To read this content please select one of the options below:

Risk implications from the selection of rainfall index insurance intervals

Ashlee Westerhold (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Twin Falls, Idaho, USA)
Cory Walters (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)
Kathleen Brooks (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)
Monte Vandeveer (Southwest Research-Extension Center, Kansas State University, Garden City, Kansas, USA)
Jerry Volesky (Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, North Platte, Nebraska, USA)
Walter Schacht (University of Nebraska-Lincoln Plant Science Innovation, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)

Agricultural Finance Review

ISSN: 0002-1466

Article publication date: 14 May 2018

Issue publication date: 17 September 2018

319

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the financial outcomes from forage production and RI-PRF insurance interval for two locations in Nebraska. Both locations provide historical forage production and precipitation data, allowing the authors to examine the relation between RI-PRF net income and forage production.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors focus on evaluating the producer net income and risk (measured as variance of net income) by examining the relation between farm precipitation and production and comparing multiple insurance intervals to no insurance. Each insurance interval will likely have a different relation (basis risk) between observed production and return from insurance and, therefore, a different impact on the variance of net incomes. The impact on variance of net incomes identifies the risk-reducing aspects of RI-PRF insurance intervals. The authors then rank each scenario into four mutually exclusive zones that describe the risk-reducing effectiveness and whether the subsidy is working correctly.

Findings

The authors found both risk increasing and decreasing insurance intervals exist at both locations. One insurance scenario (low in BBR) provided the highest net income while increasing risk, suggesting a profit maximizing opportunity. RI-PRF reduces net income risk with intervals insuring during high expected precipitation (growing season); while net income risk increases with intervals insuring low expected precipitation (non-growing season, winter months). The farmer would want to insure during the high expected precipitation months, which coincides with the growing season, since RI-PRF lowers the net income risk. For the government, removing net income risk increasing intervals improves the allocation of government resources.

Originality/value

In this paper, the authors modeled the relation between RI-PRF interval selection using the historical forage production data at two locations in Nebraska. The use of historical forage production data allowed the authors to precisely identify the risk-reducing effectiveness of RI-PRF interval selection.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, Hatch project under NEB-24-182.

Citation

Westerhold, A., Walters, C., Brooks, K., Vandeveer, M., Volesky, J. and Schacht, W. (2018), "Risk implications from the selection of rainfall index insurance intervals", Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 514-531. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-10-2017-0097

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles