1 / 65

The 1-2-3 Scenarios: An Analysis of Safety Net Alternatives

www.afpc.tamu.edu. FAPRI. www.fapri.missouri.edu. The 1-2-3 Scenarios: An Analysis of Safety Net Alternatives. December 05, 2000 Presentation to the Texas Corn Growers Association Amarillo, Texas. FAPRI. Why We Do It? Because of National Policy Objectives.

elwooda
Download Presentation

The 1-2-3 Scenarios: An Analysis of Safety Net Alternatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. www.afpc.tamu.edu FAPRI www.fapri.missouri.edu The 1-2-3 Scenarios: An Analysis of Safety Net Alternatives December 05, 2000 Presentation to the Texas Corn Growers Association Amarillo, Texas

  2. FAPRI Why We Do It? Because of National Policy Objectives Income – Maintain adequate net farm income for livestock and crop farmers. Food – Maintain an adequate food supply at reasonable prices. Exports – Maintain a competitive trade position. Conservation & Environment – Enhance environmental and conservation quality. Inputs – Maintain a viable input industry. Reserves – Adequate reserves in the event of crop production problems. Rural Areas – Development of rural areas. Government Cost – Achieve objectives at the least cost.

  3. Direct Government Payments FAPRI 25 23.3 20.6 20 16.7 14.5 15 13.4 12.4 12.2 Billion Dollars 11.8 9.5 10 5 0 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 Direct Payments 1979-98 Average = $8.5 Billion

  4. Direct Government Payments FAPRI 25 23.3 20.6 20 16.7 14.5 15 13.4 12.4 12.2 Billion Dollars 11.8 9.5 10 5 0 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 Direct Payments 1983-2000 Average = $11.4 Billion Standard Deviation = $4.6 Billion

  5. Direct Government Payments FAPRI 25 23.3 20.6 20 16.7 14.5 15 13.4 12.4 12.2 Billion Dollars 11.8 9.5 10 5 0 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 Direct Payments 1986-2000 Average = $12.0 Billion Standard Deviation = $4.8 Billion

  6. FAPRI Net CCC Outlays • Increased LDPs due to the low prices, together the 1998 and '99 assistance packages push net outlays to near-record levels. • Longer term, outlays decline as prices increase and AMTA payments fall.

  7. FAPRI US Crop Prices • In general, baseline crop prices are weak in the near term before showing recovery in later years. • For soybeans and cotton, loan rates continue to play a large role through 2005.

  8. US Livestock Prices FAPRI

  9. FAPRI US Farm Income • In the absence of additional assistance packages, farm income remains around $40 billion through 2006. • Modest recovery in the later years as the cattle cycle turns.

  10. FAPRI • For the scenarios, all baseline policies remain in place, i.e. AMTA payments remain. • In addition, assume authority exists for additional spending above baseline levels for the 2001-05 crops. • Average $1 Billion/Crop Year ($5 Billion Total) • Average $2 Billion/Crop Year ($10 Billion Total) • Average $3 Billion/Crop Year ($15 Billion Total) Scenario Assumptions

  11. FAPRI • Spend the additional money in three ways • Modified Supplemental Income Payments (MSIP) - Payments based on 1995-99 reference period. • Higher Marketing Loan Rates (LR) - Increase all loan rates by the same percentage in order to achieve the additional spending. • Market Loss Assistance (MLA) Payments - Distributed in the same fashion as the previous MLA payments. Some money included for oilseeds. • Precise levels for loan rates and SIP triggers set so as to spend on average the same amount as the increase in MLA payments. More Assumptions

  12. FAPRI Modified SIP for Corn: Where the Baseline Is Important • Relative to the FAPRI baseline, MSIP will play a larger role in the early years as the value per acre falls well below the 1995-99 average. • Over time, stronger prices and increasing yields reduce the gap between the value and the reference period.

  13. FAPRI Modified SIP for Sorghum: Where the Baseline Is Important • Relative to the FAPRI baseline, MSIP will play a larger role in the early years as the value per acre falls well below the 1995-99 average. • Over time, stronger prices and increasing yields reduce the gap between the value and the reference period.

  14. FAPRI Loan Rate Formulas for Corn: Where the Baseline Is Important • In the FAPRI baseline, loan rates are held fixed through the 2001 crop and then allowed to adjust to minimum levels based on the formulas. • Rice loan rate remains at $6.50 in the baseline. • The scenarios maintain this convention with loan rates for all crops increased by the same percentage above baseline levels.

  15. FAPRI Loan Rate Formulas for Sorghum: Where the Baseline Is Important • In the FAPRI baseline, loan rates are held fixed through the 2001 crop and then allowed to adjust to minimum levels based on the formulas. • Rice loan rate remains at $6.50 in the baseline. • The scenarios maintain this convention with loan rates for all crops increased by the same percentage above baseline levels.

  16. FAPRI Market Loss Assistance • Market Loss Assistance payments are allocated based on percentages from the previous assistance packages. • Feed grains receive 50% of the money under these rules. • Wheat receives 24% of the money.

  17. FAPRI Policies Analyzed in this Study • 3 ways to spend an additional money above baseline spending over the 2001-05 crops. Avg Annual Additional Spending $1 Billion $2 Billion $3 Billion MSIP (Trigger %) 89.80% 93.86% 96.75% LR Increase Above Base 3.50% 6.67% 9.60% MLA Payments $1 bil/crop yr $2 bil/crop yr $3 bil/crop yr

  18. FAPRI Methodology • The FAPRI baseline represents a deterministic view of the future conditioned on specific assumptions such as • trend yields • stable growth in macroeconomic indicators. • However, this view does not provide an indication of the range of outcomes and the potential variability. • To capture this range, shocks were introduced into the FAPRI US modeling system for the major sources of variability.

  19. FAPRI Determining Sources of Variability • Shocks include the following: • US crop yields • Harvested/planted ratios • US crop exports • Costs of production • Animal slaughter weights • Adjustment factors on selected crop demand equations, livestock per-capita demand equations, and selected animal inventory equations. • Shocks are applied with correlations determined from historical observations • a good corn yield most often is accompanied with a good soybean yield

  20. FAPRI Multiple Draws Must Be Done, Example for Corn Yields • Looking at one possible path doesn't provide enough information. • Program must be evaluated over a number of runs. We have done 500 simulations. • Graph shows 10 of the 500 corn yield paths used in this analysis. • Remember - all other shocks are being introduced at the same time. U.S. Corn Yield

  21. FAPRI Multiple Draws Must Be Done, Example for Sorghum Yields • Looking at one possible path doesn't provide enough information. • Program must be evaluated over a number of runs. We have done 500 simulations. • Graph shows 10 of the 500 sorghum yield paths used in this analysis. • Remember - all other shocks are being introduced at the same time.

  22. FAPRI Generating Results, Developing Probability Ranges • The results of the 500 draws will give variability around production, consumption and prices. • We can develop probabilities ranges or the likelihood that price will be in a certain range.

  23. FAPRI Generating Results, Developing Probability Ranges • The results of the 500 draws will give variability around production, consumption and prices. • We can develop probabilities ranges or the likelihood that price will be in a certain range.

  24. FAPRI Change in Net CCC Outlays, $2 Billion Scenario • Scenarios designed to achieve the same average increase in CCC outlays for the 2001-05 crops. • Given FAPRI price projections, spending under SIP and LR scenarios increase more in early years and less in later years. • Similar patterns under the other spending levels.

  25. FAPRI • Of the 3 optionsRice payments are highest under MLACorn receives largest payment under MLASoybeans receive the most under LRWheat payments are highest under MLACotton receives the most under SIP • Rankings the same under alternative spending levels. Change in Per-Acre Returns, $2 Billion Scenario

  26. FAPRI Assessing Variability • Thus far, we have focused on the average outcome based on the 500 simulations. • However, to get some idea of the variability, we can look at: • The range of outcomes and probabilities associated with those outcomes. • Does the policy reduce the chance of an undesirable outcome? or increase the chance of a desirable one? • The "counter-cyclical" nature of the policies?

  27. FAPRI Distribution of Gov't Outlays, $2 Billion Scenario • Average spending levels are similar under all 3 programs ($12.6 Bil) • With fixed payments, there is a higher minimum under MLA. • In all cases, much more upside spending potential than downside. Average

  28. FAPRI Likelihood That Net CCC Outlays Exceed $10 Bil, $2 Billion Scenario • Rising prices and declining AMTA payments reduce chance that net outlays exceed $10B. • Fixed payments under MLA2 give greatest chance of net outlays exceeding $10 billion. • From 1986-99, net outlays surpassed $10 billion in 10 of 14 years.

  29. FAPRI Likelihood That Net CCC Outlays Exceed $15 Bil, $2 Billion Scenario • The infusion of additional money under all 3 scenarios greatly increase the likelihood that outlays exceed $15Bil. • In general, MSIP2 and LR2 have greater chances of exceeding $15 Bil, when compared to MLA2. • Upside spending potential when linked to prices and production.

  30. FAPRI Distribution of Corn Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Returns average $155 under MSIP2 and MLA2. Average is $151 under LR2. • SIP reduces more of the downside risk in returns. Distribution of Corn Per-Acre Net Returns, 2002 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Frequency 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Net Returns (Dollars per Acre) LR2 MSIP2 MLA2

  31. FAPRI MSIP2 LR2 MLA2 Distribution of Sorghum Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Returns average $132 under MSIP2 and $135 under LR2. Average is $128 under MLA2. • SIP reduces more of the downside risk in returns. Distribution of Sorghum Per-Acre Net returns, 2001 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Frequency 50 75 100 125 150 175 Dollars per Acre

  32. FAPRI Distribution of Cotton Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Average returns under LR2 and MLA2 are $165/ac. Average under MSIP2 is $169. • Note the different shape relative to corn returns • Skewed in the opposite direction. Distribution of Cotton Per-Acre Net returns, 2004 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Average Frequency 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Net Returns (Dollars per Acre) MSIP2 LR2 MLA2

  33. FAPRI MSIP2 LR2 Distribution of Wheat Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Returns average $72 under MSIP2 and $67 under LR2. Average is $73 under MLA2. • SIP reduces more of the downside risk in returns. Distribution of Wheat Per-Acre Net returns, 2002 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Frequency 25 50 75 100 125 Dollars per Acre MLA2

  34. FAPRI MSIP2 MLA2 Distribution of Soybean Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Returns average $132 under MSIP2 and $135 under LR2. Average is $128 under MLA2. • SIP reduces more of the downside risk in returns. Distribution of Soybean Per-Acre Net returns, 2002 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Frequency 75 100 125 150 175 200 Dollars per Acre LR2

  35. FAPRI • The results of the analysis are not "universal" • They are influenced by baseline characteristics such as • Loan rates adjusting after 2001 • Relative price/loan rate relationships for different crops • With that in mind, the results of the $2 billion scenario generally hold for the other two as well, just at different magnitudes. • Acreage Impacts • Small in the aggregate. • MSIP shifts acreage from soybeans into other crops. • Soybeans, cotton, rice gain acreage under LR. Summary Points

  36. FAPRI Summary Points • Relative to MLA and LR, MSIP reduces the variability per-acre crop returns. • LR and MSIP increase the variability and upside spending potential of government outlays • Under LR and MSIP, there are higher probabilities that outlays exceed $15 bil. However, MLA gives a better chance of producing outlays above $10 billion. • At the national level, "countercyclical" nature of MSIP provides greater downside protection on net returns. • This may not hold for farm level results. A number of local factors come into play.

  37. FAPRI MSIP Points • PROS • Based on high income period of time • Most downside protection • CONS • Local yields vs. national yields • Regional weather

  38. FAPRI Loan Rate Summary • PROS • Favors areas with high yields and low yield variability • CONS • No crop, no payment

  39. FAPRI Market Loss Assistance Summary • PROS • Best for grain, wheat, and rice • Greatest pass through of dollars from government to the farm sector • CONS • Least protection in bad years

  40. FAPRI Consideration for Future Analysis • Objectives • Many different groups sitting at the Farm Bill table • For the given objectives, what should the farm program costs? • Look at history • Need to reach $14-$16 billion in bad years • In extreme cases, need to reach $18-$20 billion

  41. FAPRI Consideration for Future Analysis • What is the projected average cost over time? • Need a new baseline – March 2001 • Current estimates have spending declining from $13 billion to $7 billion with an average of $8 billion per year • Which income enhancement is likely to work best?

  42. FAPRI Consideration for Future Analysis • Of the 3 counter-cyclical options, which worked best for • Rice? • Cotton? • Wheat? • Feed Grains? • Soybeans? • Total Farm?

  43. FAPRI Consideration for Future Analysis • PROS and CONS of each option • Has to be examined regionally • Large yield differences • Regional analysis will require risk assessment • With crop insurance • Are the options WTO compatible?

  44. FAPRI Texas Net Farm Income, 1970-1999 5 4 3 Billion Dollars 2 1 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Direct Government Payments Market Net Income

  45. FAPRI Multiple Draws Must Be Done, Example for Wheat Yields • Looking at one possible path doesn't provide enough information. • Program must be evaluated over a number of runs. We have done 500 simulations. • Graph shows 10 of the 500 wheat yield paths used in this analysis. • Remember - all other shocks are being introduced at the same time.

  46. FAPRI Distribution of Rice Returns, $2 Billion Scenario • Returns average $242 under MSIP2 and $258 under MLA2. Average is $228 under LR2. • SIP reduces more of the downside risk in returns, especially relative to LR2. Distribution of Rice Per-Acre Net returns, 2003 $2 Billion Scenario Averages Frequency 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Dollars per Acre MSIP2 LR2 MLA2

  47. FAPRI Likelihood of Rice Net Returns Less than $200, $2 Billion Scenario

  48. FAPRI Rice Gross Returns in 2003, $2 Billion Scenario MLA2 LR2 MSIP2

  49. FAPRI Corn Gross Returns in 2002, $2 Billion Scenario MLA2 LR2 MSIP2

More Related