There is no shortage of studies regarding price forecasting and marketing strategies of producers. However, the majority of these studies take a normative approach, focusing on deriving an optimal strategy for producers to follow based on information received from producer surveys. Due to such things as psychological biases, producers may not actually use the marketing information that they say they do. This study uses actual producer transaction data to determine how producers marketing decisions correspond with those recommended by market advisory services and with those that use futures spreads to calculate expected returns. The results show that producers do respond to using futures spreads to represent expected returns to storage. Also, it appears that Oklahoma producers make marketing decisions opposite of those recommended by market advisory services.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Sanders, Dwight R. & Irwin, Scott H. & Leuthold, Raymond M., 1996.
"Noise Trade Demand In Futures Markets,"
ACE OFOR Reports
14765, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.
[Downloadable!]
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)