Sizing Up Your Marketing Advisory Program Scott H. Irwin and Darrel L. Good

Sizing Up Your Marketing Advisory Program

Scott H. Irwin and Darrel L. Good

December 2004

Why is Crop Marketing so Frustrating to Farmers?

• Crop prices are extremely volatile– Within year– Year-to-year

• Crop prices are hard to anticipate or forecast– Numerous price making forces that interact in a

highly complex fashion– Acreage, yield, trade, livestock numbers, Asian

RUST, policy,…

Daily Soybean Prices for the 2003 Crop Year, Central Illinois

4.50

5.50

6.50

7.50

8.50

9.50

10.50

3-S

ep

-02

27

-Se

p-0

2

23

-Oc

t-0

2

18

-No

v-0

2

13

-De

c-0

2

13

-Ja

n-0

3

7-F

eb

-03

6-M

ar-

03

1-A

pr-

03

28

-Ap

r-0

3

22

-Ma

y-0

3

18

-Ju

n-0

3

15

-Ju

l-0

3

8-A

ug

-03

4-S

ep

-03

30

-Se

p-0

3

24

-Oc

t-0

3

19

-No

v-0

3

17

-De

c-0

3

15

-Ja

n-0

4

11

-Fe

b-0

4

9-M

ar-

04

2-A

pr-

04

29

-Ap

r-0

4

25

-Ma

y-0

4

22

-Ju

n-0

4

19

-Ju

l-0

4

12

-Au

g-0

4

Pri

ce (

$/b

u.)

Pre-Harvest Forward Contract Bid Price

First Day of Harvest

Post-Harvest Cash Price

Average Loan Rate

Daily Soybean Prices for the 1998 Crop Year, Central Illinois

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.502

-Se

p-1

99

7

29

-Se

p-1

99

7

24

-Oc

t-1

99

7

20

-No

v-1

99

7

18

-De

c-1

99

7

16

-Ja

n-1

99

8

13

-Fe

b-1

99

8

13

-Ma

r-1

99

8

9-A

pr-

19

98

7-M

ay

-19

98

4-J

un

-19

98

1-J

ul-

19

98

29

-Ju

l-1

99

8

25

-Au

g-1

99

8

22

-Se

p-1

99

8

19

-Oc

t-1

99

8

13

-No

v-1

99

8

11

-De

c-1

99

8

12

-Ja

n-1

99

9

9-F

eb

-19

99

9-M

ar-

19

99

6-A

pr-

19

99

3-M

ay

-19

99

28

-Ma

y-1

99

9

25

-Ju

n-1

99

9

23

-Ju

l-1

99

9

19

-Au

g-1

99

9

Pri

ce (

$/b

u.)

Pre-Harvest Forward Contract Bid Price

Average Loan Rate


Post-Harvest Cash Price

Many Farmers Turn to Market Advisory Services for Help

• Services are thought to process market information more rapidly and efficiently than farmers to determine the most appropriate marketing decisions

• Surveys document advisory service popularity among farmers over the last 25 years

• Advisory services have substantial influence on the use of forward pricing by farmers

Do I Really Need an Advisory Program?

• To answer this question you first need the facts on your own marketing performance

• Next you need a framework for evaluating your marketing performance

Evaluation of Crop Marketing Performance

• Bottom Line: Compare your price received for a crop to the price offered by the market

• Two important comparisons – Top third of price range– Average price

Quick Approach to Benchmarking

1. Assemble data to compute marketing weights each month over the 24-month pricing window for a crop year– Account for forward, futures and options sales

2. Multiply weights by monthly average prices– Prices should be adjusted for storage costs– Prices should be for a comparable area, e.g., central

Illinois3. Add speculative futures/options gains or

losses4. Include your weighted-average LDP/MLG

gains??5. Compare to the 24-month average cash price

– Adjusted for storage costs– Include LDP/MLGs??

Complete Approach to Benchmarking1. Assemble records for a given crop: bushels sold,

cash and forward sales, futures and options transactions

2. Adjust each sale for moisture and quality discounts; sale prices should be stated on a No.2 basis for corn and No. 1 basis for soybeans

3. Compute the weighted-average cash price received4. Subtract physical storage charges on all bushels

stored post-harvest5. Subtract interest opportunity cost on all bushels

stored post-harvest6. Compute profit/loss on all futures and options

transactions7. Add LDP and/or marketing loan benefits??

Compare Your Average Price Received to a Realistic Benchmark

Last Year? ______3 Year Average? ______5 Year Average? ______

Conventional Approach to Comparison of Crop Year Price

Ranges

• Post-harvest cash prices only• Range of prices = high - low• Divide range into top third, middle

third, and bottom third• No adjustment for carrying costs

Conventional Measurement of Price Range for Soybeans, 2003 Crop Year, Central

Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

0 1 2

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

Top Third

Bottom Third

Middle Third

Conventional

Low (12 mo. unadjusted)

High (12 mo. unadjusted)

$5.64/bu.

$8.82/bu.

$10.41/bu.

$7.23/bu.

Note: LDP/MLG benefits not included.

Conventional Measurement of Price Range for Corn, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central

Illinois

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)


Conventional Measurement of Price Range for Corn, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central

Illinois

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

NASS Average Farm Price Received


Conventional Measurement of Price Range for Soybeans, 1995-2003 Crop Years,

Central Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)


Conventional Measurement of Price Range for Soybeans, 1995-2003 Crop Years,

Central Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)



Better Approach to Comparison of Crop Year Price Ranges

• Pre- and post-harvest cash prices included (two-year marketing window)

• Adjustments for carrying costs (interest rate + commercial storage)

• Thirds based on equal number of days in each price range (time-weighted)

24-Month Marketing Window for Corn and Soybeans

Pre-Harves t Forward Bid Post-Harves t Cash Price (Less Carrying Charge)

Firs t Day of Harves t( year t)

Septem ber 1 ( year t - 1)

August 31 ( year t + 1)

12 Months 12 Months

24 Month Window

Conventional and Better Measurements of Price Range for Soybeans, 2003 Crop Year,

Central Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

0 1 2 3

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

Top Third

Bottom Third

Middle Third

Conventional Better

Top Third

Middle Third

Bottom Third Third

Low (12 mo. unadjusted)

High (12 mo. unadjusted) High (24 mo. adjusted for carrying costs)

Low (24 mo. adjusted for carrying costs)

$5.64/bu.

$4.74/bu.

$5.10/bu.

$7.23/bu.$7.30/bu.

$8.82/bu.

$10.05/bu.$10.41/bu.


Price Range for Corn, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central Illinois

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)




1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

Top Third: 0/9 Crop YearsMiddle Third: 6/9 Crop YearsBottom Third: 3/9 Crop Years




1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Farm > Mkt. Price: 2/9 Avg. Dif. Farm - Mkt. Price: -9 cents/bu.


24 Month Average Cash Price

Price Range for Soybeans, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)




3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

Top Third: 1/9 Crop YearsMiddle Third: 6/9 Crop YearsBottom Third: 2/9 Crop Years




3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Farm > Mkt. Price: 4/9 Avg. Dif. Farm - Mkt. Price: +10 cents/bu.



Key Factors in Selecting a Marketing Advisor Program

• Pricing performance– Goal: high price, low risk

• Consistency of performance– Goal: consistently superior pricing

performance

• Marketing philosophy/style– Goal: Match your approach to marketing

• Communication– Goal: Well-written, concise, accurate

Types of Advisory Service Programs

• Basic program: provides subscribers with market analysis, information and “generic” marketing recommendations

• Customized program: provides marketing recommendations that are tailored to individual client needs, direct access to market analysts, in addition to basic services

Cost of Advisory Service Programs

• Basic programs:– Fixed annual subscription fee– Generally ranges from

$150-$600/year

• Customized programs:– Subscription fee based on volume of

production– Generally ranges from 3-5¢/bushel

Agricultural Market Advisory Service Project (AgMAS)

• In 1994, the AgMAS Project was started at the University of Illinois

• Goal of providing unbiased and rigorous performance evaluation

• Evaluate performance in marketing corn, soybeans, wheat, and hogs

AgMAS Data Collection

• Tracking about 25-35 “basic” advisory programs per year since September 1994

• Paid subscriptions obtained for each service

• Recommendations recorded in “real-time”

• No survivorship or hindsight bias• Data available for corn and soybeans for

1995-2003 crops

Simulation of Advisory Service Performance

• Simulation for central Illinois farm• Two-year marketing window • Transactions applied to expected or

actual yield per acre• Cash sales are discounted for interest

and storage charges (commercial)• Net advisory prices are stated in

harvest equivalent terms

Computation of Net Advisory Price

2.25

-0.40

0.46

-0.02

0.19

2.48

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Cash SalesPrice

StorageCosts

Futures andOptions

Gain

BrokerageCosts

LDP/MLG NetAdvisory

Price

Cor

n ($

per

bus

hel)

Performance of Advisory Programs in Corn, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central Illinois

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

Advisory Program


1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

Top Third or Better: 17%Middle Third: 60%Bottom Third or Worse: 23%

Advisory Program




1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

Advisors FarmersTop Third or Better: 17% 0%Middle Third: 60% 67%Bottom Third or Worse: 23% 33%

Advisory Program




1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Avg. MAS > Farm Price: 8/9 Avg. Dif. Avg. MAS - Farm Price: +8 cents/bu.

Advisory Program




1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Avg. MAS > Mkt. Price: 3/9 Avg. Dif. Avg. MAS - Mkt. Price: -1 cent/bu.

Advisory Program


Performance of Advisory Programs in Soybeans, 1995-2003 Crop Years, Central

Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

Advisory Program


Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

rice

($

/bu

.)


Advisory Program



Illinois


3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

Advisors FarmersTop Third or Better: 18% 11%Middle Third: 65% 67%Bottom Third or Worse: 17% 22%

Advisory Program



Illinois


3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Avg. MAS > Farm Price: 6/9 Avg. Dif. Avg. MAS - Farm Price: -1 cent/bu.

Advisory Program



Illinois


3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

ric

e ($

/bu

.)

# Yrs. Avg. MAS > Mkt. Price: 7/9 Avg. Dif. Avg. MAS - Mkt. Price: +9 cent/bu.

Advisory Program


Five-Year Average Performance of 22 Advisory Programs in Corn, 1999-2003 Crop

Years, Central Illinois

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Rank

Ave

rag

e N

et A

dvi

sory

Pri

ce

($/b

u.) 24 Month Average Cash Price


Note: LDP/MLG benefits included.

Seven-Year Average Performance of 19 Advisory Programs in Corn, 1997-2003 Crop


1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Rank

Ave

rag

e N

et A

dvi

sory

Pri

ce (

$/b




Nine-Year Average Performance of 15 Advisory Programs in Corn, 1995-2003 Crop


1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rank

Ave

rag

e N

et A

dvi

sory

Pri

ce

($/b




Five-Year Average Performance of 21 Advisory Programs in Soybeans, 1999-2003

Crop Years, Central Illinois

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Rank

Ave

rag

e N

et A

dvi

sory

Pri

ce

($/b




Seven-Year Average Performance of 17 Advisory Programs in Soybeans, 1997-2003


4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Rank

Ave

rag

e N

et A

dvi

sory

Pri

ce

($/b




Nine-Year Average Performance of 15 Advisory Programs in Soybeans, 1995-2003


4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Rank

Net

Ad

viso

ry P

rice

($

/bu

.)

24 Month Average Cash Price NASS Average Farm Price Received


Lessons Learned About Pricing

Performance • Better for soybeans than corn when

compared to market • Better for corn than soybeans when

compared to farmers• Overall, modest ability to beat the

market or farmers• Large range in performance across

programs • A few programs beat the market and

farmers based on average prices

Consistency of Advisory Service Performance

• Consistency evaluated two ways• Absolute consistency

– How consistently do programs land in the top third of the price range over time?

• Relative consistency– How consistently are programs

ranked in the top and bottom five of all advisory programs?


1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

Co

rn P

rice

($

/bu

.)


Advisory Program


Distribution of Appearances in the Top Third of the Price Range for Corn, 1995-2003 Crop

Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Top Third of Price Range

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s

13

6

3

1



Illinois

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Crop Year

So

ybea

n P

rice

($

/bu

.)


Advisory Program


Distribution of Appearances in the Top Third of the Price Range for Soybeans, 1995-2003

Crop Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Top Third of Price Range

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s 12

6

4

1


Distribution of Appearances in the Top 5 Ranked Advisory Programs for Corn, 1995-

2003 Crop Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Top Five

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s

10

2 1

4

2


Distribution of Appearances in the Bottom 5 Ranked Advisory Programs for Corn, 1995-

2003 Crop Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Bottom Five

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s

8 8

4

1 1


Distribution of Appearances in the Top 5 Ranked Advisory Programs for Soybeans,

1995-2003 Crop Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Top Five

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s

15

21

3

1 1


Distribution of Appearances in the Bottom 5 Ranked Advisory Programs for Soybeans,

1995-2003 Crop Years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Crop Years in Bottom Five

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rog

ram

s

13

6

4

2


Lessons Learned About Consistency

• Available evidence suggests past price performance does not predict future price performance

• Similar to findings for stock mutual funds

• Implication: Choosing an advisory service based on past “hot” performance is not likely to be successful

Marketing Philosophy/Style

• Every individual farmer has a marketing philosophy, or style, that is unique

• Types of styles range from:– Conservative and risk-minimizing– Active and risk-seeking

• Our research shows that match between farmer and advisory service style is second in importance only to pricing performance in selecting a service

Market Advisory Program Styles

• It is well-understood that marketing style differs substantially across advisors– Websites and promotional literature for

advisors discuss approach to marketing• A Top Producer article described styles

of well-known advisors as: – Banker, Race Car Driver, Astronaut,

Sprinter, and Insurance Agent• Difficult to know how accurate these

labels are or what they mean!

Example of the Construction of an AgMAS Marketing Profile

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

1-Sep-98

1-Dec-98

1-Mar-99

1-Jun-99

1-Sep-99

1-Dec-99

1-Mar-00

1-Jun-00

Net

Am

ou

nt

Pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati

ve)


Sell all unsold grain (54%) in the cash market

Sell Dec futures for 30% of expected production

Buy Dec puts for 50 % of expected production

Buy Dec futures for 30 % of expected production (close futures position)

Sell Dec puts for 50 % of expected production (close options position) and sell 50% of expected production in the cash market

Average Marketing Profile for All Advisory Programs in Corn, 1995-2001 Crop Years

0

25

50

75

100

9-Sep

9-Dec

9-Mar

9-Jun

9-Sep

9-Dec

9-Mar

9-Jun

Net

Am

ou

nt

Pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati

ve)

All Advisors Average

24-Month Market Benchmark Average

First Day of Harvest (1995-2001 average)

Average Marketing Profile for All Advisory Programs in Soybeans, 1995-2001 Crop

Years

0

25

50

75

100

9-Sep

9-Dec

9-Mar

9-Jun

9-Sep

9-Dec

9-Mar

9-Jun

Net

Am

ou

nt

Pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati

ve)

All Advisors Average

24-Month Market Benchmark Average

First Day of Harvest (1995-2001 average)

Marketing Profile for a Conservative Advisory Program in Corn, 1999 Crop Year

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati

ve) First day of harvest


-25

0

25

50

75

100

125Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati



-25

0

25

50

75

100

125Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati


Marketing Profile for an Active Advisory Program in Corn, 1999 Crop Year

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati



-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati



-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Se

p

No

v

Jan

Mar

May Ju

l

Net

am

ou

nt

pri

ced

(%

, cu

mu

lati


Advisory Program Groups in Corn Based on Degree of Activeness, 1997-2001 Crop Years

Group I:Conservative

Group II:Active

Group III:Very Active

Share of Programs

74% 16% 11%

AveragePrice

$2.12/bu. $2.14/bu. $2.30/bu.

StandardDeviation

$0.19/bu. $0.18/bu. $0.36/bu.


Advisory Program Groups in Soybeans Based on Degree of Activeness, 1997-2001

Crop Years

Group I:Conservative

Group II:Active

Group III:Very Active

Share of Programs

59% 18% 24%

AveragePrice

$5.64/bu. $5.91/bu. $6.06/bu.

StandardDeviation

$0.40/bu. $0.56/bu. $0.54/bu.


Lessons Learned About Marketing Styles

• Marketing styles vary dramatically across advisors

• Some evidence that more active programs generate higher prices– Tends to come at the cost of higher risk

• Implications:– Do not focus solely on a program’s net price– Match your risk tolerance to marketing style

of the advisor

Key Factors in Selecting a Marketing Advisor Program

• Pricing performance– Goal: high price, low risk

• Consistency of performance– Goal: consistently superior pricing

performance

• Marketing philosophy/style– Goal: Match your approach to marketing

• Communication– Goal: Well-written, concise, accurate

AgMAS Performance Profile Tool

Coming soon at: http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/agmas!

New Generation Grain Marketing Contracts

• Contracts follow prescribed rules for generating sales

• Goal is to achieve a price near or above the average price offered by the market over a given time

• Interest in new generation contracts has increased in recent years

Three Basic Types of New Generation Contracts

1. Automated pricing rules

2. Managed hedging

3. Combination of the first two

Contacting the AgMAS Project

• Office Address: 406 Mumford Hall 1301 West Gregory Drive University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801

• Phone: (217)333-2792• Email: [email protected]• Website: http://

www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/agmas

DISCLAIMERThe advisory service marketing recommendations used in this research represent the best efforts of the AgMAS Project staff to accurately and fairly interpret the information made available by each advisory service. In cases where a recommendation is vague or unclear, some judgment is exercised as to whether or not to include that particular recommendation or how to implement the recommendation. Given that some recommendations are subject to interpretation, the possibility is acknowledged that the AgMAS track record of recommendations for a given program may differ from that stated by the advisory service, or from that recorded by another subscriber. In addition, the net advisory prices presented in this report may differ substantially from those computed by an advisory service or another subscriber due to differences in simulation assumptions, particularly with respect to the geographic location of production, cash and forward contract prices, expected and actual yields, storage charges and government programs.

Thank You!

Documents

Sizing Up Your Marketing Advisory Program Scott H. Irwin and Darrel L. Good