Ranking Wheat Producing Provinces from a Systematic Risk Perspective and Measuring Risk Compensation in Iran: A Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 3, Volume 34, Issue 3 - Serial Number 49, October 2020, Pages 275-288   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead.2020.17756.0

Authors

H. Salami^* ; A. Salim

Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Risk is considered as a negative factor in producing agricultural products. Yet, the presence of risk is not restraining producers from production as long as the generated revenue is proportional to the perceived risk and thereby, the cost of the risk is compensated. The purpose of this study is to measure systematic risk of wheat production in Iran's provinces, and evaluate how the risk is offset in these regions.
Materials and Methods: According to Markowitz, there is a tradeoff between risk and returns in considering alternative investment by rational investors. That is, investors expect higher returns for accepting higher risk in considering any investment. Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is an equilibrium model based on this theory which measures systematic risk of an investment (activity) and shows how an asset is priced according to its perceived risk. Thus, this model can be used to examine the systematic risk of producing wheat in different regions and the relationship between the risk of producing this crop and the expected price to generate appropriate returns to compensate the undertaken risk by producers. According to Sharp, by regressing the returns of an investment on the returns of market portfolio, the systematic risk factor for such investment is obtained. The risk factor which takes different values from zero to greater than one is a measure of systematic risk of an activity relative to the risk of overall portfolio. This risk factor is used to compute the returns required to compensate the risk associated to the activity.
Results and Discussion: Results reveal that Yazd province with 0.45 beta coefficient is the least risky province and Mazandaran province with 1.26 beta coefficient is the riskiest province for wheat production in Iran. In fact, based on the results, 20 percent of the wheat producing provinces are classified as high risk in production of this crop. Ardebil, Zanjan and Alborz provinces with systematic risk coefficient of 0.96, West Azerbaijan and Isfahan with systematic risk coefficient of 0.90 are grouped as risky ones. Gilan, Semnan and Hormozgan with systematic risk factor of 0.73 and Bushehr and North Khorasan provinces with systematic risk factor of 0.72 that have similar risk factor are classified as other risky zones. As the results indicate, with 15 percent risk-free rate on investment in the country, wheat producers expect a minimum return of 18 percent in producing wheat in Iran. On the other hand, if the risk-free rate of return on investment rises to 20 percent, wheat producers expect a minimal rate of 19.5 percent. Based on these calculations, prices of this product, and consequently the generated revenues, are in such a way that the returns offset the risk of wheat production in 14 provinces. From this point of view, wheat production in Kurdistan province has the best condition while the production of wheat in the southern province of Kerman shows the worst situation. In addition, results revealed that uncompensated risk in most of the provinces is the result of low yield per hectare and consequently, high average cost in these regions. Thus, focusing on improving productivity is suggested for the specified provinces.
Conclusion: According to the results, uncompensated risk in most of the provinces is the result of low level of yield per hectare and consequently, high level of average cost in these regions. Therefore, it is expected that in the long run, crops with higher yield will be replaced for the wheat and this crop will gradually be removed from the cultivation plan in such provinces. Since wheat is a strategic crop in Iran and to guarantee its production, improving productivity of this product is recommended for the specified provinces. 

Keywords

Capital asset pricing model; Iran; Risk compensation; Systematic risk; Wheat

References

1- Agricultural Insurance Fund, statistical reports, insurance performance and damages statistics under different sections of agricultural insurance. 2015.

2- Bigge H.M., and Langemeier M.R. 2004. Relative profitability and risk of Kansas farms and the S&P 500. Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 67: 57-63.

3- Black F. 1993. Estimating expected return. Financial Analysts Journal 36:38.

4- Blume M.E., and Friend I. 1973. A new look at the capital asset pricing model. The Journal of Finance 28: 19-34.

5- Bukvic I.B., Starcevic D.P., and Fosic I. 2016. Adequacy of the CAPM for Estimating the Cost of Equity Capital: Empirical Study on Underdeveloped Market. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 25.

6- Celik S. 2012. Theoretical and Empirical Review of Asset Pricing Models: A Structural Synthesis. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 2: 141-178.

7- Daniel M.S., and Featherstone A.M. 2001. Assessing Agricultural Risk among States. Montana 4: 10-14.

8- Estrada J. 2002. Systematic risk in emerging markets: the D-CAPM. Emerging Markets Review 3: 365-379.

9- Fama E.F., and French K.R. 2004. The capital asset pricing model: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 25-46.

10- Fama E.F., and MacBeth J.D. 1973. Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 81: 607-636.

11- Farrell J.L. 1983. Guide to portfolio management. McGraw-Hill Companies.

12- Jensen M.C., Black F., and Scholes M.S. 1972. The capital asset pricing model: Some empirical tests. Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets 81: 79-121.

13- Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, Information and Communication Technology Center, Agricultural Statistics, Volume II: Chapter Eight: Agricultural Product Insurance. 2008- 2015.

14- Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, Information and Communication Technology Center, Agricultural Statistics, Volume I: Farm Crops. 2008-2015.

15- Pishbahar E., Darparnian S., and GHahremanzadeh M. 2015. The Effects of Climate Change on Grain Yield in Iran: Applying Spatial Econometric Approach to Panel Data. Agricultural Economics Research 7: 83-106. (In Persian(

16- Salami H., and Nemati M. 2013. A Systematic Risk Assessment of Yield and Factors Affecting its Intensity in Apple Production in Iran: Application of Spatial Autoregressive Patterns 27: 288-299. (In Persian(

17- Sharpe W.F. 1964. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The Journal of Finance 19: 425-442.

18- Tahamipour M., Salami H., and CHizari A. 2013. Determining the Spatial Dependence Range of Systematic Risk of Rainfed Wheat Yield in Iran: Application of Spatial Autoregressive Patterns. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research 44: 343-356. (In Persian(

19- Thorsen B.J. 2010. Risk, returns and possible speculative bubbles in the price of Danish forest land?. In: Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics 100-111.‏

20- Tóth M., Lancaric D., Piterková A., and Savov R. 2014. Systematic risk in Agriculture: A case of Slovakia. Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 6:185.

21- Tóth M., Rábek T., Boháčiková A., and Holúbek I. 2016. Risk and profitability of animal and crop production in Slovak farms.

22- Turvey C.G., and Driver H.C. 1987. Systematic and nonsystematic risks in agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 35: 387-401.