Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T04:59:11.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grain Contracting Strategies to Induce Delivery and Performance in Volatile Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

William W. Wilson  and
Bruce Dahl
William W. Wilson
Affiliation:
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Bruce Dahl
Affiliation:
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Get access

Abstract

One of the impacts of higher prices along with greater volatility in futures and basis is that there is pressure for an escalation in cash contracting for grain. This volatility has resulted in an unprecedented level of contracting with growers in recent years. There is a wide array of cash contracts with varying terms. There is also a growing realization of growers not delivering on contracts, in part due to escalation in postcontract prices. These are evolving as major strategic issues for buyers and the marketing system, particularly as buyers seek to use such contracting strategies as an element of risk mitigation. There are three purposes of this article. First is to provide a broad survey of contract terms used in grain contracting with growers. Second, we illustrate some issues in contracting of some of the grains (durum, malting barley) in the upper Midwest. Third, we show some of the common contract clauses being adapted in these contracts. Finally, we summarize these issues with respect to industry implications.

Keywords

grain contractingriskvolatilityC15D81Q12
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 363 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, D. “Managing Contract and Counterparty Risks.” Presentation at the North Dakota Grain Dealers convention, Fargo, ND, January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Barrett, D., and Pates, M. “Grain Contracts.” Ag Week (January 26, 2009):8.Google Scholar
Bylund, J.D “Reducing Counterparty Risk through Proposer Commodity Contracting Procedures, Faegre & Benson LLP.” Presentation to the NGFA Country Elevator and Feed Industry Trade Show, St. Louis MO, December 7-9, 2008.Google Scholar
Feedstuffs. “Electronically Sign Grain Contracts.” Feedstuffs (July 7, 2008):23.Google Scholar
Grain Journal. “2009 Merchandising Outlook,” Grain Journal 37,2(March/April 2009a):8–14.Google Scholar
Grain Journal. “Counterparty Risk: Managing Contracts and Disputes in Today's Market,” Grain Journal 37,2(March/April 2009b):24–33.Google Scholar
Grain Journal. “Grain Contract Considerations: 31 Items to be Considered for Grain Contracts,” Grain Journal 37,2(March/April 2009c):34–35.Google Scholar
Heesch, A. “Market Volatility.” Presentation to the North Dakota Grain Dealers convention, Fargo, ND, January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. “Suit Claims Contract Violations by Grain Company,” Great Falls Tribune, March 20, 2009.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J., Perry, J., Ahern, M., Banker, D., Chambers, W., Dimitri, C., Key, N., Nelson, K., and Southard, L. Contracts, Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Commodities. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. AER 837, Nov. 2004.Google Scholar
McCarl, BA., and Bessler, D.A. “Estimating an Upper Bound on the Pratt Risk Aversion Coefficient When the Utility Function is Unknown.” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 33,1(1989):55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michigan Farm Bureau. Checklist for Grain Production Contracts. Internet site: http://www.michro.com/mfb/grain_production and originally extracted from http:/www.michiganfarmbureau.com/specials/grain_contrats.php (Accessed February 2009).Google Scholar
Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Basis data provided electronically. Minneapolis MN: Minneapolis Grain Exchange, 2009.Google Scholar
National Grain and Feed Association. Washington, DC: Trade Rules, 2008.Google Scholar
North Dakota Wheat Commission. U.S. Hard Red Spring Wheat (Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota) Regional Quality Report. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Wheat Commission, 1995–2007.Google Scholar
North Dakota Wheat Commission. U.S. Northern Grown Durum Wheat (Montana, North Dakota) Regional Quality Report. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Wheat Commission, 1995–2007.Google Scholar
Palisade Corporation. Ithaca, NY: Risk, 2002.Google Scholar
Pates, M. “Is ‘Phone-it-in’ Gone for Good?” Ag Week (May 26, 2008):11.Google Scholar
Schumann, K.D., Feldman, P.A., and Richardson, J.W. Simetar. College Station, TX, 2006.Google Scholar
Swenson, A. and Haugen, R. Farm Management Planning Guide, Projected 2009 Crop Budgets, North West North Dakota. NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University, December 2008.Google Scholar
USDA-NASS. State and County Quick Stats Database. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Internet site: http://www.nass.usda.gov (Accessed November 2008).Google Scholar
Wilson, W., and Dahl, B. “Procurement Strategies to Improve Quality Consistency in Wheat Shipments.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33,1(2008):69–86.Google Scholar
Wilson, W., Gustafson, C., and Dahl, B. “Crop Insurance in Malting Barley: A Stochastic Dominance Analysis.” Agricultural Finance Review 69,1(2009).Google Scholar