1. Thin Market Issues in Livestock Markets B. Wade Brorsen Oklahoma State University James R. Fain Oklahoma State University William Hahn Economic Research Service

2. Thin Market Issues Price reporting Alternative Marketing Agreements – Market Power Price Variability?

3. Senator John B. Kendrick, Wyoming, 1919 “This squall between the packers and the producers of this country ought to have blown over forty years ago, but we still have it on our hands…” A long history of controversy

4. New Institutional Economics Market institutions will evolve toward the one with lowest transaction costs

5. Zilmax

6. Table 1. Differences in beta agonists ItemOptaflexxZilmax Active ingredientRactopamine hyperchloride Zilpaterol hydrochloride Approved label guidelines Duration of feeding28-42 days20-40 days Optimal feeding duration28-35 days20 days Withdrawal timeNone3 days Weight gainIncreased by 10-21 lbsIncreased up to 21 lbs Feed efficiencyImproved 14-21% Ribeye areaUp to 0.5 sq.in. Quality gradeMinimal impactNone to slight reduction TendernessMinimal ImpactNone to slight reduction Source: Radunz (2011)

7. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

8. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

9. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

10. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

11. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

12. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

13. Data Source: USDA-AMS Compiled by: Livestock Marketing Information Center

14. History of Retail Beef, Pork, & Poultry Prices Source: USDA ERSource : EERS

15. Focus on Industry Concentration in studies in the 1980s and 1990s Most found a positive relationship between fed cattle prices and number of buyers (Ward 1981; Ward 1992; Schroeder el al. 1993) And a negative relationship between fed cattle prices and concentration (Menkhaus, St. Clair, Ahmaddaud 1981; Ward 1992; Marion and Geithman 1995)

16. More recent studies found less of an impact Modest evidence of oligopsony (Schroeter 1988; Schroeter and Azzam 1990; Azzam and Pagoulatos 1990; Azzam and Schroeter 1991; Koontz, Garcia, Hudson 1993; Weliwita and Azzam 1996; Koontz and Garcia 1997) Little or no evidence of oligopsony, oligopoly behavior (Driscoll, Kambhampaty, Purcell 1997; Muth and Wohlgenant 1999; Matthews, Jr. et al. 1999; Ward and Stevens 2000; Schroeter, Azzam, Zhang 2000; Paul 2001)

17. Strong economies of plant size Economies of size found by alternative methods, data, and time periods (Sersland 1985; Duewer and Nelson 1991; MacDonald et al. 2000; Paul 2001) Importance of plant utilization (Sersland 1985; Duewer and Nelson 1991;Ward 1990; Barkley and Schroeder 1996; Paul 2001)

18. GIPSA Studies 1992 - The Role of Captive Supplies in Beef Parking 2002 - Livestock and Meat Marketing Study $4.5 m

19. Pricing method or captive supply impacts Small negative price impacts of alternative marketing arrangements (Elam 1992; Schroeder et al. 1993; Ward, Koontz, Schroeder 1998; Schroeter and Azzam 2003, 2004; Muth et al. 2008)

20. Experimental Markets Sabasi et al. (JARE 2013) Coatney et al. (Working paper 2013)

21. “Prices in the second bargaining period, however, approach the competitive benchmark, regardless of the level of committed procurement” (Sabasi, Bastian, Menkhaus, and Phillips 2013).

22. “it is not the thinning of the cash markets caused by forward contracting (captive supplies) that should give rise to concerns of reduced competition. Rather, it is the mechanism in which forward contracts are priced” Coatney, Riley, and Head (2013)

23. Efficiency gains versus market power losses? Economies of size and allocation efficiencies more than offset price distortions (Azzam and Schroeter 1995; Paul 2001; Ward 2010)

24. Theory Cournot predicts large effects (Xia and Sexton; Zhang and Brorsen) Auction markets

25. Possible Policy Proposals Ban marketing agreements Pay producers who sell in cash markets Restrict marketing agreements

26. Research Project Agent-based simulation Common-value auction Two time periods Seller has a reserve price Buyer chooses bid prices

27. Results Base ModelRestrict AMA Seller Price128.23127.96 Packer Profits1.081.36

28. What if government pulled out entirely? Fertilizer market example –Multiple private sellers of prices –Formula prices –Concern about manipulation

29. Livestock Markets – U.S.D.A. Policy Price Reporting – MPR Supply/demand Information Inaction on AMA

30. Conclusion and Questions Market power < Gain in efficiency Livestock markets have changed Market thinness is increasing How thin is too thin? Price reporting issues?