The CME Cash-Settled Butter Contract: Hedging Opportunities for Jersey Owners

Transcription

1 The CME Cash-Settled Butter Contract: Hedging Opportunities for Jersey Owners by Ed Jesse Professor Brian Gould Associate Professor Robert Cropp Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison June 2006 A research report prepared for the American Jersey Cattle Association & National All-Jersey Association

2 Executive Summary In September 2005, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) began trading new futures and options contracts for Grade AA butter that are cash-settled against the announced monthly weighted average National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Grade AA butter price. These cash settled butter contracts represent a potential price risk management tool for dairy farmers with Jerseys and other high-testing herds. The direct link between butter futures prices and federal order butterfat prices offers hedging opportunities not available using the deliverable butter contract and beyond what is possible using the Class III and Class IV futures contracts. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate use of this new price risk management tool. Using data over the October 2005-April 2006 period we examine strategies for hedging excess butterfat in Federal Orders that use multiple component pricing (MCP). We also look at how uniform butterfat prices can be protected in Orders that use skim milk and butterfat pricing. Given the size of the butter futures contract and the amount of butterfat produced by a typical dairy farm with Jersey cattle, most producers would be expected to hedge butterfat by forward contracting with their milk plant. The plant would sell butter futures contracts as a means of supporting the fixed butterfat price contract program. We illustrate the mechanics of how plants could operate a fixed price contract for butterfat under a number of alternative environments/program characteristics. For example for MCP markets we examine a strategy where a farm operator hedges only excess butterfat. We also examine a strategy where a combination of Class III and butter futures contracts is used in a complementary manner. In Federal Order markets with high Class I utilization we examine how a farm operator can price protect all of their butterfat and illustrate how a dairy plant can support this contract via the butter futures market. Given the dramatic reductions in farm milk and butterfat prices that occurred between October 2005 and March 2006, forward contracting would have locked in relatively attractive prices. But it should be noted that using fixed price contracts involves a tradeoff between return and risk. If prices had increased after entering into the contract, producers would have forgone the opportunity to take advantage of higher prices. But the objective of price risk management is not to obtain the highest price but to protect a good price or a price objective. 2

3 The CME Cash-Settled Butter Contract: Hedging Opportunities for Jersey Owners Introduction In September 2005, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) began trading new futures and options contracts for Grade AA butter. While the CME has offered a deliverable butter futures contract and accompanying options for many years, the new contracts are different in several respects. These new butter contracts are cash-settled against the announced monthly National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Grade AA butter price. The NASS butter price is used by USDA in setting minimum federal order component and class prices. Cash settled butter contracts are especially attractive to dairy farmers with high-testing herds like Jerseys. The direct link between futures prices and federal order prices offers hedging opportunities for dairy farmers not available using the deliverable contract and beyond what is possible using the Class III and Class IV futures contracts alone. That is, these butter contracts may be considered useful in managing risk over and above that controlled by hedging Class III or Class IV contracts. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the mechanics and evaluate the potential for using the new butter contract as a price risk management tool. We begin by providing details of the new butter futures contract, comparing it with the existing deliverable contract. Then, we outline use of the new contract to price-protect butterfat production in excess of the 3.5 pounds per hundredweight embodied in the Class III price. This may be a useful strategy in the six federal order markets (and California) where multiple component pricing is employed. Next, we demonstrate use of the new contract in the four federal order markets that price only the butterfat and skim portions of producer milk. Finally, we explore how dairy plants might construct forward pricing contracts offered to dairy farmers that make use of the new butter contract. New Butter Contract Specifications Table 1 provides details on the new CME butter contract, comparing them to the deliverable butter contract that has traded since The biggest difference between the two contracts is in the method of settlement, with the new contract cash-settled against the reported NASS monthly butter price. Using the NASS price as the settlement price is very important for hedging because the NASS butter price determines the monthly federal order butterfat price through a product price formula. So what dairy farmers are paid for butterfat is precisely linked to the futures contract settlement price. 3

4 Table 1. CME Butter Futures Contract Specifications Cash-Settled Contract Trading Days Daily Daily Contract Size 20,000 Pounds 40,000 Pounds Grade AA AA Style NA Frozen Deliverable Contract Age NA Must be produced after Dec. 1 Delivery Area NA National. Chicago at par, other locations at fixed discounts Delivery Facilities NA CME approved warehouses Months Traded All 12 months March, May, July, September, October, December Price Increments cents per pound, equiv. to $ cents per pound, equiv. to per contract $10.00 per contract Daily Price Limit 5.0 cents per pound. Can be increased 5.0 cents per pound. Can be to as high as 20.0 cents. No limit increased to as high as 20.0 cents. during last 5 trading days in expiring No limit in expiring contract month. contract months. Position Limits Trading Hours Last Trading Day Date Contract First Traded 500 contracts in any month; 50 contracts in expiring contract month in last 5 trading days 9:30a m - 1:10pm CT. Electronically traded. Business day immediately preceding release date for NASS monthly butter price. 1,000 contracts in all months combined. 900 contracts in any month. 150 contracts in expiring month reduced to 50 contracts in last five trading days 9:30am - 1:10pm CT. Pit traded. September 19, 2005 September 5, 1996 Business day preceding the last seven business days of the contract month. Cash settlement also means that the product specifications such as age and location are immaterial. In reality what is traded is not a commodity but an index tied to a specific volume of a well-defined physical commodity NASS s product definition for Grade AA butter. The new butter contract volume is 20,000 pounds, half the size of the deliverable contract, and trades in every month compared to six months for the deliverable contract. Price increments and daily price limits are comparable. If during any day s trading session prices rise or fall by 5 cents per pound compared to the previous day s settlement price, then trading is suspended for the day. But if the price limit for the near contract is reached, then the next day s limit for all contracts is raised to 10 cents. And if the 10- cent limit is reached, the limit is raised to 20 cents the following day. There are no daily 4

5 price limits in the last five days of trading in order to ensure convergence of the futures price and the upcoming settlement price. Position limits for the cash-settled contract are 500 contracts in any one month except the expiring month, for which only 50 contracts may be held during the last five trading days. Position limits for the deliverable contract are specified for all months in total as well as individual months. The new contract is electronically traded, which means that it can be traded outside the CME pits. Bids and offers are posted and can be accepted electronically by brokers located anywhere. This should improve transparency and enhance liquidity. In this report we will examine two types of producer hedges applicable to dairy herds with relatively high fat contents (e.g., Jersey herds) that employ the new butter contract either directly or through cash forward contracts offered by dairy plants. The first type of hedge applies to producers shipping to plants that pay for milk on a component basis. Later, we examine a second type of hedge that applies to producers shipping to plants that pay for milk on a skim-butterfat basis. Producer Butter Hedge in Multiple Component Pricing Markets The Class III milk futures contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) offers an attractive hedging mechanism for dairy farmers shipping to plants regulated under multiple component pricing (MCP) orders. That is because the Class III price makes up a large percentage of the producer pay price in MCP markets. Producers under MCP are paid for milk components butterfat, protein, and other (nonfat, non-protein) solids rather than solely on milk volume. The component prices paid to producers are the same as what handlers pay for Class III butterfat, protein and other solids. The announced Class III price per hundredweight against which the CME Class III futures contract is settled is calculated by weighting these component prices by specific component volumes. Specifically, a hundredweight of skim milk is assumed to contain 3.1 pounds of protein and 5.9 pounds of other solids and a hundredweight of whole milk is assumed to contain 96.5 pounds of skim milk and 3.5 pounds of butterfat. So the standardized Class III milk price contains 3.5 percent butterfat, 2.99 percent protein (0.965*3.1), and 5.69 percent other milk solids (0.965*5.9). Basis and Basis Risk Hedging to reduce milk price risk is accomplished by selling a futures contract or signing a cash forward pricing contract with a dairy plant. Hedgers calculate their expected farm 5

6 milk price, often called the mailbox price, by adding their expected basis to the Class III futures price. 1 Several factors make up basis. The use of standard milk composition in calculating the Class III price is one particularly important factor for Jersey herds. Producers with herds having milk composition different from the standard will receive more or less than the Class III price for a hundredweight of milk; high-testing herds more and low-testing herds less. For Jersey herds, butterfat and protein tests are well in excess of the standards used to calculate the Class III milk price. This yields a relatively large basis, i.e., difference between the farm mailbox price per hundredweight and the announced Class III price that is being sold to protect the mailbox price. Other factors making up a producer s basis include: Producer Price Differential (PPD). Federal milk orders that use MCP calculate a marginal value per hundred weight of all milk pooled relative to the Class III value. The difference, which is usually positive, is the PPD. The PPD is the most variable component of basis for most producers. In the Upper Midwest order, the PPD has ranged from as low as -$4.11 per hundredweight to as high as $1.43 between January 2000 and March 2006, averaging $0.32 (Figure 1) Figure 1. Producer Price Differential, Upper Midwest Federal Order 1.00 Average Since Jan $/Cwt Jan ' $ Basis is generally positive in most federal order markets. That is, the mailbox price, even after subtracting hauling costs and other deductions, is typically higher than the Class III price. However, a negative producer price differential could result in a negative basis. 2 Few if any producers in the Upper Midwest order actually experienced the large negative PPDs because plants absorbed them or obtained larger Class I over-order premiums to offset them. 6

7 Somatic Cell Count (SCC) adjustment. Most MCP orders pay a premium or impose a penalty for producer milk in reference to a 350,000 cells/ml. SCC base. The adjustment rate per 1,000 cells/ml is linked to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) monthly cheese price. The adjustment per hundredweight is small relative to the PPD and relatively predictable for most herds. Plant premiums. Many regulated federal order plants, including nearly all plants in the Upper Midwest, pay premiums over the minimum federal order price. Typical premiums are for volume, quality (in addition to the federal order SCC payment) and protein. Often, plants pay a plant premium not tied to either milk volume or composition that is usually related to participation in cooperative overorder bargaining agencies. Premiums are normally quite predictable from month to month. Plant deductions. All plants make deductions from producer milk checks. Plants are required to deduct 15 cents per hundredweight to support the National Dairy Research and Promotion Board and eligible state promotion boards. Most plants deduct something for hauling, though often less than full cost. Deductions are very predictable. As an example of basis calculation in MCP markets, consider a Jersey producer shipping to a federal order pool plant located in the base zone of the Upper Midwest order in March The herd had butterfat, protein, and other solids tests of 4.6 percent, 3.6 percent, and 6.0 percent, respectively, for March 2006, and a somatic cell count of 350,000 (no price adjustment). The announced producer component prices for March 2006 were: butterfat - $1.2596/lb; protein - $1.8836/lb.; and other solids - $0.1874/lb. The PPD was $0.56 per hundredweight. The announced Class III price was $11.11/cwt. The producer received a volume premium of $0.30/cwt. in March and was charged $0.20/cwt. for hauling. The plant also deducted $0.15.cwt for the promotion assessment. With these assumptions, the producer s mailbox price per hundredweight would be calculated as follows: 7

8 Butterfat value (4.6 lbs. X $1.2596/lb): $ Protein value (3.6 lbs. X /lb): Other Solids value (6.0 lbs. X $0.1874/lb): Somatic cell count adjustment: Producer Price Differential: 0.56 = Federal order minimum payment $ Plant volume premium: 0.30 Hauling charge: ( 0.20) Promotion assessment: ( 0.15) = Mailbox price $14.21 Class III Price: ($11.11) = Farm Basis $ 3.10 Basis risk refers to the uncertainty regarding the difference between the hedger s mailbox price and the Class III price. A hedge is placed (or a forward price contract signed) with the expectation of receiving a mailbox price that is different from (usually higher than) the Class III price. At the time of settlement, that difference may be greater or less than expected. Consequently, the farm milk price outcome of the hedge will be correspondingly different from what was expected when the hedge was placed. It should be noted that typically, while the basis may change (e.g., basis risk), the change is less than the potential change in the Class III price, thus the price risk is reduced. The actual basis experienced by a producer is affected by changes in the composition of the milk produced by the dairy herd. For example, the basis will be smaller (weaker) for a high butterfat herd during the summer when butterfat contents are depressed due to hot weather. A Simple Excess Butterfat Hedge The principal sources of basis risk are the PPD and the payments made for milk components in excess of Class III standards. There is no way of hedging the PPD or the (less variable) plant premiums or deducts. However, at least part of the milk composition difference could be hedged with the new butter contract. Specifically, the value of butterfat in excess of the 3.5 pounds per hundredweight embedded in the Class III price could be price protected. This could be especially advantageous to owners of hightesting Jersey herds. To illustrate, consider the average milk composition by breed from 2005 DHIA averages shown in Table 2. Note that all breeds have both butterfat and protein tests that exceed the standards used to compute the federal order Class III price in MCP markets, but the difference is larger for colored breeds. For Jerseys, excess butterfat averaged 1.1 pounds per hundredweight in Using the range of announced butterfat values over the Jan Mar 2006 period, this 1.1 pounds is associated with a range of $ $2.08 per 8

9 hundredweight that is not price-protected when a Class III hedge is placed. 3 The Brown Swiss and Guernsey herds also possess significantly higher butterfat contents. Table 2. Breed average butterfat and protein tests, 2005 Butterfat Protein Federal Order Standard Ayrshire Brown Swiss Guernsey Holstein Jersey Milking Shorthorn Red & White Source: Agricultural Research Service, USDA summary of Dairy Herd Improvement records ( The following example demonstrates how the new butter contract could be used to hedge the value of excess butterfat. Table 3 provides a summary of the transactions associated with these hedging activities. Assume the owner of a Jersey herd sells a $12.00 December 2006 Class III futures contract (or signs a $12.00 December 2006 cash forward contract) in March The farm s December basis over the last five years has averaged $4.00 per hundredweight, so the owner expects a mailbox price of $16.00 per hundredweight on contracted milk. As demonstrated above, close to 80 percent of the $4.00 basis is comprised of butterfat and protein value in excess of the amounts included in the Class III price. Table 3 shows both the cash and futures markets transactions that are associated with using a combination of Class III and Cash Settle Butter futures contracts to hedge the 4.6 lbs. of butterfat. The butterfat value per hundredweight associated with the $12.00 Class III price is not known. However, based on past records, the owner notes that when announced Class III prices are in the vicinity of $12.00, the monthly average National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) butter price used to calculate the federal order butterfat price is usually 3 The average butterfat value of this period was $1.6401/lb which yields an average excess butterfat value of $ About 0.6 pounds of excess protein is also not price protected. The average announced protein value over the Jan March 2006 period was $2.395/lb. This yields an excess protein value of $1.43/cwt. However, there is no simple way of hedging excess protein. 9

10 around $1.30 per pound. The federal order formula to convert the NASS butter price to an equivalent butterfat price is: 4 Butterfat price ($/lb.) = (NASS Butter price/lb )*1.2 So the $1.30 NASS butter price would yield a butterfat price of $1.422 and the value of the producer s 1.1 pound of excess butterfat would be $1.564 per hundredweight. In other words, of the $4.00 per hundredweight basis, 39 percent is in the form of excess butterfat value. The owner also does not know for certain what the herd butterfat test will be in September, but it has historically averaged 4.6 percent. Assume that on January 5, 2007, the December 06 Class III price is announced, at $11.00 per hundredweight and the December NASS butter price is announced at $1.15 per pound. The Jersey owner has locked in a $12.00 Class III price through hedging on the futures (or a cash forward contract). But the lower butter price means that the owner s excess butterfat value is less than the $1.422 per lb. expected when the hedge was placed. Specifically, the value of excess butterfat per hundredweight associated with the $1.15 per pound announced butter price is $ [=1.1*($ $0.115)*1.2], which is 19.8 cents per hundredweight less than the value associated with the expected $1.30 per pound butter price. In other words, the basis is 19.8 cents per hundredweight smaller than expected, and the owner receives less than the expected $16.00 per hundredweight unless increases in other basis components more than offset the lower butterfat value. Now assume the Jersey owner can sell a butter futures contract (or forward contract butterfat) to protect the price of excess butterfat. The owner simultaneously sells the $12.00 Class III futures contract and a $1.30/lb. butter futures contract. This locks in the butterfat price of $1.422 per pound and the value of $1.564 for the 1.1 lbs of excess butterfat. The December 06 butter price of $1.15 per pound now means that the producer obtains revenue from the butter futures transaction of 19.8 cents per hundredweight to offset the reduced value of excess butterfat. Specifically, the producer sold 1.32 pounds of butter at $1.30 per pound to protect the 1.1 pounds of excess butterfat per hundredweight (i.e., 1.32=1.1 lbs. of butterfat *1.2 lbs. of butter/ pound of butterfat). The associated revenue is 1.32*$1.30 = $ The settlement price of $1.15 per pound translates to $1.518 per hundredweight (1.32*$1.15), yielding the 19.8 cents per hundredweight gain. 4 Producer butterfat prices in all federal order MCP markets are precisely linked to the NASS butter price using the formula noted here. The term, 0.115, is the butter make allowance, the assumed manufacturing cost per pound of butter, and 1.2 is the yield factor (pounds butter per pound of butterfat). 10

11 Table 3. Combined Use of Class III and Butter Futures to Protect Butterfat Value Assumptions Herd Butterfat 4.6% Class III Futures Settle for Dec. 06 Class III in March 06 $12.00 Butter Futures Settle Price for Dec. 06 in March 06 $1.30 Announced Dec. 06 Class III Price $11.00 Announced Dec. 06 NASS Butter Price $1.15 Date Cash Market Futures Market ---- Class III Price Hedge Only /06 Expect Mailbox Price of $16.00 Class III Price: $ Excess BF Value (1.1 * 1.422): Other Basis Items: $ /07 Sell milk to $ Class III Price: $ Excess BF Value (1.1 * 1.242) Other Basis Items $ Sell December Class III $12.00 Cash Settle December Class III $11.00 Loss =$ $ = $1.198 Gain = $ $11.00 = $ Class III and Excess Butterfat Hedge /06 Expect Mailbox Price of $16.00 Class III Price: $ Excess BF Value (1.1 * 1.422): Other Basis Items: $ /07 Sell milk to $ Class III Price: $ Excess BF Value (1.1 * 1.242) Other Basis Items $ Loss = $1.198 Sell December Class III $12.00 Sell 1.32 lbs. (=1.1 lbs of excess butter* 1.2 lbs of butter/lb butterfat) of Dec. butter futures ($1.30 butter = $1.422 butterfat value) 1.1*$1.422 = $1.564 per cwt Cash Settle December Class III $11.00 Cash settle 1.32 lbs butter $1.15 ([( )*1.2]*1.1 = Gain = $1.198 (= $12.00-$ $1.564 $1.366) Note: It is unrealistic to show no change in other basis items with a Class III price decrease since the protein price would likely be lower. The intent here is to focus exclusively on how basis is affected by changes in the butter price between the date of contracting and the date of settlement 11

12 As in any hedge, the contract price for butter is locked in whether the actual price ends up lower or higher. If the announced butter price were higher than the $1.30 per pound contract price, the hedge would lose money relative to not hedging, but the net price objective when the hedge was set is realized. That is, we are assuming the producer is interested in controlling price risk versus maximizing revenue from speculative trading of dairy futures. Butterfat Hedging Issues There are two technical problems associated with hedging excess butterfat: (1) The size of the butter contract makes selling butter futures a speculative venture for most dairy farmers, and (2) The price of butter and the Class III price are not as highly correlated as might be suggested in the example above, leading to basis risk in a combined Class IIIbutter price hedge. Contract Size. The butter contract volume is 20,000 pounds, which is equivalent to 16,667 pounds of butterfat. 5 At the 2005 DHIA butterfat test of 4.6 percent for Jerseys, 1.1 pounds per hundredweight more than the 3.5 pounds in the federal order standardized milk, this translates to nearly 1.5 million pounds of milk per month, the monthly milk production of more than 1,000 cows. Very few Jersey herds produce that much milk. Selling a futures contract that is larger in volume than anticipated cash market sales volume represents speculation with respect to the difference. Futures market gains will more than offset cash market losses and futures market losses will more than offset cash market gains. The large size of the butter contract means that most producers will hedge butterfat by forward contracting with their dairy plant. Plants could offer a forward price contract for excess butterfat and consolidate contractual commitments of several producers to sell a 20,000-pound butter futures contract. This is what plants do now in offering cash forward contracts based on the Class III price. We examine possible forward pricing arrangements in a subsequent section of this report. Butter price-class III price correlation. Working through the equations used under Federal Order minimum pricing regulations, the announced Class III price for any month can be expressed in terms of the NASS monthly prices for butter, cheese, and whey 6 : Class III Price = 9.64 NASS Cheese NASS Butter NASS Whey 2.57 When simultaneously placing a Class III and butter price hedge, a producer attempts to lock in a mailbox price and reduce basis risk relative to using only the Class III price 5 Based on the federal order yield assumption of 1.2 pounds of butter per pound of butterfat; i.e., it takes pounds of butterfat to make one pound of butter. 6 For a detailed discussion of these rules refer to Basic Milk Pricing Concepts for Dairy Farmers, Ed Jesse and Bob Cropp, Feb ( 12

13 hedge. While the individual commodity prices making up the Class III price are positively correlated because of their common raw product, they do not move in tandem. Therefore, the relationship between the butter price and the Class III price is not fixed. The announced Class III price might end up lower than the contract Class III price, but that does not mean that the announced butterfat price will also be lower. In fact, the butter price could rise from the time of contracting while the Class III price falls. This would result in a situation where the Class III hedge was beneficial but the butterfat hedge was not. The relationship between monthly butter and Class III prices since federal order reform in January 2000 through March 2006 is illustrated in Figure 2. In spite of the statistically significant relationship between Class III and butter prices, there is still considerable variability. For example, Class III prices in the vicinity of $14.00 per hundredweight were associated with butter prices in the range of $1.10 to $2.10 per pound. This implies that locking in a $14.00 per hundredweight Class III price and a $2.00 per pound butter price might be a coup. But locking in a $14.00 Class III price and a $1.20 butter price could result in a loss for the butter hedge even though the Class III price was announced at $ Figure 2 suggests a possible rule of thumb for butterfat hedgers: If the butter futures price is higher than predicted by the Class III futures price, then hedge butterfat. If the butter futures price is lower than predicted, then don t hedge. Using this rule, a producer locking in a $15.00 per hundredweight Class III price would only hedge butterfat if the butter contract price were higher than $1.70 per pound. Current market abnormalities or contrary outlook information would, of course, alter that strategy. 13

14 NASS Butter - $/Lb. Figure 2. NASS Butter Price Versus Class III Price Butter Price = Class IIIPrice 2 R = (0.1069) (0.0085) Class III - $/Cwt Examples of Alternative Class III/Excess Butterfat Hedging in MCP Orders Some examples of Class III/excess butterfat combination hedges may be useful for clarification. We will use common starting conditions and look at the results of hedging under different ending conditions. Results are expressed in dollars per hundredweight, which ignores hedging risk associated with the lumpiness of the Class III and butter contracts (i.e., we assume that both milk and butter can be forward-priced in any volume). Brokerage and margin interest costs are ignored. Our starting conditions are as follows: A Jersey herd operator attempts to lock in a September mailbox price early in the calendar year by hedging or forward contracting in Class III milk and butter. At the time the hedges are placed, the September Class III futures is trading at $13.50 per hundredweight and the September cash-settled butter contact is trading at $1.40 per pound. Alternatively, these are the base milk and butter (or equivalent butterfat) prices offered by the operator s plant under the plant s forward pricing program. 7 The herd s expected fat test in September is 4.6 percent, which means that the producer is hedging the value of an expected 1.1 pounds of excess butterfat per hundredweight of 7 With plant-specific administrative costs deducted, the net cash forward contract price is usually a little lower than the above values. We will provide a detailed plant level analysis later in this report which accounts for these administrative costs. 14

15 milk over the assumed fat test associated with Class III pricing under the Federal Order system. The expected value of the excess fat can be derived precisely from the Federal Order butterfat price formula: 1.1 lbs* ([$1.40-$0.115]*1.2) = $1.70 per hundredweight. Over the last few years, the farmer s mailbox/class III gross basis averaged $4.00/cwt. The expected basis net of the value of excess butterfat we ll call this the net basis is $2.30 per hundredweight (i.e., $4.00 gross basis-$1.70 value of excess butterfat). The net basis reflects the value of excess protein, the PPD, and net plant premiums and deductions. 8 Given these assumptions, the producer s expected mailbox price is $17.50, calculated as follows: Class III Price (hedged) $13.50 Excess Butterfat Value (hedged) 1.70 Net Basis 2.30 Expected Mailbox Price $17.50 There are two sources of basis risk facing the hedger; that is, two ways that the actual mailbox price can end up different from the expected mailbox price: (1) the net basis may be different, and (2) the butterfat test may be different. If the net basis and the fat test are the same as predicted when the hedge is placed, then the mailbox price will be $17.50 per hundredweight. Table 4 shows the results of combination hedging under six scenarios. Under scenario I, the net basis is $.30 lower than expected and announced Class III and butter prices are both lower than contracted values. The herd butterfat test is 4.6 percent. Despite cash prices, the overall return per cwt is only $0.30 less than the target $17.50 level, with the difference due to reduced net basis. Under the scenarios represented by II and III, the September net basis is $2.30 per hundredweight and the herd butterfat test is 4.6 percent; both the same as predicted when the hedge was placed. So the outcome is a $17.50 per hundredweight gross return, even though the announced Class III price is lower in both outcomes and the butter price is lower in outcome II and higher in outcome III. Note that hedging gains (losses) exactly offset market losses (gains) relative to expectations when the hedges were placed. In outcome IV, the gross return ends up 40 cents per hundredweight higher than expected, and in outcome V, 70 cents higher. These differences are equal to the difference between the actual and predicted net basis. When the basis is larger than expected, the hedge results in a higher return than expected and vice versa. Outcomes VI 8 Again, the assumption that the protein value portion of net basis is fixed with changing Class III prices is unrealistic since the Class III price is correlated with the value of protein and an the value of excess protein is an element of net basis. Note that in Table 4, net basis is positively related to the difference between the announced Class III price and the Class III contract value, which reflects differences in the value of excess protein. 15

16 and VII show the effect of the herd butterfat test deviating from expectations. In outcome VI, the test is two points lower than expected. So market returns are less than expected, even though the butter price ended up the same as when the hedge was placed. In outcome VII, both of the factors contributing to basis risk are different from anticipated. The larger net basis and higher fat test, result in gross 76 cents/cwt higher than predicted. Table 4: Simulated Results from a Hypothetical Combination of Class III and Butter Hedges I II III IV V VI VII Class III Price/cwt. $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $14.50 $16.00 $12.50 $15.00 Butter price/lb. $1.15 $1.20 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1.40 $1.60 Prod. BF test (%) 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.8% Net Basis/cwt. $2.00 $2.30 $2.30 $2.70 $3.00 $2.30 $2.70 Market Returns : Class III Value $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $14.50 $16.00 $12.50 $15.00 Excess BF Value $1.33 $1.43 $1.83 $1.83 $2.16 $1.39 $2.32 Net Basis $2.00 $2.30 $2.30 $2.70 $3.00 $2.30 $2.70 Total $14.33 $15.73 $16.13 $19.03 $21.16 $16.19 $20.02 Futures Returns : Class III Hedge $2.50 $1.50 $1.50 ($1.00) ($2.50) $1.00 ($1.50) Butter Hedge $0.37 $0.27 ($0.13) ($0.13) ($0.46) $0.00 ($0.26) Total $2.87 $1.77 $1.37 ($1.13) ($2.96) $1.00 ($1.76) Total Returns: $17.20 $17.50 $17.50 $17.90 $18.20 $17.19 $18.26 Producer Butter Hedge in Skim-Butterfat Markets Four federal order markets with relatively high Class I utilization do not employ MCP: Appalachia, Arizona-Las Vegas, Florida and Southeast. These orders use skim-butterfat pricing, which involves pooling the skim milk and butterfat value of milk used in the four federal order classes. Producers receive uniform prices per pound of butterfat and per hundredweight of skim milk. These uniform prices are weighted average pool values where the weights are the relative proportions of butterfat and skim milk used by class and the prices are the associated class butterfat and skim milk prices. Producers in skim-butterfat markets cannot effectively use the Class III contract or the essentially dormant Class IV contract to forward price their milk because their uniform prices are not consistently tied to either. The skim portion of Class I milk, which comprises the bulk of producer milk usage in three of the four markets, is priced in reference to the higher of advanced Class III and Class IV skim milk prices. Producers cannot accurately predict which advanced price will be the mover. So even though 16

17 advanced prices are highly correlated with lagged monthly prices, potential hedgers are uncertain about which contract to sell. However, while hedging skim milk remains problematic, the new butter contract offers an effective hedging mechanism for protecting the producer uniform butterfat price in skim-butterfat markets. Uniform butterfat prices are very highly correlated with monthly average NASS butter prices. 9 The current month s butter price influences Class II, III, and IV butterfat prices and the previous month s butter price influences Class I butterfat prices. A regression analysis of the relationship between producer uniform butterfat prices and current and lagged monthly average NASS butter price yields adjusted R 2 values greater than 0.99 in the four skim-butterfat markets (Table 5). Table 5 shows that the relative influence of the current and lagged months NASS butter prices on the current month uniform butter price depends on the market-wide utilization of milk by class. Not surprisingly given advanced pricing for Class I butterfat, the higher the Class I utilization, the greater the influence of lagged month s butter price in determining the current butterfat value. For the Arizona-Las Vegas order (Class I utilization of 33.5%), the ratio of the lagged and current month s butter price is versus for the Florida Order (Class I utilization of 82.5 percent). Within the uniform butterfat-butter price regressions, the regression coefficients for the current and lagged month butter prices approximately sum to 1.20 (+/ ), which is the yield factor (pounds of butter per pound of butterfat) used in the federal order butterfat pricing formula. The regressions are replicating the formula, distributing the weights between the relevant month s butter prices in accordance with butterfat usage by class. The results shown in Table 5 provide insight to how Jersey producers located in fat-skim FMMO could use the new butter contract to protect their butter price. To directly hedge a given month s uniform butter price in skim-butterfat markets, producers would sell butter futures in both the given month and the previous month. For example, a producer locking in the September uniform butter price would sell both August and September butter contracts. 9 As noted above Monthly Class I butterfat values are based on NASS advanced butter prices, which are weighted average weekly prices for the first two weeks of the previous month. While the NASS monthly butter price averages four or five weekly prices for the month and are announced no later than the 5 th of the month following production. The lagged monthly butter price is very highly correlated with the advanced price. Since inception of product formula pricing in January 2000, the correlation coefficient for the advanced and lagged monthly NASS butter prices is

18 Market Florida Southeast Appalachia Arizona-Las Vegas Table 5. Relationship Between Uniform Butterfat Price and Average Monthly NASS Butter Prices (January 2000-March 2006) Estimated Coefficients NASSS Butter Price Intercept Current Lagged Month Month (0.0157) (0.0270) (0.0264) (0.0123) (0.0209) (0.0206) (0.0132) (0.0224) (0.0222) (0.0080) (0.0135) (0.0134) 18 2 R Lagged/ Current Coefficient Ratio Class I % (2005) Note: Coefficient standard errors are in parentheses. All coefficients are statis tically significant. The estimated NASS Butter Price coefficients shown in Table 5 can be used to determine relative contract volumes in the current and lagged months butter contracts. Consider a Jersey owner shipping to a plant regulated under the Florida order who wants to lock in the September uniform butterfat price. For each pound of butterfat that the producer anticipated marketing in September, the producer would sell about 0.45 pounds of September butter and 0.72 pounds of August butter. If this Florida Jersey herd has an expected September butterfat production of 10,000 pounds this would mean that the producer would sell 4,500 pounds of August butter and 7,200 pounds of September butter. For a producer in the Arizona-Las Vegas order, the comparable contract volume per pound of expected butterfat production would be about 0.95 pounds of September butter and 0.24 pounds of August butter. The differences in the relative hedging volume of current and lagged month butter contracts reflect the proportion of the producer uniform butterfat price that depends on the Class I butterfat price (linked to the previous month s butter price) compared to Classes II, III, and IV butterfat prices (linked to the current month s butter price). As in the case of a butter hedge in MCP markets, the butter contract volume is large relative to the monthly butterfat production of most herds. Plus direct hedgers would sell butter contracts in two months to hedge a single month s production of butterfat. On the other hand, producers in skim-butterfat markets would be hedging their entire month s butterfat production, not just the amount in excess of 3.5 percent. Assuming 60 pounds of butterfat production per cow per month, two butter contracts would be equivalent to the combined production of 555 cows. This large herd size along with the complexity of selling in two contract months means that the primary producer use of the butter contract will likely be though forward contracts offered by plants.

19 The very tight relationship between NASS butter prices and uniform butterfat prices in skim-butterfat markets means basis risk is very small as measured per pound of butterfat. About the only risk are large swings in Class I utilization from historical levels, in which case the current and lagged month weights applied to butter contracts would correspondingly change. It should be noted that unlike MCP markets with high Class III milk utilization rates, wide swings in utilization percentages have not been present in skim-butterfat markets. Hedging risk is principally in matching volume with contract size, and that is not a concern if forward contracting is used rather than direct hedging. Jersey producers would be advised to limit the amount of butterfat forward contracted to something less than anticipated butterfat production in order to prevent taking on a speculative position in the event that production fell short of contract volume. Cash-Forward Contracts for Butterfat in MCP Markets: A Dairy Processing Plant Perspective As we have noted, the new butter contract volume (20,000 pounds) is large relative to monthly butterfat production for typical Jersey herds. Moreover, even herd operators large enough to directly hedge through futures transactions are often reluctant to establish broker accounts and risk the possibility of margin calls. Consequently, the primary producer use of the new butter contract may be indirect, through cash-forward contracts for butterfat offered by milk buyers. These plants, in turn, would use the butter futures market to protect their contracted prices. In this section, we provide some insights into how butterfat price contracts might be constructed. We will develop two alternative contract programs. One will be designed to forward contract producer s excess butterfat over and above that encompassed by the Class III milk price. The second program will be an integrated program that is designed to forward contract both the standard butterfat portion and the excess portion using both Class III and butter futures contracts. For both examples we will use actual futures markets settle and cash market price movements observed over the October 2005-April 2006 period. We will assume that a farm operator on October 3, 2005 would like to hedge his excess butterfat production for the 6 month period of Nov through April

20 A Forward Contract Program of Excess Butterfat in a MCP Market 10 Assume a dairy plant whose milk suppliers have herds composed primarily of Jersey cattle with an average 4.6 percent butterfat test. This implies that there is an extra 1.1 lbs of butterfat over the assumed Federal Order standard fat content per cwt of milk received by the plant. This converts to 1.32 lbs. of butter (=1.1 * 1.2 lbs. of butter/lb. of butterfat per cwt of milk). We assume that a particular producer wants to hedge the value of this butterfat and is attempting to set this hedge for production over the next 6 months starting in November. The producer s milk plant is offering a forward contract on butterfat using the cash-settle butter contract as a base. To implement a forward contracting program for its producers, plant management will sell enough futures contracts to cover their consolidated forward contracting commitments. To cover broker fees and the costs of maintaining margin accounts for this hedging activity, we assume the plant charges $0.0075/lb of butter as administrative overhead. This represents $150 per butter contract. 11 Let s assume that on Oct. 3, 2005 plant management announces forward butterfat contracts based on that day s final settle prices for currently trading butter and Class III futures contracts. These are shown in Table 6. Although 12 months of futures contracts are allowed to be trading at any one time, the producer a hedge encompassing the Nov April 2006 period that his plant offers via a 6 month forward butterfat contract. The plant sells cash-settle butter futures contracts for each month of the fixed price contract to protect its price forward position with its farmer patrons. To determine the average butterfat (butter) value represented by this hedge, plant management simply calculates the average settle price on the day in which the forward contract was signed and subtracts an administrative fee of 0.9 cents per pound of butterfat contracted ($0.0075*1.2 = $0.009/lb butterfat). Using the average of the actual settle prices for Oct. 3, 2005, the locked in butter value is $ over the 6 month contract period (=$ $0.0075). The plant can convert the forward contracted butter price to a butterfat equivalent using the butterfat pricing formula obtained under the FMMO system: BF Value =(Butter Price )*1.2. Given the settle prices that existed on October 3 rd, the plant is able to offer a 6-month forward contract that will pay $1.7260/lb of butterfat ([$ ]*1.2). For each month during which a producer s milk is covered by a forward contract the plant will pay FMMO prices for butterfat. In addition, the plat will add or deduct a payment representing the difference between the butterfat contract price and the related FMMO butterfat price times the contracted butterfat volume. 10 Forward contracting only excess butterfat (without forward contracting milk) is an unrealistic option that is illustrated here primarily to isolate the mechanics of a forward butterfat price contract. 11 For Class III forward contracts, the typical plant administrative fee is $0.10/cwt or approximately $200 per contract (200,000 lbs). Round-turn brokerage fees for butter contracts are typically in the range of $25- $40 per contract. 20

21 Table 6. Cash Settle Butter and Class III Settle Prices, October Contract Year Contract Month Butter ($/lb) Class III ($/cwt) Average Settle Administrative Costs ($) Forward Contract Value Butterfat Forward Contract Value Table 7 summarizes plant accounting over the 6 month life of the forward contract for excess butterfat. 12 Column (a) shows the settle prices at the time of the initiation of the forward contract on October 3 rd. Column (b) shows the related butterfat values represented by the butter settle prices using the Federal Order butterfat formula. Column (c) shows the announced monthly NASS average cash butter prices for each month. These are converted to equivalent butterfat prices in Column (d). Column (e) shows the monthly gain/loss to the plant from butter futures transactions required to cover the forward contract. After purchasing 6 contracts on October 3 rd, one for each contract month, plant management then cash settles each of these contracts at the announced NASS monthly butter values. Plant payments (deductions) from the producer s milk check are shown in column (f) where these payments (deductions) represent the difference between the contracted butterfat value of $1.7260/lb and the cash market butterfat valuation shown in column (d). The final column represents the residual left over to cover the administrative costs after making the producer payment. On average this residual equals the $0.0075/lb butter administrative fee on a pound of butterfat basis ($0.0075*1.2=$0.0090). 12 It should be noted that we are ignoring issues of maintenance of margin accounts, margin calls, etc. in this analysis. 21

22 Table 7. Summary of Plant-Level Impacts Under the Excess Butterfat Forward Contracting Program (Oct April 2006) Oct. 3, 2005 Settle Price ($/lb) Equiv. Butterfat Value ($/lb BF) [=(a )*1.2] Announced NASS Monthly Average Price ($/lb) Equiv. BF Value ($/lb BF) [=(c -.115)*1.2] Plant Futures Gain (Loss) BF Value ($/lb BF) [=b - d] Producer Payment ($/lb BF) [= d] Gain (Loss) BF Value Plant ($/lb BF) [= e - g] Year Month (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Average The dairy plant needs to account for these transaction values to each producer entering into the forward contract. To illustrate this accounting we need to assume milk composition and productivity levels. Table 8 presents a summary of assumed Jersey herd characteristics. In addition, we assume that the average butterfat content varies by month. To obtain an estimate of such variability we index the above average fat content by the monthly variability in milkfat contents observed in 2004 for Wisconsin dairy herds. 13 Table 8. Assumed Farm Characteristics Characteristic Value Herd average fat percentage 4.6% Herd average annual milk prod. per cow Herd Size Avg. Monthly Milkfat Production (= 4.6 lbs/cwt * 157 cwt * 125 cows) Avg. Monthly Excess Milkfat Production (= [1.1 lbs/cwt * 157 cwt * 125 cows]/12) 15,700 lbs 125 head 7,523 lbs 1,799 lbs 13 Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics, 2005, Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service 22

23 Using Table 8 and the settle prices shown in Table 6, Table 9 presents a summary of the accounting for a typical producer who has entered into a 6-month forward contract with the dairy processing plant. Table 9. Payments Received Under the Simple Excess Butterfat Forward Contract (Oct 2005-April 2006) Fat Content (%) Excess Butterfat (lb) Cash Price BF Value ($/lb BF) Excess Butterfat Value Without Contract ($) [=(b) * (c)] Excess Butterfat Value With Contract ($) [=(b)*1.7260)] Forward Contract Payment ($) [(e)-(d)] Year Month (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) , ,000 3, , ,792 3, , ,699 3, , ,475 3, , ,303 3, , ,238 3, Total , ,508 19,049 3,541 Column (a) shows the assumed variability in fat composition over the Nov April 2006 period. 14 In contrast to the assumption of changes in composition across time, we assume the same monthly milk productivity over the life of the contract: 15,700 lbs. Column (b) shows the monthly production of excess butterfat, which is the butterfat that exceeds the 3.5 percent butterfat assumption in pricing formulas. We then multiply this excess butterfat quantity by the cash market value of this butterfat from column (c) to show the resulting butterfat values with no futures market activity in column (d). Column (e) shows the value of this excess butterfat under the forward contract with the contracted butterfat value of $ The last column of Table 9 shows the total monthly adjustment from the forward contract. Over the life of the contract, the plant adds $3,541 to the dairy farm operator s milk check. These additional funds are made available from the cash settlement of the butter futures contracts at expiration. This represents a 22.8 percent higher excess butterfat value than the un-hedged cash value. 14 The 4.7 percent butterfat average results from the higher than average butterfat tests obtained over the Nov.-April period. 23

24 An Integrated Class III/Excess Butter Fat Forward Contract Program in a MCP Market The example above provided a simple illustration of how a dairy plant could set up a forward price contracting program for excess butterfat. We now extend this program to allow the dairy farm operator to protect the base milk represented by the Class III futures contract as well as any excess butterfat. Under this program we assume that the producer enters into a 6 month forward contract to match the contract life available to hedge butterfat. Table 10 presents a summary of the operational characteristics of the Class III component of the combined program using the announced cash settle butter and Class III prices from Table 6. The plant offers a $ month Class III forward contract. Column (c) shows the impact of the futures market transactions as the monthly futures contracts are cash settled. Column (d) shows the adjustment to a producers milk check to achieve the Class III contract price. Over the life of the contract, the plant receives an average monthly profit of $0.52/cwt and adds $0.32/cwt to the operator s milk check. Table 11 shows how the dairy plant adjusts a producer s milk check to account for participating in the Class III forward contract as well as the excess butterfat forward contracting program. Column (a) is used to show the value of the producer s monthly milk production using the announced Class III price. Column (b) shows the constant contracted milk value under our assumption of constant monthly production over the life of the contract. Subtracting the contracted value from the announced Class III value generates the time path of adjustments to the patron s milk check necessary to achieve the contracted milk value. Over the life of the contract, $3,541 is added to the operator s milk check, a 2.8 percent higher milk value obtained without hedging. Had the operator forward contracted both his Class III milk and excess butterfat forward contracts, the dairy plant would have adjusted the patron s milk check by a total of $6,

25 Table 10. Summary of Plant-Level Impacts Under a Combined Class III and Excess Butterfat Forward Contracting Program (Nov 2005-April 2006) Year Month Oct. 3, 2005 Class III Settle Price ($/cwt) Announced Class III Price ($/cwt) Plant Futures Gain (Loss) Value vis-à-vis Futures ($/cwt) [=(a) - (b)] Plant Deduct (-) or Payment (+) to Producer to Meet Forward Contract ($/cwt) t [=$ (b)] Plant Net Gain (Loss) ($/cwt) [=(c) (d)] (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Average Note: We assumed a administrative cost of $0.20/cwt for the 10 month contract. This implies that the contract price is $12.71=$12.91-$0.20. Table 11. Payments Received Under a Combined Excess Butterfat/Class III Forward Contracting Program (Nov 2005-April 2006) Year Month Class III Milk Value ($) Class III Contract Value ($) Class III Forward Contract Deduct (-) or Payment (+) ($) Excess Butterfat Forward Contract Payment ($) Combined Payments ($) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) ,833 20,781-1, ,866 20,781-1, ,898 20,781-1, ,952 20, , ,169 20,781 2, , ,875 20,781 2, ,797 Total 121, ,684 3,091 3,541 6,632 25

26 Cash-Forward Contracts for Butterfat in Uniform Pricing Markets: A Dairy Processing Plant Perspective Previously we noted the complexity of hedging butterfat price risk in the four FMMO s that use skim-butterfat pricing. Hedging the uniform butter price involves using both current and lagged butter contacts since the uniform butterfat price is derived from both advanced and announced monthly butter prices. In this section we will use this relationship to show how a plant can offer a forward contract to allow producers to hedge the uniform butterfat price. We use actual data over the October 2005 April 2006 period. We will use data for the Florida order to demonstrate how a plant may design a hedging program to support offering fixed price butterfat contracts. With the use of lagged prices and contracts, we are limited to the analysis of a 6 month fixed price contract for butter/butterfat (Nov April 2006). Table 12 provides a summary of the information used for this program. As before, we assume a $0.009/lb butterfat contract administration fee. Column (a) in Table 12 shows the settlement prices on October 3 rd. It should be remembered that our actual hedge will encompass the Nov April 2006 period. Column (b) provides the butterfat values calculated using the FMMO formula. Column (c) is the weighted average of a particular month s butterfat values based on current and lagged butter futures settle price. The weights are the current and lagged month regression coefficients obtained from Table 5 normalized to a sum of 1.0 (0.613 for the current month and for the lagged month). The 6-month average of the weighted monthly butterfat value is $1.7480/lb. Subtracting the $0.009/lb administrative fee means the plant can offer a fixed price contract of $ over the Nov April 2006 period. Column (d) displays the reported monthly NASS butter prices. Column (e) shows the conversion of these values from a value per pound of butter to a value per pound of butterfat. Column (f) uses the same weighting system as in column (c) to generate a weighted average cash market value for butterfat. Column (g) compares the two weighted average butterfat values (the contract value less the value based on announced NASS monthly butter prices) to show the gain/loss from hedging. Over the 6 month contract period the average per month result in the futures market transaction was $0.2835/lb of butterfat. The uniform butterfat value has imbedded in it the Class I differential divided by 100 for that portion originating from Class I sales and $0.007 for Class II sales. 15 Column (h) 15 In the regression analysis presented in Table 4 showing the relationship between uniform butterfat prices and NASS butter prices we did not deduct the value of the Class I differential since it is constant within a 26

27 shows the reported uniform prices for the Florida adjusted for the differentials using reported Class I and Class II utilization. The level of producer payments required to achieve the contracted price is shown in column (i). The values shown in this column are determined by subtracting the announced uniform butterfat value from the contract butterfat price of $ The average payment obtained over this period was $0.2825/lb of butterfat. The payments represented by column (i) are paid out of the returns generated by the futures market transactions. The values shown in column (j) represent the difference between the futures market transactions and producer payments. Under the MCP hedging strategies the plant Gain/Loss was equal to the administrative charges levied by the plant offering the forward contract. The $0.001 average net return earned by the plant is less than administrative costs in this example. There are a number of possible explanations for this result. First, we use a regression-based weighting scheme that does not change with Class I utilization. This will yield differences in results if the advanced and lagged monthly butter prices differ significantly. Figure 3 shows the distribution of milk by class in the Florida Order over the Jan April 2006 period. Class I utilization ranges from less than 75 percent to more than 90 percent. This implies some basis risk for plants offering forward contracts. Plants would likely charge administrative fees sufficient to offset at least part of this risk. A second reason for the relative low net return is because we use lagged monthly butter prices as a proxy for advanced 2-week NASS average butter prices to value Class I butterfat. Table 13 provides a comparison of the monthly and 2-week average prices over the study period and over a comparable 2004/05 period. Note, for some months there are significant differences in the prices, which results in a basis risk for plants. Again, larger administrative fees may be necessary to offset this risk. particular market. Here we use the Tampa Class I differential of $4.00/cwt and monthly market-wide Class I and Class II utilization in the Florida market to adjust the uniform BF price. 27

28 Table 12. Summary of Plant-Level Impacts Of a Butterfat Forward Contract in the Florida Federal Order (Nov 2005-April 2006) Butter Settlement Price on Oct. 3, 2005 ($/lb) Original Prices Related Butterfat Value ($/lb) [=(a )*1.2] Weighted Average Butterfat Value ($/lb BF)* NASS Monthly Average Butter Price ($/lb) Reported Prices Related Butterfat Value ($/lb BF) [=(d )*1.2] Weighted Average Butterfat Value ($/lb BF)* Futures Gain (Loss) BF Value ($/lb BF) [=(c) (f)] Adjusted Uniform Butterfat Price ($/lb)** Producer Payment ($/lb BF) [= (h)] Gain (Loss) BF Value Plant ($/lb BF) [= (g) (i)] Year Month (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Average Note: The average value does not include data for Oct We assumed the Class I Differential associated with Hillsborough County, FL. *The weighted average is obtained from 0.387*current value +.613*lagged value **Uniform Butterfat Price adjusted for Class I differential and Class II adjustment. 28

29 100% 95% 90% 85% Figure 3. Utilization of Fluid Milk in the Florida Federal Order (Jan Apr. 2006) 80% 75% 70% Class I Class III Class II Class IV 1/1/2000 7/1/2000 1/1/2001 7/1/2001 1/1/2002 7/1/2002 1/1/2003 7/1/2003 1/1/2004 7/1/2004 1/1/2005 7/1/2005 1/1/2006 Table 13: Comparison of Lagged Monthly NASS Average Butter Prices and Associated Advanced Butter Prices Associated with the Same Month Year Month Monthly Butter Current Lag Adv. Butter Year Month Monthly Butter Current Lag Adv. Butter

30 Summary A new cash-settled butter contract was made available to the dairy industry in Sept Like the current Class III futures contract, this contract is cash settled against the monthly NASS average butter prices used to calculate announced Class III and IV milk prices under the Federal Order system. We have presented some examples of how this new cash-settled butter futures contract can be used to manage the risk faced by dairy farm operators whose herds have higher butterfat compositions than the 3.5 percent standard used in the pricing of milk under Federal butterfat price formulas. In particular we have attempted to provide some indication as to how owners of Jersey herds with relatively high fat tests could use the new butter contracts to hedge their excess fat, that is, butterfat over the assumed 3.5 percent. In terms of our farm level analysis we have identified hedging strategies for producers in multiple component pricing (MCP) markets and in those markets where producers are paid based on uniform butterfat and skim milk prices. Hedging butterfat is not limited to Jersey herds, although owners of Jersey hears would benefit most, since they have the most at risk given their herds higher fat tests. Although not investigated here, other producers could look at the spread between butter and Class III prices, taking advantage of opportunities to simultaneously protect their butterfat price and gain from an abnormal spread. 30