Data Aggregation Issues for Crop Yield Risk Analysis

Author(s):  
Margot Rudstrom ◽  
Michael Popp ◽  
Patrick Manning ◽  
Edward Gbur
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Ye ◽  
Jianliang Nie ◽  
Jun Wang ◽  
Peijun Shi ◽  
Zhu Wang

2008 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Breustedt ◽  
Raushan Bokusheva ◽  
Olaf Heidelbach

1989 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siegfried Debrah ◽  
Harry H. Hall

2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Sherrick ◽  
Christopher A. Lanoue ◽  
Joshua Woodard ◽  
Gary D. Schnitkey ◽  
Nicholas D. Paulson

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the empirical evidence about crop yield distributions that are often used in practical models evaluating crop yield risk and insurance. Additionally, a simulation approach is used to compare the performance of alternative specifications when the underlying form is not known, to identify implications for the choice of parameterization of yield distributions in modeling contexts. Design/methodology/approach – Using a unique high-quality farm-level corn yield data set, commonly used parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric distributions are examined against widely used in-sample goodness-of-fit (GOF) measures. Then, a simulation framework is used to assess the out-of-sample characteristics by using known distributions to generate samples that are assessed in an insurance valuation context under alternative specifications of the yield distribution. Findings – Bias and efficiency trade-offs are identified for both in- and out-of-sample contexts, including a simple insurance rating application. Use of GOF measures in small samples can lead to inappropriate selection of candidate distributions that perform poorly in straightforward economic applications. The β distribution consistently overstates rates even when fitted to data generated from a β distribution, while the Weibull consistently understates rates; though small sample features slightly favor Weibull. The TCMN and kernel density estimators are least biased in-sample, but can perform very badly out-of-sample due to overfitting issues. The TCMN performs reasonably well across sample sizes and initial conditions. Practical implications – Economic applications should consider the consequence of bias vs efficiency in the selection of characterizations of yield risk. Parsimonious specifications often outperform more complex characterizations of yield distributions in small sample settings, and in cases where more demanding uses of extreme-event probabilities are required. Originality/value – The study helps provide guidance on the selection of distributions used to characterize yield risk and provides an extensive empirical demonstration of yield risk measures across a high-quality set of actual farm experiences. The out-of-sample examination provides evidence of the impact of sample size, underlying variability, and region of the probability measure used on the performance of candidate distributions.


Author(s):  
John W. Harbaugh ◽  
Johannes Wendebourg

Risk analysis of an oil or gas prospect requires a probability distribution with two components, a dry-hole probability plus a distribution of oil or gas volumes if there is a discovery. While these components should be estimated objectively, risk analysis as currently practiced is mostly guesswork. Geologists assign outcome probabilities without appropriate procedures or data for objective estimation. Valid estimates require frequency data on regional exploratory drilling-success ratios, frequency distributions of oil and gas field volumes, and systematic tabulations of geological variables on a prospect-by-prospect basis. Discriminant functions can be used to analyze relationships between geological variables and hydrocarbons, leading to outcome probabilities conditional on discriminant scores. These probabilities can be incorporated in risk-analysis tables to yield risk-weighted financial forecasts. Computers are required for all procedures. Prior to drilling a petroleum prospect, the likelihood of good outcomes must be weighed against the bad to obtain a risked financial estimate that combines all possibilities. Some oil operators simply contrast the value of discovery that is expected, versus the cost of a dry hole. A cashflow projection yields an estimate of the revenue that will be received if a discovery is made. This assumes an initial producing rate and an ultimate cumulative production for the operator's net revenue interest, and an oil price. When the stream of revenue is discounted and costs for the lease, the completed well, and operating expenses and taxes are subtracted, the net present value is obtained. If the hole is dry, its cost is readily estimated. Only two monetary estimates coupled with an intuitive guess about the likelihood of a producer versus a dry hole form the basis for a decision. A great deal of oil has been found by both independent operators and major oil companies using such simple decision systems. Oil companies generally use more advanced methods at present. Many require their geologists to supply probability estimates for a spectrum of outcomes for each individual prospect, ranging from the probability of a dry hole through the probability of a small discovery, a medium-sized discovery, and various magnitudes of large discoveries.


EDIS ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clyde W. Fraisse ◽  
Joel O. Paz ◽  
Charles M. Brown

Circular 1498, an 8-page illustrated report by Clyde W. Fraisse, Joel O. Paz, and Charles M. Brown, explains how to use historical crop yield information available through the AgClimate Web site (www.agclimate.org) to understand yield risk for specific crops in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Includes references.  Published by the UF Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, January 2007.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document