Blog

  • Speculative Influence on ICE Cotton Futures

    Speculative Influence on ICE Cotton Futures

    Cotton futures, like many commodities, are subject to speculative buying and selling.  Participants in the futures market can buy or sell futures contracts with the anticipation of future prices rising or dropping. The most variable type of speculative buying is from so-called hedge funds, comprised mostly of managed private investment money. Hedge funds use various quantitative and other methods to position themselves for anticipated uptrends or downtrends in commodity markets.  Notwithstanding the validity of their technical indicators or buying rules, hedge fund buying appears somewhat influential on prices, particularly ICE cotton in 2021. 

    This is depicted in Figure 1 as the upward spikes in the green area, representing the excess of long ICE cotton contract positions (buying positions) held over short positions (selling positions) held.  These green peaks and valleys visually correspond to peaks and valleys in the pattern of nearby ICE cotton futures settlement prices as represented by the red line (Figure 1).  Statistically speaking, simple annual cotton futures price models can be specified to account for the influence of things like USDA’s projected ending stocks-to-use ratio, the speculative net position of hedge funds (in contracts), and outlier years like 2010/11.  The results of these types of models tend to project slightly less than a cent up or down, resulting from a 10,000 contract increase or decrease, respectively, in the hedge fund net long position.  In 2021, from early June to early October, the hedge fund net long position has risen almost 60,000 contracts, which is associated with about six cents of the 24+ cent upward move in ICE cotton futures since June.  (Note:  other potentially influential variables in 2021 include tightening fundamentals and increased index fund buying are not included in the analysis here).

    Whatever the quantitative influence of changing hedge fund positioning, it may be useful to take note of the short duration of fluctuations in hedge fund excess buying.  Figure 1 shows many instances of peaks in hedge fund buying that appear to last only a few weeks, as do the associated price rallies.  It seems impossible to predict the change in sentiments, animal spirits, model forecasts, technical indicators, and/or black swan events that will influence hedge fund managers’ positioning in ICE cotton.  So, whatever the influence of hedge fund buying on the cotton market, it is frequently a short-lived phenomenon.

    Figure 1. Weekly net position of hedge funds in ICE Cotton Futures and Options (green area) and daily nearby ICE Cotton Futures settlement price (red line). The left vertical axis represents the net position of hedge funds, and the right vertical axis represents the price for the ICE cotton futures settlement prices. 

    Source: Commitment of Traders Supplemental Report (Futures and Options)

    Robinson, John. “Speculative Influence on ICE Cotton Futures.” Southern Ag Today 1(45.1). November 1, 2021. Permalink

  • Update on Waters of the United States

    Update on Waters of the United States

    For decades, there has been contentious debate surrounding the meaning of a seemingly simple phrase in the Clean Water Act (CWA), “waters of the United States.”  This phrase describes the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CWA but is not statutorily defined.  In 2015, the Obama administration promulgated the WOTUS Rule.  The Trump administration then replaced the WOTUS Rule with the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in 2020.  Both the Obama and Trump Rule faced a flurry of lawsuits filed across the nation. 

    A recent decision from the United States      District Court for the District of Arizona has vacated the Trump administration’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule, meaning it is no longer in place.  This triggered the Environmental Protection Agency to announce that it has “halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.”  The EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers are currently interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory approach.  

    The EPA Administrator, Michael Regan, has announced that the agency  promulgate its      definition, which will differ from both the Obama WOTUS Rule and Trump Navigable Protection Rule.  The EPA plans to release their proposed rule for comment in November.  To read more, click here


    Dowell Lashmet, Tiffany. “Update on Waters of the United States.” Southern Ag Today 1(44.5). October 29, 2021. Permalink

  • US Agricultural Market Shares Fall,  Despite US-China Trade Increasing in 2021

    US Agricultural Market Shares Fall, Despite US-China Trade Increasing in 2021

    Less than three months remain in the US-China Phase One Trade Agreement. Although China’s purchases of US exports overall are projected to fall short of the two-year, $200 billion target (Bown 20211), China’s purchases of US agricultural products have steadily increased. An important question, however, is whether increased Chinese imports from the US has translated into actual gains in US market share, relative to the 2017 pre-trade war benchmark? This figure plots changes in US trade values against changes in US market shares in 2021 (Jan-Aug) at the product level relative to the same period in 2017 (Jan-Aug). US corn exports are the big winner, with exports to China increasing over $3.5 billion compared to 2017, coupled with a nearly 40%-point gain in the US corn market share in China. US beef and poultry  exports to China also gain in value and market share thanks to the easing of China’s non-tariff prohibitions. 

    However, for a number of product categories, increasing Chinese imports from the US (moving east on x-axis) have not translated into market share gains relative to 2017 (moving north on the y-axis). US exports experiencing higher trade with China but a declining market share include pork, wheat, grain sorghum, feed and fodder, cotton, and to a lesser extent, soybeans, dairy, and tree nuts. Thus, for many US agricultural products, China’s increased year-to-date import values in 2021 has not necessarily resulted in higher US market share in China. Overall, US agricultural and seafood exports to China are up $7.4 billion through August 2021 relative to the same period in 2017, but down 4.8 percentage points in market share. Relatively speaking, this perplexing drop in agricultural and seafood market share suggests China is actually importing more from the rest of world compared to its imports from the US under the Phase One Trade  Agreement. 

    Year-to-date (Jan.-Aug.) trade value and market share changes for US ag exports to  China by-product: 2017 versus 2021


    Grant, Jason H. . “US Agricultural Market Shares Fall, Despite US-China Trade Increasing in 2021.” Southern Ag Today 1(44.4). October 28, 2021. Permalink

  • Cost-Plus Pricing?

    Cost-Plus Pricing?

    Interest rates and the cost of interest isn’t always the first thing on producer’s minds. However, interest expense can be a significant outlay. Headlines about historically low-interest rates, and even zero interest rates in some countries, may lead to the expectation that interest costs may be lower than what is reality. The graph shows that interest rates have come down from the near-term high in the second quarter of 2019.  While current rates are at a 20-year low, they are not that different from rates seen over the last 10 years. 

    One might wonder why interest rates on loans hover around 5% when the Fed Funds Rate is currently at  0.25%. The Fed Funds Rate is set by the Federal Reserve as the rate at which banks can borrow money from each other overnight, and the rate serves as a benchmark for short-term interest rates. The answer can be found in a fairly common loan pricing strategy called cost-plus pricing. This method builds loan pricing  (interest rate) from the ground up. It starts with the cost of obtaining loanable funds which can be the price paid on deposits or other means of obtaining loanable funds. To this cost has added the cost of servicing the loan (processing, salaries, etc.), a risk premium to account for the risk of default, and a profit margin. When all four parts of pricing are taken as a whole, the market equates a near-zero fed funds rate to about 5% cost of funds for Agriculture.  

    Citations:

    Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2021. Agricultural Survey. Octoberhttps://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/agsurvey/2020/ag2002.aspx#Data

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. July 2021. “Open Market Operations.” Policy Tools. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm

    Diette, Matthew D. November 2000. “How do lenders set interest rates on loans?” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2000/how-do-lenders-set-interest-rates-on-loans


    Knapek, George. “Cost-Plus Pricing?” Southern Ag Today 1(44.3). October 27, 2021. Permalink

  • Strong Meat Export Totals in 2021

    Strong Meat Export Totals in 2021

    The latest estimates for meat trade were recently released by USDA ERS. These estimates include export and import data across many different meats including beef, pork, and broilers during the month of August. This article highlights beef export data as each sector is on track for record or near-record export totals in 2021.  

    Beef exports set a record at 325 million pounds during August and were 21 percent higher than in August  2020. Japan was the largest volume destination for beef exports during August followed by South Korea and  China. The year-over-year increases in beef exports to China have been large throughout 2021 as shown in the chart above. Exports to Hong Kong have declined. Combined, year-to-date beef exports to China and Hong  Kong are 163 percent above 2020 levels. 

    Pork exports during August were about the same as during August 2020. However, there were big shifts in volumes to particular destinations. Pork exports to China (the third largest volume destination) during August were 49 percent lower than during August 2020. However, exports to Mexico were 50 percent higher which offset the declines to China. Mexico was the largest volume destination during August followed by Japan. 

    Broiler exports were up 5.5 percent above August 2020. The biggest increases were in exports to Mexico (up  22 percent) and Cuba (up 80 percent) from August 2020. These countries were the top two export destinations during August. 

     

    Maples, Josh. “Strong Meat Export Totals in 2021.”. Southern Ag Today 1(44.2). October 26, 2021. Permalink