|
Yield Protection Crop Insurance will have
the same Yield Coverage as Revenue Protection, but RP is Expected to be the
Preferred Choice (Updated)
Starting this fall, the Risk
Management Agency (RMA) will combine Actual Production History (APH), Income
Protection (IP), Revenue Assurance (RA) and Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) in
to a single Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP). CCIP provides 3 types of
coverages that include; 1. Yield Protection (YP), 2. Revenue Protection
(RP), and 3. Revenue Protection with the Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE).
Winter wheat farmers who do not
cancel or change their crop insurance coverage will have their prior year’s
coverage rolled to the equivalent CCIP coverage. Those farmers with APH,
aka MPCI, will have their coverage rolled to Yield Protection (YP) at the
same percentage coverage level. Those farmers with CRC or RA with the
Harvest Price Option will have their coverage rolled to Revenue Protection
(RP) at the same percentage coverage level. Farmers with RA and no Harvest
Price Option or IP will have their coverage rolled to Revenue Protection
with the Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) at the same percentage coverage
level.
RMA adopted a definition for
enterprise units similar to CRC that is based on the number of planted acres
versus RA’s definition that was based on the number of sections (or
equivalent) with planted acres. For some farmers, the RA definition
provided a larger enterprise discount that will no longer be available. The
other major change is the YP contract will use the same price election as
the revenue products. This is a major change because in the past the APH
contract often had a lower price election than revenue insurance. This will
make it easier for farmers to compare coverage across insurance types. So
now the question becomes should one purchase the YP with a lower premium
cost but the same price election as the revenue products?
Endorsements and Definitions.
RMA’s new Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) effectively uses the Yield
Protection (YP) contract as the base contract. The YP contract plus the
harvest price and revenue endorsements is equal to the Revenue Protection
(RP) contract. Farmers are allowed to delete the harvest price and create
the Revenue Protection with the Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) contract
that equals YP plus the revenue endorsement only. Notice farmers are not
allowed to eliminate the revenue endorsement and retain the harvest price
endorsement.
The yield protection under CCIP is
the same in all three contracts, YP, RP, and RP-HPE. Most of the CCIP
premium pays for the yield protection share of the contract. This is
obvious when one compares the payout from all three contracts under
different price and yield scenarios. Because the yield guarantees are the
same, then the harvest price and revenue endorsements cover the price risk
to create revenue products.
The harvest price endorsement is a
yield adjusted Asian call option and the revenue endorsement is a yield
adjusted Asian put option. The yield adjusted Asian options have some
fundamental differences from the options traded in Chicago, Kansas City, and
Minneapolis. The yield adjusted Asian options are settled on a monthly
average closing futures price (June average closing prices of the KCBOT July
2011 wheat contract for Kansas wheat farmers) versus a spot market
settlement price. The Asian option has no exercise rights, and they are
adjusted for yield. However the largest difference is between Board traded
puts and the yield adjusted Asian “put” in Revenue Protection is this put
will take on negative values if there are insurable yield losses and higher
prices. The revenue endorsement has some characteristics that are closer to
a hedge than an option. Farmers can eliminate any possibility of negative
values for the revenue endorsement if they also purchase the harvest price.
The purchase of RP will eliminate any negative values for the Asian
put option that is only possible with the RP-HPE.
Because the options traded on the
exchanges have a fixed yield of 5,000 bushels is the reason they are more
expensive than those options adjusted for yield. The government provides
about a 50% premium cost share, so even if one doubles the premium for the
yield adjusted Asian options, the premiums on wheat are less than 20 cents
per guaranteed bushel (less than 10 cents with government cost share)
versus about a dollar premium for July KCBOT wheat options.
Example Farm Calculations.
A wheat farm was created with the following values to compare the
differences in indemnity payments for YP, RP, and RP-HPE, under different
price and yield scenarios.
The example
wheat farm has the following values:
APH proven
Yield 53.3
Coverage
Level 75%
Guaranteed
Bushes 40 bu.
Base (Planting)
Price1 $7.00
Maximum
Price $14.00
Coverage $280.00
1The
base price for Kansas and many wheat states is the average of closing prices
of the July 2011 KCBOT wheat contract for the trading days from August 15,
2010 through September 14, 2010. The example used a $7 price election to
generate “round numbers”. The current base price is $7.05, but this is not
final.
This grower’s yield guarantee would equal 75% coverage
times 53.3 bushel APH equals a 40 bushel guarantee (figure 1). A YP
contract would require an insurable yield loss to trigger payments. For
this example farm, it will require a yield below 40 bushels. If this wheat
farmer has a yield of 20 bushels, it would generate a yield loss of 20
bushels below the 40 bushel guarantee times a $7 price election equals the
indemnity payment of $140 (table 1). Notice that neither increasing nor
decreasing prices have any impact on the YP indemnity payments. For this
wheat farmer the indemnity payment is $140, whether the current market price
is $9 or $5.
Moral hazard becomes a concern with YP when prices are
low, e.g. a $4 harvest price that will not affect the indemnity payment.
However, the YP insurance contract will pay $7 for each indemnity bushel.
Farmers that have already suffered a 25% yield loss, then have an economic
incentive to lose the rest of the crop. These economic incentives can cause
a difficult loss adjustment because some farmers may argue the “ground is
too muddy” to harvest. The moral hazard is less with revenue insurance
products because if prices decline, farmers will be paid for the price loss
even if they don’t have a yield loss. Growers also need to remember that a
low yield will show up in their future lower APH and cause a rate increase.
Also a good experience discount appears to be under consideration but no
details. There also is no guarantee that a good experience discount will be
offered but if farmers are “generating” losses, they would not receive any
good experience discount. Finally, if it is clear that harvest could have
been completed, RMA/insurance company may deny the claim.
Comparison of YP and RP. Because the
price elections are the same the comparison is straight forward. The
harvest price endorsement will turn YP in to yield replacement coverage.
This feature assures farmers who forward price wheat and other grains using
forward contracts, hedge to arrive, puts, windows, etc. will either have
bushels or enough dollars to replace those guaranteed bushels at current
market value to offset those marketing positions.
Effectively RMA is adding a yield adjusted Asian call
and a yield adjusted Asian put to the YP contract to create a yield
replacement contract combined with a revenue insurance contract, titled
Revenue Protection (RP). The Asian call option (harvest price) attaches at
zero yield (figure 1). If the market were to increase from $7 to $8, the
KCBOT $7 call would be worth $1 plus time value, irrespective of yield. The
harvest price is worth a dollar only at zero yield and has no time value.
If the yield increases the harvest price loses value and expires worthless
if the yield is greater than the guaranteed bushels (40 bushels in this
example).
Table 2 shows the value of the harvest price “call” at
different yields and prices. The only point on the yield curve where the
harvest price “Asian call” equals the value of a KCBOT call is at zero yield
and when the option expires with no time value remaining (Figure 1). For
example if a KCBOT call were purchased on the guaranteed bushels the call
would be worth $40 or 40 bushels times $1. Because KCBOT options trade in
5,000 bushel increments, it is unlikely that farmers can exactly match the
guaranteed bushels in the YP contract. Of course this is not the total
indemnity payment, because farmers are also paid for the yield loss or the
same payment as provided by YP.
The Asian put option (Harvest Price Exclusion) attaches
at the guaranteed bushels (figure 1). If the market were to decrease from
$7 to $6, the KCBOT $7 put would be worth a $1 plus time value, irrespective
of yield. The “Asian put” in revenue insurance is worth a dollar only at
the guaranteed bushels (40 bushels in this example) and has no time value.
If the yield decreases the “Asian put” in revenue insurance will lose value
and will be worthless at zero yield. The underlying yield guarantee in YP
will pay the entire loss. At zero yield the YP and RP-HPE will pay the
same, even though the premium for RP-HPE is higher than the YP premium in
nearly all cases. The “yield adjusted Asian put” in revenue insurance will
also lose value when yields increase above the bushels guaranteed and if
yields are high enough the “yield adjusted Asian put” will also expire
worthless.
A KCBOT put option will expire worthless at expiration
if prices increase. The “yield adjusted Asian put” in revenue insurance
will take on negative values when yields are below the
guaranteed bushels and prices increase. Because the “yield adjusted Asian
put” will take on negative values when prices increase and yields are below
the guaranteed bushels, is the reason that YP will pay more than RP-HPE
under this scenario. If farmers don’t exclude the harvest price, then when
yields are below the guaranteed bushels and prices increase the harvest
price will kick in with higher payments. Farmers effectively receive the
yield adjusted Asian option that pays the most, either the “put” or the
“call”.
Table 4 shows the payments of RP has included the
harvest price under different yields and price scenarios. Effectively RP is
the YP coverage plus it includes both the yield adjusted Asian put and
call. If the harvest price were to equal the base price (a very unlikely
outcome) then both yield adjusted Asian options would expire worthless, and
YP, RP and RP-HPE would all pay identical indemnity payments. When farmers
compare the difference in payments under difference price and yield
scenarios, then it is clear that RP-HPE equals YP payment plus any payment
for the yield adjusted Asian put that can also take on negative values. RP
equals the YP payment plus the yield adjusted Asian option that has the
greatest value. Clearly the revenue insurance has more risk protection than
YP or RP-HPE, but is the harvest price in RP worth the extra premium?
Revenue and harvest price endorsements are
“cheap”. Clearly an option purchased from the KCBOT has more value
than the revenue endorsement (‘put”) and harvest price endorsement
(“call”). Currently an at the money KCBOT option is costing about a dollar
a bushel. If one were to buy both a call and a put it would cost about $2
per bushel (not recommended).
RP-HPE has a “put” cost per bushel equal to RP-HPE
premium minus YP premium divided by guaranteed bushels. For example, RP-HPE
premium = $17.14 minus YP premium = $13.35 equals a difference of $3.79
divided by 40 bu. = 9.5 cents per guaranteed bushel.
RP has a “call” cost per bushel equal to RP premium
minus RP-HPE premium divided by guaranteed bushels. For example, RP premium
= $20.30 minus RP-HPE premium = $17.14 equals a difference of $3.16 divided
by 40 bu. = 7.9 cents per guaranteed bushel.
Farmers receive both options for less than 20 cents per
bushel, while a single KCBOT option would cost about a dollar. Farmers need
to remember if they elect the Harvest Price Exclusion then the revenue
endorsement guarantee may take on negative values. Because RP includes both
yield adjusted Asian options, RP payments will depend on the level of yield
produced because in nearly all cases prices will either increase or decrease
and will cause one of the Asian options to be in the money.
The yield protection is the “expensive” part of revenue
insurance contracts. Kansas wheat farmers would likely expect wheat market
prices to increase if there is a crop failure. Also farmers who forward
price their grain will benefit from buying the harvest price. This will
guarantee the expected wheat bushels at their current market replacement
value. This effectively expands the marketing window from 9 months or more
before harvest to 9 months after harvest. With the recent basis issues,
there has been a real advantage to having on farm storage as a part of the
total risk management plan. However, farmers must first purchase the
revenue endorsement (RP-HPE) before RMA will allow farmers to purchase the
harvest price (RP).
The revenue endorsement does not require an insurable
yield loss to trigger payments. It only requires prices to decline and
there is no longer any limit on the downside price protection. The 2008
soybean contract paid on the revenue endorsement (Asian put) with yields
greater than farmers’ APH. This is unlikely to occur but it has happened.
Even if one has already priced their new crop so they have no downside price
risks, the revenue endorsement is still a “low cost” method to add
additional price protection.
Revenue insurance was never intended to replace a good
marketing plan. Once farmers plant their crop they have no choice but to
sell it; one cannot store it forever! Adding the revenue endorsement and
harvest price to create Revenue Protection, provides “low cost” price
protection when compared with premiums for market traded options. RP will
reduce the risk of forward marketing grain and will likely improve access to
credit for financing an aggressive marketing plan.
Figure 1. The attachment points on the yield curve for crop insurance
yield coverage, yield adjusted Asian Put, and a yield adjusted Asian call.

Table 1. The YP indemnity payments for a wheat farm
with a $7 price election, a 53.3 bushel APH, and 75% coverage under
different price and yield scenarios.

Table 2. The additional indemnity payments
generated from the yield adjusted Asian Call in the Revenue Protection
contract for a wheat farm with a $7 price election, a 53.3 bushel APH, and
75% coverage under different price and yield scenarios.

Table 3. The additional indemnity payments
generated from the yield adjusted Asian Put in the Revenue Protection with
Harvest Price Exclusion contract for a wheat farm with a $7 price election,
a 53.3 bushel APH, and 75% coverage under different price and yield
scenarios.

Table 4. The total indemnity payments generated
from the Revenue Protection contract for a wheat farm with a $7 price
election, a 53.3 bushel APH, and 75% coverage under different price and
yield scenarios.

|