IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea15/196869.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Timing the Purchase of Livestock Risk Protection Insurance for Feeder Cattle

Author

Listed:
  • Griffith, Andrew P.
  • Lewis, Karen E.
  • Boyer, Christopher N.

Abstract

Livestock Risk Protection Insurance (LRP) is a risk management tool available to cattle producers protecting against price declines. It can be used to establish a price floor much like a put option. The primary difference between put options and LRP is LRP can be purchased for as few as one animal while put options are based on 50,000 pound contracts. Thus, LRP can be utilized by cattle producers of any size. LRP is generally offered five times a week with insurance termination dates ranging from 13 to 52 weeks and coverage levels from 70 to 100 percent. The objective of this research is to determine how far in advance feeder cattle producers should purchase LRP to maximize their expected price received given an expected cattle marketing month. Daily LRP offerings were obtained for 600 to 900 pound feeder cattle in Tennessee from 2007 through 2014. Expected price received is defined as the CME Feeder Cattle Index price plus the indemnity payment less the LRP premium. Data were subjected to a mixed model to determine differences in the expected price received for different coverage periods given an expected cattle marketing month.

Suggested Citation

  • Griffith, Andrew P. & Lewis, Karen E. & Boyer, Christopher N., 2015. "Timing the Purchase of Livestock Risk Protection Insurance for Feeder Cattle," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196869, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea15:196869
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.196869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/196869/files/LRP%20Feeder%20Cattle%20SAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.196869?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burdine, Kenneth H. & Halich, Greg, 2014. "Payout Analysis of Livestock Risk Protection Insurance for Feeder Cattle," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2014, pages 1-14.
    2. N. Bhattacharya & T. A. Garrett, 2008. "Why people choose negative expected return assets - an empirical examination of a utility theoretic explanation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 27-34.
    3. David C. Hall & Thomas O. Knight & Keith H. Coble & Alan E. Baquet & George F. Patrick, 2003. "Analysis of Beef Producers' Risk Management Perceptions and Desire for Further Risk Management Education," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 430-448.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Griffith, Andrew P. & Boyer, Christopher N. & Kane, Ian, 2022. "Literature Review: Price Risk Management Contributions to Economic Sustainability in the Cattle Industry," Extension Reports 322767, University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. repec:ags:aaea22:335429 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Christopher N. Boyer & Karen L. DeLong & Andrew P. Griffith & Charles C. Martinez, 2024. "Factors influencing United States cattle producers use of livestock risk protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(4), pages 677-689, July.
    4. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Williams, Brian R. & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Peel, Derrell S. & Raper, Kellie Curry, 2014. "The Likelihood of Positive Returns from Value-Added Calf Management Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 1-14, February.
    6. repec:lic:licosd:40318 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Nguyen, Nam C. & Wegener, Malcolm K. & Russell, Iean W. & Cameron, Donald & Coventry, David & Cooper, Ian M., 2005. "Risk Management Strategies by Australian Farmers," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24295, International Farm Management Association.
    8. Waweru, Caroline Waithira & Nyikal, Rose & Busienei, John R, 2017. "An Analysis Of Risk Attitudes And Risk Management Strategies Among Dairy Farmers In Murang’A County, Kenya," Dissertations and Theses 271063, University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Haviland, Logan B. & Feuz, Ryan, 2022. "Livestock Risk Protection: Selecting Optimal Coverage Contracts for Producers," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), December.
    10. Atta, Cosmos & Micheels, Eric, 2022. "A Best-Worst Scaling Approach To Understand The Risk Management Preferences Of Saskatchewan Grain And Oilseed Farmers," 23rd Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022 345977, International Farm Management Association.
    11. Boyer, Christopher N. & Griffith, Andrew P., 2023. "Subsidy Rate Changes on Livestock Risk Protection for Feeder Cattle," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(1), January.
    12. Gollier, Christian, 2016. "Explaining rank-dependent utility with regret and rejoicing," IDEI Working Papers 863, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    13. Nauges, Celine & Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Zuo, Alec, 2016. "Elicitation of irrigators’ risk preferences from observed behaviour," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(3), July.
    14. Eichner, Thomas & Wagener, Andreas, 2011. "Increases in skewness and three-moment preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 109-113, March.
    15. Waithira, Waweru Caroline, 2017. "An Analysis Of Risk Attitudes And Risk Management Strategies Among Dairy Farmers In Murang’A County, Kenya," Research Theses 276428, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Riley, John Michael & Anderson, John D., 2009. "Producer Perceptions of Corn, Soybean and Cotton Price Risk," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46865, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Eraker, Bjørn & Ready, Mark, 2015. "Do investors overpay for stocks with lottery-like payoffs? An examination of the returns of OTC stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 486-504.
    18. Rejesus, Roderick M. & Knight, Thomas O. & Jaramillo, Mauricio & Coble, Keith H. & Patrick, George F. & Baquet, Alan, 2008. "Preference for Risk Management Information Sources: Implications for Extension and Outreach Programming," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 106-116, April.
    19. Nordmeyer, Eike Florenz, 2023. "German farmers' perceived usefulness of satellite-based index insurance - Insights from a transtheoretical model," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334557, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    20. Gudbrand Lien & Ola Flaten & Anne Moxnes Jervell & Martha Ebbesvik & Matthias Koesling & Paul Steinar Valle, 2006. "Management and Risk Characteristics of Part-Time and Full-Time Farmers in Norway," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 111-131.
    21. Larcher, Manuela & Schönhart, Martin & Schmid, Erwin, 2016. "Risikobewertung und Risikomanagement landwirtschaftlicher BetriebsleiterInnen in Österreich – deskriptive Befragungsergebnisse 2015," Discussion Papers DP-59-2016, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    22. Unknown, 2022. "Western Economics Forum: A Journal of the Western Agricultural Economics Association, v.20, Issue 2, Fall 2022," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Production Economics; Risk and Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:saea15:196869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.