesel hedging article. This one is directed to grad students and other researchers looking for interesting problems to dig into. I am asked more than you think, "How do you find interesting research topics?"
2. Well to start with, I am an applied economist. Very applied. To find interesting applied economic research problems I think you have to be engaged with the relevant industry and part of the ongoing conversation.
3. I used to do this by reading a lot of trade magazines but now I get pretty much a 24/7 flow of engagement on twitter. But there is a trick. I am interested in what people in the industry are saying and talking about, not necessarily what other academics are saying.
1. Weekend Reading: Just published in the AEPP (free access) with farmdoc colleagues "Coronavirus Impacts on Midwestern Row‐Crop Agriculture" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
2. Our main purpose in writing this paper was to show that the coronavirus pandemic simply added to the downward financial pressures on Corn Belt ag that have been building since 2014, when the long price boom ended.
3. This downward trend in returns is nicely summarized in this chart. The big soybean return in 2018 was MFP1. So any truly good news for crop farmers after 2013 was from gov't payments. Don't be put off by the x axis scale. Need to get that fixed.
1. Very useful graphic @BrightonCap. Closest thing to hard data on COVID death rates. This measures the risk of getting COVID X risk of dying from COVID. The worst rate is 0.18% for NJ. Vast majority of states less than 0.1%, or less than 1 out of every 1,000 people.
@BrightonCap 2. I am not making this point to say anything one way or the other regarding COVID policy responses supported by people. Just interesting to me how different people react to this kind of risk but not others. So far, death risk for population as a whole is not very large.
@BrightonCap 3. Of course, this does not account for long-term health impacts to getting COVID, which are still very poorly understood. I know I don't want to take that risk if I can avoid it!
1. Weekend Reading. With the USDA Oct Crop Production report coming up next week, thought it would be a good time to revisit this 2013 article: "Do Big Crops Get Bigger and Small Crops Get Smaller? Further Evidence on Smoothing in U.S. Department of Agriculture Forecasts"
2. The article was published in 2013 in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (the southern ag econ journal for you old timers out there). Free access here: ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/143639/
3. First want to say what a great experience it has been over the years publishing in the JAAE . I appreciate all the work the editors have done over the years. And Olga, one of my co-authors on the 2013 paper, is one of the new co-editors!
1. Still thinking about the 255 million bushel corn stock surprise this morning. While we will never know for sure, I find it believable that the 2019 corn crop was over-estimated by that much. Some ways of thinking about it.
2. Let's start by assuming that the true size of 2019 corn crop was 13,360 mil bu, instead of the 13,620 revised number USDA released this morning. What combination of harvested acreage and yield gets us to 13,360 and does this seem sensible?
3. If we put all the adjustment down to 13,360 on harvested acreage at a yield of 167.4, then the true harvested acreage in 2019 was 79.8 mil acres not 81.3 million acres. That would be a drop of 1.5 million acres from official number.
1. USDA really dropped a bullish stocks bomb on the corn market this morning. The 255 million bushel bullish stocks/usage surprise was the second largest in my records going back to 1983. Only rivalled by last year's 314 million bushel bullish surprise.
2. The bushel surprise number going back to the 1980s is not really a fair comparison since the size of usage has increases so much since then. Here are the stocks/usage surprises in % terms
3. Even in % terms the stocks/usage surprise was extremely bullish by historical standards. The surprise was 7.9%. Still second largest and on record and comparable only to last year and 2011. Dwarfs everything else.