Farmers Yield And Individual Revenue Plans - Budgetamentals



Similar documents
CHOOSING AMONG CROP INSURANCE PRODUCTS

Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) DR. G. A. ART BARNABY, JR. Kansas State University 4B Agricultural Consultants

How To Insure A Crop

2. To determine APH yields, can crop insurance history be used? The last program (2002) required actual scale tickets from the grain elevator.

Group Risk Income Protection Plan and Group Risk Plans added in New Kansas Counties for Updated 3/12/05

Yield Protection Crop Insurance will have the same Yield Coverage as Revenue Protection, but RP is Expected to be the Preferred Choice (Updated) 1

Evaluating Taking Prevented Planting Payments for Corn

Crop Insurance Plan Explanations and Review

Federal Crop Insurance: The Basics

Crop Tariff Models For Farmers Insurance

Does Selection in Insurance Markets Always Favor. Buyers?

CROP REVENUE COVERAGE INSURANCE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT WHEAT ALTERNATIVES 1

Group Risk Income Protection Plan added in Kansas for 2006 Wheat (Updated) 1

1. Prices now 2. TA APH yield endorsement 3. Re-rating 4. Suggestions

Crop Input and Technology Decisions: Risk Management. Gary Schnitkey University of Illinois

The Supplementary Insurance Coverage Option: A New Risk Management Tool for Wyoming Producers

Multiple Peril Crop Insurance

Lower Rates Mean Lower Crop Insurance Cost 1

How Crop Insurance Works. The Basics

Group Risk Income Protection

From Catastrophic to Shallow Loss Coverage: An Economist's Perspective of U.S. Crop Insurance Program and Implications for Developing Countries

Crop Insurance as a Tool

2013 Crop Insurance Decisions March 4, Roger Betz Senior District Extension Farm Management Agent

(Over)reacting to bad luck: low yields increase crop insurance participation. Howard Chong Jennifer Ifft

Revenue Implications of the New Farm Bill

Appendix A. A Nonstochastic Comparison of Price- and Revenue-Based Support

Innovations of agricultural insurance products and schemes

Influence of the Premium Subsidy on Farmers Crop Insurance Coverage Decisions

Details of the Proposed Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) Program for Cotton Producers and Potential Strategies for Extension Education

Crop Insurance. Crop Insurance

AN OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE IN WISCONSIN

Farm Programs and Crop Insurance

Buy the More Expensive Revenue Protection and Sell off Part of the Coverage 1

Title I Programs of the 2014 Farm Bill

Analysis of the STAX and SCO Programs for Cotton Producers

Crop Insurance for Cotton Producers: Key Concepts and Terminology

Evaluating the Impact of Proposed Farm Bill Programs with Crop Insurance for Southern Crops. Todd D. Davis * John D. Anderson Nathan B.

2014 Farm Bill How does it affect you and your operation? Cotton STAX & SCO

Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Insurance: A Risk Management Tool for Hay and Livestock Producers

Crop Insurance Reserving

PUBLICATION OF NATIONAL CROP INSURANCE SERVICES FEBRUARY 2004

Size Picture Field Edits

ARC/PLC Program Overview

Quick Cash Flow Projections

Implications of Crop Insurance as Social Policy

Crop Insurance Rates and the Laws of Probability

Medical Retirement Income Protection Report For Farmers

Protecting Your Investment- Canola Crop Insurance Options

Constructing and Interpreting Confidence Intervals

Dairy Margin Protection Program 2014 FARM BILL PROVIDES NEW RISK MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR DAIRY FARMERS

Price, Yield and Enterprise Revenue Risk Management Analysis Using Combo Insurance Plans, Futures and/or Options Markets

Crop Insurance For Those Who Choose To Manage Risk

GROUP RISK PLAN INSURANCE STANDARDS HANDBOOK

The 2014 Farm Bill left the farm-level COM-

PREMIUM RATE ADJUSTMENT

CROP INSURANCE FOR NEW YORK VEGETABLE CROPS

Hedging strategies aim to reduce price risk

Ratemaking Considerations for Multiple Peril Crop lnsurance

ACTUARIAL FAIRNESS OF CROP INSURANCE RATES

Managing Risk With Revenue Insurance

What Percent Level and Type of Crop Insurance Should Winter Wheat Growers Select? 1

Will ARC Allow Farmers to Cancel Their 2014 Crop Insurance (Updated)? 1

Both the House and Senate farm bills include two new supplemental crop insurance programs:

The Impact of Alternative Farm Bill Designs on the Aggregate Distribution of Farm Program Payments. Keith H. Coble and Barry J.

Revenue and Costs for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Double-Crop Soybeans, Actual for 2009 through 2015, Projected 2016

Farm Programs and Crop Insurance Design and Risk Management Implications

LIVESTOCK GROSS MARGIN FOR DAIRY CATTLE INSURANCE POLICY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The Potential for Revenue Insurance Policies in the South

Crop Insurance: Background Statistics on Participation and Results

Volume Title: The Intended and Unintended Effects of U.S. Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies

University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness

HIGH-RISK ALTERNATE COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK

STACKED INCOME PROTECTION PLAN OF INSURANCE (STAX) STANDARDS HANDBOOK

Federal Crop Insurance: Background

Premium Rate Determination in the Federal Crop Insurance Program: What Do Averages Have to Say About Risk?

Charity Hazard in Crop Insurance

Federal Crop Insurance: Background and Issues

Estimating Cash Rental Rates for Farmland

We have seen in the How

Hedging: To buy or sell a futures contract on a commodity exchange as a temporary substitute for an intended later transaction in the cash market.

Grain Inventory Management

Breakeven Analysis. Takes the user to the data input worksheet of the tool.

In 2010, many farmers will again choose between farm

To: Board of Directors September 17, 2001 Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE GROUP RISK PLAN OF INSURANCE BASIC PROVISIONS (09-102)

2013 Energy Savings Results for the Commercial Real Estate Cohorts

U.S. crop program fiscal costs: Revised estimates with updated participation information

New Era Marketing 2015

Chapter Five: Risk Management and Commodity Markets

OECD-INEA-FAO Workshop on Agriculture and Adaptation to Climate Change. June 2010

TOI: 02.1 Crop SERFF Status: Closed-Filed State Tr Num: Sub-TOI: Crop-Hail Sub-TOI Co Tr Num: 2012-WI-COADV- State Status:

Table 3 Plus Time Scenarios and Regressions

Discussion of Self-fulfilling Runs: Evidence from the U.S. Life Insurance Industry

CROP INSURANCE. Multi-peril crop insurance is a valuable

Elementary Statistics Sample Exam #3

ASSESSING FINANCIAL EDUCATION: EVIDENCE FROM BOOTCAMP. William Skimmyhorn. Online Appendix

Not Your Dad s Magic Eight Ball

Impact of Crop Insurance and Indemnity Payments on Cash Rent and Land Values. Michael Langemeier Center for Commercial Agriculture Purdue University

The Effects of Premium Subsidies on Demand for Crop Insurance

Annual Forage (AF) Pilot Program

Transcription:

Online Appendix: Not for Publication September 18, 2015 1 Appendix A - Insurance Payments in Individual Plans Because farmer productivity varies, individual baseline yields are necessary for individual-level plans to correctly determine the basis on which payment should be made. The baseline yield for an individual yield plan is established by averaging a farmer s historic certified yields (four consecutive years is the minimum and years is the maximum). Once years of continuous yield history is available, the baseline yield becomes a -year moving average, updated every year. If less than four years of continuous yield history is available, average county yields are used in place of an individual yield until the farmer builds up an adequate yield history. If county yields are used to calculate the baseline yield, they are discounted by 15 35 percent, depending on how many years of actual yield history are available. Per-acre payments under an individual yield plan (called Actual Production History or APH) are determined by the following formula: Pay_APH it = max(0,[yield guarantee it Yield it ] price election i ) (1) Yield guarantee it = X i 1 Yield i,t s s=1 where i indexes the farmer, t indexes the year, and X i is the chosen coverage level. For individual 1

yield plans, it ranges from 50 percent to 85percent, in increments of five percentage points. Price election is the payment per unit of yield shortfall, chosen by the farmer from a range set by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) or the Risk Management Agency (RMA). For example, a corn farmer with a yield guarantee of 148 bushels per acre, a 75 percent coverage level, and a $1.50 price election will be paid $1.5 for every unit shortfall in yield below 111 bushels per acre. The baseline for individual revenue insurance is also based on the farmer s 4 year yield history but takes prices into account as well. The baseline revenue is the average of the individual s historic yields multiplied by the Chicago Board of Trade pre-growing season futures prices for that crop. 1 The actual revenue is calculated using the 1-month futures price near the harvest time for that crop (called the "harvest futures price"): Pay_RA it = max(0,revenue guarantee it Revenue it ) (2) Revenue guarantee it = X i P(pre season) t 1 Yield i,t s s=1 Revenue it = Yield it P(harvest) t In some plans, farmers have the option to have the revenue guarantee based on the maximum of the February and the harvest futures prices. This decreases the probability of a claim as well as the price of the insurance plan. There are four types of individual revenue plans: Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC), Income Protection (IP), Indexed Income Protection (IIP), and Revenue Assurance (RA). The characteristics of all individual revenue plans are very similar. The only difference between CRC and RA plans is that the former limit the amount of payment that is made in case of a loss. The IP plan is similar to the CRC and RA plans, but with this plan it is not possible to base the revenue guarantee on the harvest futures price. In addition, the IP requires that all cropland in a county that belongs 1 The exact month varies by crop. 2

to the same entity and grows a particular crop be insured together. This is called an "enterprise unit." CRC and RA allow the cropland to be divided into more basic units and insured separately. Starting in 2011, the four revenue protection plans have been combined into two plans to eliminate redundancies. The IIP plan is a variation of the IP plan that is based on individual yield histories relative to county yields. The baseline yield is established by subtracting the average historic difference between individual and county yields from the expected county yield, which is defined as the average county yield in the previous year. In other words, the yield guarantee for year t is: X i [ Yield c,t 1 1 s=1yield c,t s + 1 where X i is again the coverage level chosen by the farmer. ] Yield i,t s s=1 The final category of insurance plans is group revenue insurance (Group Risk Income Protection or GRIP), which pays farmers based on a combination of county yields and futures prices. As with the individual revenue plans, prices in a area revenue plan are based on CBT futures prices for a given crop. area revenue plan payments are determined as follows: Pay_GRIP it = Revenue guarantee ict Revenue ct (3) Revenue guarantee ict = X i P(pre season) t 1 T Revenue ct = Yield ct P(harvest) t T +1 Ŷield c,t s s=2 3

2 Appendix B - Prices and Yields In this section, I regress the prices of GRP crop insurance on last year s yield, current yield, and expected yields. The level of observation is county-year-coverage level. The coverage level ranges from 65 percent to 90 percent in increments of five percentage points. Table A1 shows the relationship between the price of GRP policies and last year s yield, controlling for expected yield. There is no statistically significant relationship between prices and last year s yield. The expected yield is negatively and significantly correlated with the price. Table A2 shows the relationship between the price of GRP policies and this year s yield, controlling for expected yield. Again, there is no statistically significant relationship between the current yield and the price. Moreover, the high R-squared suggests that the variables included in the regression capture nearly all the relevant variation in prices. In Table A3, I show OLS regressions corresponding to Table 3. Although high yields last year are strongly predictive of lower yields this year, there is no significant relationship between last year s yields and the number of currently held policies (although the estimate is not very precise). Current yields are also not significant predictors of the total takeup. For both current and past yields, the sign of the estimated coefficient is the opposite of what would be predicted by theory. Changing the dependent variable to Log(Policies lt + 1) to take into account observations in which no GRP policies are purchased does not change the results qualitatively, although it does increase their precision. 4

Appendix Tables Table A1. The relationship between prices and last year's yield (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Corn Soybeans Log(Price lgt ) Price lgt Log(Price lgt ) Price lgt All Nonzero All Nonzero All Nonzero All Nonzero Log(Yield c,t-1 ) 0.0111 0.0196 0.0009-0.0043 (0.0154) (0.0209) (0.0167) (0.0223) Log(E t-1 [Yield ct ]) -0.4065*** -0.4016*** -0.1788*** -0.1971*** (0.0837) (0.0647) (0.0400) (0.0526) Yield c,t-1-0.0002-0.0001-0.0015-0.0013 (0.0004) (0.0004) (0.0014) (0.0012) E t-1 [Yield ct ] -0.0138*** -0.05*** -0.0140*** -0.0202*** (0.0028) (0.0012) (0.0031) (0.0039) Mean of dep. var. 0.79 0.66 2.81 2.39 0.45 0.34 1.75 2.03 Observations 37,921 29,165 37,921 29,165 45,289 34,346 34,346 45,289 R-squared 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Note: Robust standard errors (clustered by state-year) in parentheses. * significant at %; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. c=county, g=coverage level, t=year. Includes county-by-coverage-level and year-by-coverage-level fixed effects. 34

Table A2. The relationship between prices and current yields (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Corn Soybeans Log(Price lgt ) Price lgt Log(Price lgt ) Price lgt All Nonzero All Nonzero All Nonzero All Nonzero Log(Yield c,t-1 ) 0.0250 0.0308-0.0120-0.0256 (0.0162) (0.0191) (0.0161) (0.0213) Log(E t-1 [Yield ct ]) -0.3993*** -0.3969*** -0.1878*** -0.2122*** (0.0819) (0.0636) (0.0428) (0.0560) Yield c,t-1 0.0004 0.0004-0.0018-0.0025** (0.0005) (0.0004) (0.0011) (0.0012) E t-1 [Yield ct ] -0.0136*** -0.03*** -0.0203*** -0.0145*** (0.0027) (0.0012) (0.0039) (0.0032) Mean of dep. var. 0.80 0.66 2.88 2.40 0.46 0.34 2.05 1.75 Observations 40,463 29,583 40,463 29,583 46,593 34,876 46,593 34,876 R-squared 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Note: Robust standard errors (clustered by state-year) in parentheses. * significant at %; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. c=county, g=coverage level, t=year. Includes county-by-coverage-level and year-by-coverage-level fixed effects. 35

Table A3. Yields and takeup of area yield plans, OLS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Log(Policies ct ) Log(Policies ct +1) Panel A: corn Log(Yield c,t-1 ) -0.5-0.073-0.079-0.066 (0.198) (0.194) (0.1) (0.1) Log(Yield ct ) 0.199 0.245 0.097 0.7 (0.168) (0.168) (0.2) (0.111) Log(E t-1 [Yield ct ]) -2.442*** -2.135*** -2.339*** -2.023*** -1.718*** -1.988*** (0.552) (0.545) (0.549) (0.351) (0.313) (0.350) Mean of dep. var. 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.08 1.04 1.08 Observations 4,591 4,980 4,591 8,352 9,390 8,352 Panel B: soybeans Log(Yield c,t-1 ) -0.280** -0.246* -0.201** -0.193** (0.136) (0.136) (0.088) (0.087) Log(Yield ct ) 0.253** 0.251** 0.032 0.077 (0.127) (0.127) (0.089) (0.088) Log(E t-1 [Yield ct ]) -0.768 0.013-0.530-0.803** -0.493-0.748** (0.549) (0.547) (0.555) (0.324) (0.315) (0.319) Mean of dep. var. 1.80 1.77 1.80 1.00 0.97 1.00 Observations 4,827 5,208 4,827 9,892,833 9,892 Note: Robust standard errors (clustered by state-year) in parentheses. * significant at %; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Includes county and year fixed effects. 36