Guess the Expiration Price of July 2019 Soybean Futures

On July 12, 2019, the soybean futures contract (CBOT) for July 2019 expires (first delivery on 7/16). On July 12, 2018, the closing price was 885.75 (data from ino.com here). What’s your guess on what the expiration price will be?

My guess is the expiration price will by 885.75; Friday’s last price was 872.25. (Note that the front month futures price is often used as a proxy for the spot price, given the higher liquidity in the futures market. This is true in many commodities markets).

As of April 2018, before the Section 301 salvos were launched by the Trump administration, the price for this contract was around $10.50…What some people have characterized as a “blip” in soybean prices has lasted something like a year and two months now.

148 thoughts on “Guess the Expiration Price of July 2019 Soybean Futures

  1. pgl

    “What some people have characterized as a “blip” in soybean prices has lasted something like a year and two months now.”

    Some people? Was it CoRev? Now that was an EASY prediction. I have another prediction. No matter what the price ends up expect an endless parade of whining from “some people”.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Menzie, as of 07/12/2019 the price was $9.03. Not $8.8575 nor $8.72. What will the ending price be on 7/15/2019? Almost surely will not be $8.72. The average price for the 2018/2019 Market year was $8.56 (L=7.81 & H=9.31). Sources: https://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/contracts.html?r=CBOT_ZS and/or https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price/usd (Source for Hi/Lo data)

      Except for the closing price, it is highly unlikely that these numbers will change dramatically by Monday’s close, 7/15/2019.

      At this point your July 15, 2018 PREDICTION of $8.72 is wrong. The only thing left is to determine by how much.

      Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        CoRev: Well, duh, yes, I’m betting it won’t be exactly on the nose at $8.8575. I’m running a horse race (as in Chinn-Coibion 2014, a peer-reviewed publication which uses utterly conventional statistical metrics) where we want to be closer to actual, on a repeated basis. Now, here we have one outcome to evaluate. Your forecast of price at last harvest (in 2017) would be around $9.50-$10.00, central value of $9.75 or so. Let’s see who’s closer, then.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Menzie, I see your trying to change from your 7/15/2018 prediction, AGAIN. $8.72 on 7/15/2019. or bust, eh?

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Actually you didn’t ascribe a price from me. You have however, tried on several occasions to change the parameters of your 7/15/2018 PREDICTION You have also tried to change it from a PREDICTION to as forecast.

            $8.72 or bust! 🙂

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: You wrote on July 9, 2018:

            …no one has denied the impact of tariffs on FUTURES prices. Those of us arguing against the constant anti-tariff, anti-Trump dialogs have noted this will probably be a price blip lasting until US/Chinese negotiations end. We are on record saying the prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices. [emphasis added by MDC]

            Prices over the September 24-November 30, 2017 period (the approximate harvest season for soybeans in North America) ranged over the $9.50-$10.00 range. The midpoint of that range is $9.75.

            By the way, what kind of grammatical construction is “Actually you didn’t ascribe a price from me.” Shouldn’t that be a “to” instead of a “from”?

          3. CoRev

            A grammatical error is the best you have?

            BTW, how many times do I have to admit my conditional FORECAST’S timing was wrong? Toward the end of the 2018 harvest season prices approached the 2017 harvest price you previously ascribe TO me. My timing was wrong in my conditional FORECAST.

            We’re hours away from getting a definitive evaluation of your UNCONDITIONAL PREDICTION of an $8.72 spot price on July 15, 2019. I am certain it will prove WRONG. We shall see soon enough. Arrogance can cause any of us to make silly claims.

          4. CoRev

            Menzie, as far as I can remember, I’ve made only one quantitative forecast.. My forecast has nothing to do with your unconditional PREDICTION. I have already admitted, now on too many occasions, the timing was wrong. Do you have problem with that admission?

            If and when I’m wrong I admit it.

          5. CoRev

            Menzie, what is wrong with you? You just quoted my forecast.

            $8.72 on 7/15/2019. or bust!

          6. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: Are you serious? So your “forecast” is a Not-Forecast, that is it won’t be $8.72? Is that how you do prediction in general — just say it won’t be some exact number, and call it a day? So when somebody asks you what average global temperatures in 2019 will be, you just say something like “it won’t be X degrees”? I think, justly, you’d be laughed out of the room.

            For me, I take you at your word that your forecast was for $9.50-$10.00 which was the range of soybean prices in the 2017 harvest period (end-Sept to Nov 30). I compare that to my $8.72 for 7/15, I’m pretty happy.

  2. Moses Herzog

    A certain regular reader on this blog made a laughable connection between America’s complaints about Huawei with foreign allies, and the Apple i-Phone. It was laughable then (when 5G was/is the obvious issue) and it’s laughable now:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alEQQR4_Nns

    May I add for those who can’t even read surface level facts, that Washington Post is not exactly a “pro-trump” publication. And Apple i-Phone is not going to lose ANY sales because “country X” decided they weren’t going to go with Huawei 5G. Now that takes reading to the END of an article, the same as reading to the END of a research paper to see the distribution of a certain large sample is not “skewed”, but is in fact uniformly distributed. But this reading to the END of materials an achievable deed.

    Reply
      1. CoRev

        Menzie, now claims: “…soybean prices are below what they should be…” But TOTALLY fails to explain compared to WHAT??? For over a year he has claimed or implied that the price drop is solely due to tariffs and TRUMP”S fault.

        Or could it also be caused by: ASF, WEATHER (here and else where), POLITICS in either/both supply and demand countries, currency evaluation changes, transportation cost changes, energy cost changes, storage cost changes, interest rate differences, laws affecting any of these, and/or other instead of solely tariffs causing these INTRA-DAILY price changes? Or could it be because they all have an effect? Menzie also believes that there is ABSOLUTELY no difference in these costs affecting items between the producing countries which affects the carrying price.

        MY price guess? NOT $8.72/bushel ending on July 15, 2019, and it has remained so since July 15, 2018.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Please note Menzie’s guess above: “My guess is the expiration price will by 885.75;” Expiration price is not the July 15,2019 SPOT PRICE, the actual term used in his July 15, 2018 prediction. That price is determined by: “… (Note that the front month futures price is often used as a proxy for the spot price, given the higher liquidity in the futures market. This is true in many commodities markets).”, from here: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price as we both have agreed.

          Look at the number of days in the past year where that $8.72/bushel price was not the ending day spot price. For the more dense here, and you know who you are, that number is ONE.

          What’s your guess for the US soybean day ending spot price on July 15, 2019? I know some, pgl and Moses, still need to understand the fundamentals of the differences between future and spot prices, and what a prediction is. To help let me provide this:
          “What does prediction mean in science?
          Prediction in science.
          In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions;…”
          If you’ve forgotten Menzie’s:
          “Conclusion

          Soybean futures are remarkably good predictors of future spot prices of soybeans. Hence, my best guess of soybean prices one year from today is 872. ” Today was July 15, 2018. Hence, Menzie predicted the QUANTITATIVE value of $8.72 for soybean spot prices on end of day July 15, 2019. Not +/- but $8.72/bushel, and not at the end of the 14th as it is a non-trading day, but just July 15,2019.

          Reply
          1. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: But your guess is (as of July 9, 2018) the level recorded at the then previous harvest price, to wit:

            Julian & Menzie, no one has denied the impact of tariffs on FUTURES prices. Those of us arguing against the constant anti-tariff, anti-Trump dialogs have noted this will probably be a price blip lasting until US/Chinese negotiations end. We are on record saying the prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices.

            On October 30, 2017 (about mid-way through harvest period), the price from your source ( https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data ) was 987. So, the question is who is closer on 7/12/2019 (or 7/15/2019 if you want). I think I’ll be closer…

            Expect a long blogpost on this subject on 7/12/2019.

          2. CoRev

            Menzie, in even another attempt to change his prediction says: ‘So, the question is who is closer on 7/12/2019 (or 7/15/2019 if you want). I think I’ll be closer…” Notice the differences in the two predictions? Mine was not quantitative with specific conditions. Menzie’s is absolute,
            “What does prediction mean in science?
            Prediction in science.
            In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions;…”

            Menzie also makes this promise :”Expect a long blogpost on this subject on 7/12/2019.: ”
            Menzie, expect a rebuttal. Lengthy is not needed. As you have been consistently wrong due to your bias. Also expect a long discussion of your errors in the past year+ and why your prediction was wrong or if correct just PURE LUCK. 364:1 are not good odds.

          3. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: Your guess – in the 987 area; my guess, in the 885.75 area. Let’s see who’s closer.

            Look forward to your response. I need more case studies for my stats classes. And year-end review.

          4. 2slugbaits

            CoRev Notice the differences in the two predictions? Mine was not quantitative with specific conditions. Menzie’s is absolute,

            Obviously you did not read Menzie’s paper. Hint: the standard error term in the forecast model is not zero.

          5. Barkley Rosser

            I am not going to make a forecast, but for the record I agree withe Menzie’s paper and analysis and think his forecast is highly reasonable, which means I guess I am supporting his while noting that indeed “stuff can happen,” but probably according to a distribution not too far off from Gaussian normal with mean = median = mode, so that the mean is still the central tendency forecast, with his being that.

            Sorry, CoRev, you just look very foolish here. It really is quite astounding how you continue to repeat long discredited nonsense, evn if sometimes with minor variations. And lecturing Menzie and pgl on supposedly not knowing the difference between spot and future prices is especially absurd. When was the last time you pulled your diploma(s) out of tube(s)?

          6. CoRev

            Now we hear from 2slugs, another stats supporter claiming: “Hint: the standard error term in the forecast model is not zero.” I’m only concerned with the July 15, 2018 PREDICTION, not how he got there.
            ““Conclusion

            Soybean futures are remarkably good predictors of future spot prices of soybeans. Hence, my best guess of soybean prices one year from today is 872. ”

            Menzie, I don’t know where you got this: “CoRev: Your guess – in the 987 area;” No! That’s not my guess. you quoted it very clearly:
            “Julian & Menzie, no one has denied the impact of tariffs on FUTURES prices. Those of us arguing against the constant anti-tariff, anti-Trump dialogs have noted this will probably be a price blip lasting until US/Chinese negotiations end. We are on record saying the prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices.”

            Please stop the obfuscations of your PREDICTION.

            BTW, when you quoted my prediction you forgot the conditions, trade negotiations finished, which as of today has not happened. Worse you ignored the core prediction: “… prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices.” For the 6 month mark of your prediction, my simple math skills say $9.87 is a lot closer to last year’s harvest season prices than $8.72. BTW, that’s also true for the 3 month mark.

            BTW, I do not intend to follow you down therat hole of a new revised prediction. As I haven’t the previous set.

          7. CoRev

            Barkley, please work on your memory problems. It was singular, tube, not tubes. Please try to stay with this old man. To date your performance has been miserable. Sorry, Barkley, you just look very foolish here as you did in the past. It really is quite astounding how you continue to change your story after it being discredited as nonsense, while calling me the liar. If you want any credit for your exaggerated story it could have happened, but well before any manned orbital flights, and once found was easily corrected for ever after.

          8. 2slugbaits

            CoRev I’m only concerned with the July 15, 2018 PREDICTION, not how he got there.

            The standard error is part of the prediction.

          9. Barkley Rosser

            Ah, CoRev, you now finally admit that I might not be a liar (even as you again declare that I am) about the story regarding my father. Thank you for finally admitting that “it could have happened,” although you claim it is “exaggerated” and “well before any manned space flight,” and “easily corrected before any orbital manned flight forever after.” The first is a matter of judgment, although I repeat and your one effort to disagree looked ridiculous, that if it had not been fixed by the time of Apollo, we would not have gotten to the moon, period, so pretty bloody important. It was fixed well before Apollo, but not before “orbital manned flight.” Yes, it was easy to fix, and forever, once it was figured out. But that was the problem, figuring it out. It was my old man.

            I have been completely truthful and without any exaggeration on this matter, while you have come up with one half-baked distortion and lie after another, pretty much ac you are doing regarding this whole discussion of forecasting soybean prices.

            As it is, I used parentheses for “diploma(s)” and “tube(s)” as a mock on your own escalation without any parentheses or the remotest shred of embarrassment of your apparently single “Apollo 11 award” into “Apollo 11 awards.” Which is it, just one or many? We already saw you have a rare fit when Menzie pressed you on your advanced degrees, which led you to say “enough of this game” and tell us “satirically” that you got a women’s studies degree. Now it is not even clear that you have an undergrad diploma in that one tube. Is it your high scchool diploma? If is an undergrad degree, what field and where from?

            As it is, I am not sure how many times you have lied in all this exchange, although it looks like a lot, while in fact everything I have said about this is true, and you are finally, if reluctantly, coming around to the fact that I have been telling the truth, so shifting to downplaying the importance of it all, a matter of judgment, not truth versus lying.

          10. CoRev

            Barkley, i didn’t read past the first couple of sentences before barfing. This is at least the 2nd time I said he could have contributed as you claimed, but it was a minor fix. You exaggerated its impact across the early manned space program. I seriously doubt that was his story. If it was I incorrectly pointed the finger of exaggeration.

            The earliest date I see you referencing the story was ~1997, long after your father’s death. I could not find a story reference from him.

            I am also surprised you said this: ” Yes, it was easy to fix, and forever, once it was figured out…” and this ” It was fixed well before Apollo, but not before “orbital manned flight.”

            Claiming others are liars when you claimed his fix saved the MERCURY (suborbital flights), Gemini (both sub and orbital flights) and Apollo (All orbital flights). But now claim “” It was fixed well before Apollo, but not before “orbital manned flight.” , it is you who are lying. So if in this, your latest version, his easy fix fixed only the orbital mission (singular after the fix was found), how does your original story hold up? It doesn’t! It never did! It isn’t a matter of judgement, but it is a matter of my superior experience and knowledge with what you originally claimed and there after has changed after nearly every challenge.

            It’s sad really. your father’s reputation didn’t need this useless and obvious error prone polishing.

            It must be really hard to believe that there are other successful and impactful professions outside academic economics. Why are you so concerned over my awards and education? Seems a little envious.

          11. Barkley Rosser

            CoRev,

            “Barf”? Really? Is that because you have been massively and totally lying here about all of your knowledge and activities related to this? I just googled “Apollo 11 awards.” The only thing that came up is an IMDb award for a film about Apollo 11. Were you part of that film and hanging out at film festivals? Frankly I think all of your tales of awards related to the space program are total lies from top to bottom. I have made fun of it, but let me be more blunt, since you persist in your idiocy. Your original claim was that you were awarded a “medallion” for your work, something supposedly having to do with keeping costs down. That might have been believable, but then you threw in this fantastic claim that your medallion was taken to the moon and back on Apollo 11, although maybe it was a later flight. I seriously doubt that any Apollo mission took any medallions to the moon an back awarded to anybody having anything to do with the program. This is just a blatant and completely off-the-wall lie. Period.

            So your current line on my old man is that maybe he had something to do with it, but it was not important. I think it is pretty clear to anybody who thinks about it for more than two seconds, it was very important, if easily fixed once figured out. However, they did not like to make much of it publicly and this was never publicized, which is true of quite a lot my old man did, which was highly classified. I shall provide two links that show my old man’s involvement in these matters and also how it came out of classified military origins and that he received some serious awards.

            https://history.computer.org/pioneers/rosser/html

            https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00212/cah-00212.html

            That indeed there were problems regarding capsules not landing where they were supposed to and that this was a worrying problem, I provide a link to an account of John Glenn’s orbital flight, in which it is reported that he landed 40 miles from where he was supposed to, although they were worried it could have been worse.

            https://www.space.com//14628-john-glenn-orbital-spaceflight-risks.html

            And now, I would suggest that you STFU about all this unless you can provide a source for the existence of these Apollo 11 awards that you claim to have received, reminding you that initially you claimed to have received one, only to expand this to “Apollo 11 awards” later, you pluralizing something that appears not even to exist, although maybe they did and were simply utterly trivial and thus not worthy of any mention anywhere.

          12. Barkley Rosser

            I have to apologize that only one of the links I provided works. As noted on another thread, I am not good at providing these links. But the second one does, and it supports some key things I said, including that my father was involved in fact with the Apollo program and came into his work on the space program from his work for the military on rockets, along with other stuff.

            As it is, CoRev, just as “Moses Herzog” owes me an apology, so do you. Provide it, please.

        2. Dave

          CoRev.

          Why are you such a liar. Menzie has NEVER said or even implied that ” the price drop is SOLELY due to tariffs” (emphasis added). You think you are convincing anyone by lying? No you are not. Just stop.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            CoRev is also lying about whether he predicted soybean prices would go back up. He did say that many times but now that they have not – he is in full denial mode.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            pgl: I think he is using the conditional aspect of his comment as an “out”, that is when negotiations are over between US and China. I guess those negotiations could go on forever, in which case his prediction could be thought of as always to be proven wrong.

    1. pgl

      With “As of April 2018, before the Section 301 salvos were launched by the Trump administration, the price for this contract was around $10.50…What some people have characterized as a “blip” in soybean prices has lasted something like a year and two months now.” And what CoRev said, the definition of blip was clear at least to me.

      Or does Bruce Hall has some very precise definition of “blip” grounded in some new economic theory I’m not aware of?

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Pgl, please stop commenting. Your ignorance is devastatingly obvious. Even after a definition for a prediction is provided you still show your ignorance. Ignoring the conditions associated with a prediction? Tsk, tsk.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          I should stop commenting? Excuse me but you are the one who is being the complete fool here. You predicted that soybean prices would have bounced back to around $10.50 by now. But will you admit you were wrong? Of course not when you can pollute this comment section with your usual incessant contradictory BS.

          But hey – don’t let me stop you. Go ahead and act the fool. It is what you excel at.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Pgl, again at least read the prior comments. I don’t expect you to understand them. Had you read them you would know how wrong you are with: “You predicted that soybean prices would have bounced back to around $10.50 by now. ” I made no such prediction.

            You do amaze.

        2. Dave

          “Even after a definition for a prediction is provided you still show your ignorance.”

          CoRev. Your definition is … uhh … useless (the most charitable word I could think of). Water is wet. Predictions are quantitative. Sure whatever. Your quantitative prediction of a “blip” that would be over and return to last years harvest prices is W-R-O-N-G.

          Reply
          1. Dave

            CoRev requests a quote of his definition. Here it is. CoRev is a lying liar.

            “In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions;…”

            Of course, now CoRev thinks he can waive away his incorrect forecast of a “blip” because his “condition” that the “blip” would only “last[] until US/Chinese negotiations end” has not been met.

            Get over yourself. You are wrong. This is not a blip by any stretch of imagination. At what point is it absurd to predict recovery to last years (2018) harvest prices as therefore no big deal? 2021?

  3. pgl

    Trump once said about Jeffrey Epstein:

    “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

    That was back in 2002. Who is Epstein you ask?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/07/jeffrey-epstein-charged-with-sex-trafficking-reports-say

    Jeffrey Epstein charged with sex trafficking, reports say
    US billionaire will reportedly appear before a federal magistrate on Monday
    Jeffrey Epstein, the politically well-connected US billionaire, has been charged with sex trafficking, according to reports.
    The New York Times reported that Epstein, a wealthy Florida financier, was arrested in the New York area and was in custody. He is expected to appear before a federal magistrate on Monday. The NYT cited two anonymous sources.
    The charges against Epstein were first reported on Saturday night by the Daily Beast. The website cited multiple anonymous sources.
    The Associated Press also reported Epstein’s arrest, citing three unnamed law enforcement officials.
    Epstein, 66, reached a non-prosecution deal in 2008 with the office of the then Miami US attorney, Alexander Acosta, to end a federal sexual abuse investigation involving at least 40 teenage girls that could have landed him behind bars for life.
    He instead pleaded guilty to state charges, spent 13 months in jail, paid settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender.
    Acosta, now Donald Trump’s labour secretary, has previously defended the deal as appropriate, but in February the justice department opened an investigation into the federal prosecutors’ handling of the plea deal.
    Epstein, a former hedge fund manager, is well connected politically, and is reported to have links to Trump, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew.

    Reply
  4. CoRev

    Pgl for get the other names associated with Epstein:

    Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had ‘regular’ orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times

    The former president was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes
    A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein’s private island where he ‘kept young women as sex slaves’
    Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
    He hasn’t cut ties with that woman, however, and invited her to Chelsea’s wedding
    Comes as friends now fear that if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, all of their family’s old scandals will be brought to the forefront
    Epstein has a host of famous friends including Prince Andrew who stayed at his New York mansion AFTER his arrest”
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html

    How pgl does amaze!

    Reply
      1. noneconomist

        Did CoRev just admit that Trump is no better morally than Clinton
        Or, why do I have the feeling CoRev was on board with believing every story about every Clinton sexual misdeed while happily absolving Trump of any?

        Reply
          1. noneconomist

            You’re the one who mentioned Clinton (as well as Trump) in connection to Epstein and younger women.
            Are you now saying Clinton’s supposed sexual escapades were real and Trump’s weren’t? That we should believe those who accused Clinton and not those who have accused Trump ( a partial list currently)?
            That Trump–and his acolytes-have never paid big money to suppress accounts of HIS sexual escapades? With clearly younger women?
            Oh, right. Fake news.

          2. CoRev

            Noneconomist, I see you do not know. Look it up instead making yourself look foolish.

          3. noneconomist

            “It” is no doubt Trump calling Epstein a terrific guy who Trump said shares Trump’s interest in women, especially younger ones.
            Given the background of both, “it” makes sense.
            BTW, “thinking hard” is likely at the root of many of Trump’s problems with women. “It” should be obvious, even to you.

      2. Moses Herzog

        Menzie’s observation is obvious on the surface, but still many people miss it. Some people intentionally/consciously “miss” it. As it’s a way to keep people’s eyes off the ball.

        Of course super-conservative lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a stalwart donald trump apologist and defender) was also deeply involved in this Epstein mess, but you’ll notice the CoRev’s of the world will never bring his name into it. I’m not against the issue being discussed, but it takes a very twisted mind to think that absolves donald trump.

        In some aspects the film “You Were Never Really Here” is a very realistic novella/movie. These crimes are committed commonly but rarely prosecuted. Why?? How do crimes like that go on perennially with very little legal prosecutions?? They get bankrolled. It’s not cheap, so by logical deduction we can created a profile of the criminal players. It happens in Hollywood (many stories connected to Disney and the Nickelodeon channel, for obvious reasons), but that is a function of supply more than demand in that case. It’s similar to bus-drivers, youth ministers, and grade school teachers. I suspect it’s overly exaggerated but there is the stereotype about the sicko ice cream truck driver. They go where they can find what they want. It happens in other sectors of society where there is cashflow. It’s NOT surprising at all that this happens a certain % of human society—what is very bothersome is how the legal system (as in Epstein and his friends’ case) doesn’t prosecute or have punitive actions for the wealthy who engage in it.

        What happened to Robert Kraft?? Kraft’s crime is different–but there is STRONG overlap in those areas. People who commit the type crime Kraft committed often are indirectly creating cash flow for those crimes. Because the same people who provided Kraft with what he got are also involved with the more severe type criminal “services” or human trafficking.

        Reply
    1. noneconomist

      Brings a tear to your eye, reflecting on the days when conservatives insisted that character counted. The days before the likes of Falwell Jr. and Graham happily passed out mulligans to multiple adulterers who they praised for being good Christians and who, in return, passed goodies into their collection plates.
      Why, deeply flawed individuals like Clinton had no business even being in public life, much less holding the highest office in the land. Even then, where would we have been had there not been pristine leaders like Speaker Gingrich–an ethical giant, to be sure– to prevent complete moral collapse?
      Yes indeed. Those were the days.

      Reply
      1. Willie

        There are no more conservatives. Only partisan reactionaries. Conservative thought is now dead and buried. We can stop considering conservative ideas because nobody has them any more. Especially the reactionaries who call themselves conservative and do not know what liberal OR conservative means.

        That is all. Back to plowing through posts and replies that are opaque but a pleasant break from reading Toynbee for fun.

        Reply
    2. pgl

      The story was by the Guardian not me – dumba$$. BTW – read the last sentence. Clinton was mentioned. CoRev regains the dumbest troll ever. Bruce Hall needs to try harder.

      Reply
    3. Dave

      CoRev. We were talking about Epstein and his ties to Trump. If Clinton was involved in the same thing, they should all go to jail: Epstein, Trump, Clinton, etc. Drain the swamp. Do you agree?

      Reply
  5. AS

    Professor Chinn,
    I wonder if you could use your data to make a short numerical example of your model. I notice that on your June 19 blog entry, you stated the following:

    “I keep on explaining “my” soybean price model (using futures, which is merely the model that soybean futures are the best predictor of future soybean prices)…
    To see this result, one can estimate the following equation, using OLS.
    st+k – st = α + β(ft,k – st) + ut+k
    Where st is the log spot rate at time t, ft,k is the log futures rate for a transaction k periods hence, and u is an error term that is under the efficient markets hypothesis null a random expectations error (an innovation).”
    Reading your paper on page 610, you state, “…futures contract price…matures at time t.” I may be confused, but this statement seems different from the model above. Not arguing, just trying to understand your model. I’d like to be able to run at least one example from your paper. So far not at the head of the class.
    Another question, given that we have recent data, is it possible to run a price model using a three-day moving average to compute the three day moving average price on July 12, 2019 and then back into the price forecast on July 12? The price and log price of the three day moving average seem to fail two of the unit root tests and pass the third method. Stepping on thin ice, the three day moving average model, suggests a soybean price of $870.82. Interesting at least to me is that using a log difference stationary model of the three day moving average, a comparison of the forecasts favors the undifferenced three day moving average model.

    Reply
    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      AS: I use the regression to verify that constant is zero, slope insignificantly different from unity. Then in forecasting, just futures for one year to forecast specific value one year later; just like random walk model, no estimation necessary.

      Reply
      1. AS

        Thanks,
        I understood that you were verifying that the constant is zero and the slope is about 1 as I recall to show that the forecast is unbiased. I am getting a bit confused on how to do the regression to derive the “a” and “B”. I also understand if you don’t want to further explain. I’ll just put this on the “back-burner”.

        Are you saying that the random walk model is just “dlog(price) c”, and then use this to forecast one year ahead? If so, I guess I missed that reading the paper.

        Reply
    2. Moses Herzog

      @ Menzie
      “2slugs, another stats supporter claiming….. ”
      OMG, and now commenter AS has the stats user disease also Menzie!!!! Although very envious of the 3 of you, thank God I am immune to this horrid disease—“stats supporter/user”— spreading on this blog, due to my own extreme laziness.

      Menzie, be truthful, as you watch AS’s enthusiasm for stats and learning, did you and Professor Hamilton ever envision this blog would become the bane and scourge on humanity that it has?? And do you believe CoRev can rescue your other regular readers from the use of math and numbers??

      Reply
  6. sammy

    Before you all get excited about the Epstein arrest, a la Russian collusion, remember that the charges are being brought by the DOJ, a part of the Executive Branch. It is probably much more likely that Democrats will be implicated.

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      @ Sammy
      Are you projecting on others how you yourself personally “score” these things?? In fact, most of the names in this particular case are on the left politically (with the exception of Dershowitz and the mentions of trump with the modeling agency and social ties to Epstein). Did you see any left leaning commenters above bemoaning that fact?? It is you who seek to have your opinions repeated back to you by FOX news, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Alex Jones, WSJ etc. Or rather I should say spoonfed to you.

      Reply
      1. Willie

        Sammy is being accurate. The current DOJ is not much better than a political organ of an intensely partisan administration. Any wrongdoing by a member of this administration will be ignored. Any way the DOJ can manipulate facts to harm political “enemies,” aka fellow Americans who disagree with the administration, they will. Welcome to the USA, banana republic.

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          I seriously doubt this has any connection to William Barr (as far as a political aspect)—some of these women have a connection to Mar-a-Lago Club, so lawyers and police poking around that doesn’t do much favors to donald trump, as if no other worse crimes were committed, at minimum it could connect donald trump to prostitutes offered inside Mar-a-Lago.

          There are at least TWO women accusing Alan Dershowitz now, one of whom has already passed a lie detector test:
          https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232312102.html

          https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/cnn-panel-wants-alan-dershowitz-examined-in-epstein-case-you-cant-run-a-sex-trafficking-ring-by-yourself/

          https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/12/22/epstein-dershowitz-lawsuit-allegations/

          https://images.app.goo.gl/9GcicKdpBWe7c7yh7

          https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-charges.html

          https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-trump.html

          Reply
    2. noneconomist

      Not to worry, Sammy. JBH has assured us that 92,000 miscreants—most likely traitorous Democrats—will be rousted from their beds and taken to Guantanamo where they will be tried by military courts for their many misdeeds.
      Among numerous crimes to be prosecuted will be that of slandering the President and his family. Particular interest will be paid to those who have falsely accused the President of multiple adulteries.
      Justice will also be meted out to those who have dared question the intelligence of Don Jr. and Eric.
      Undocumented workers once employed by Trump will be returned to Mar Lago where hard labor with no pay will be fair sentences for those who tricked the family into hiring them.
      “It” will be a glorious time. A new birth of freedom and, as JBH has prophesied, a return to both Constitutional and Christian principles.

      Reply
  7. 2slugbaits

    CoRev 2slugs. I quoted Menzie’s prediction. Don’t infer anything more than that.

    I infer based on what was written in the paper, which is what Menzie appealed to in his prediction. You might try reading it. There are even tables with various measures of forecast accuracy. Any dullard should be able to figure out that what you seem to believe is an “absolute” prediction is what knowledgeable people call a “point estimate.” Your comments remind me of how frustrated some of us would get with the slow kids in the class who just didn’t seem to get it no matter how many times the teacher went over the same material. Is that what a steady diet of Fox Noise does to your brain?

    Reply
    1. pgl

      CoRev told me that he never predicted that soybean prices would return to pre-tariff levels. Seriously? I think we have found someone who lies even more than Trump!

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Pgl, please show my comment that says: “…that soybean prices would return to pre-tariff levels.” or anything similar without having conditions associated with it or any prediction.

        You just don’t read, nor remember nor understand the little you do read.

        You do amaze!

        Reply
        1. pgl

          I guess you have a bizarre way of defining “blip”. Dude – Dave is calling you for lying about this as he has read your past intellectual garbage. Hey – tomorrow morning the NYC trash people come by. Time to take out the trash as in everything CoRev has ever written.

          Reply
    2. CoRev

      Menzie, quotes year old references, July 2018, while forgetting his own much, much more recent acceptance. CoRev on July 4, 2019 “As I have done for months now, I plan on using this link for spot prices. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-priceIf you disagree this is your last time to make a case.” and Menzie later accepted also in the thread on July 4, 2019: “CoRev: OK, I’ll use 872 for front-month futures on 7/15 (which is standard proxy for spot — did you know that by the way?). …I’m pretty sure in the absence of some super-big event I’m gonna win (or to be precise, futures are gonna win).” 872 is from that above link, https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price.

      Nor only is it highly likely we will find Menzie’s absolute prediction will be wrong, but if we remember his many articles, he has ignored the impacts of the several “of some super-big event”(s) which occurred since his prediction. Remember his April ASF article? He never admitted til much later that it effected prices. He has still not admitted the validity of my claim that farmers can be more more effected by weather. On June 13, 2018 it was:
      “…Tariffs or other trade barriers/restrictions only are part of what makes up the price. As an economist you are ignoring annual supply and demand.

      Ag especially is dominated by weather (world-wide) and area planted. Every planting season is a crap shoot with harvest amounts that can range from amounts too little to spend money on fuel for the equipment or all the way to bumper crop worrying about storage. For the Farmer one severe storm, early or late frost, too much rain, too little rain, rain at the wrong time, fire, etc. can wipe out a year’s worth of work. Only after the crop is being harvested or in planning what to plant can the farmer really worry about prices….”

      Even after the 2019 US planting season weather problems, he has not admitted the validity of that simple and truthful statement.

      Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        CoRev: So let me get this right…your year-old references are “non-operative”, while mine are still relevant. I don’t believe I’ve ever said weather, ASF, were irrelevant. What I said is that event studies usually use a window wherein other factors can be held constant. That’s the point of event studies, which I think has eluded you. Over…and over…again.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Menzie, when I admitted prices plateaued lower due to the tariffs is not a relevant acceptance of the impact of the tariffs. When you make this statement: “What I said is that event studies usually use a window wherein other factors can be held constant. ” I infer that your EVENT STUDY WINDOW was until July 3. When you finally admit that ASF and weather has been impounded into the prices. “As for ASF, well I’d say March-May was the time of gradual relevation of information regarding the impact of ASF. While ASF has driven down soybean prices, a poor planting season in the US has driven prices up… To do a decomposition requires time series information, not ad hoc anecdote selection as you prefer.”

          From that I have considered your comments and articles biased. Naming President Trump in many articles and comments is an indicator of who you are biased against. If your article and comments are driven by your Tariff EVENT STUDY while ignoring the impact of the other factors as long as you have shows a failure of objectivity.

          Objectivity is a cornerstone of science. There is no place for bias.

          Reply
          1. Dave

            “Objectivity is a cornerstone of science. There is no place for bias.”

            So says the most biased person on this blog.

      2. 2slugbaits

        CoRev Even after the 2019 US planting season weather problems…

        So are you trying to tell us that bad weather in the US soybean belt is partially responsible for today’s low prices?

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Actually yes!, A recent positive influence after being a negative influence in the early Spring. All of this is coupled with the negative influence of the ASF out break in China and other herds.

          Do you disagree that through a farmer’s eyes weather can be the most devastating influence on income? I know of no other event, with the exception of a large scale fire, the can completely devastate a farm.

          Incidentally, do you have any insight what is driving soybean prices in the past 2 weeks? I can correlate the June drop to few articles, WSJ and the derivatives, re: ASF. What is the latest?

          Reply
          1. 2slugbaits

            CoRev through a farmer’s eyes weather can be the most devastating influence on income?

            I asked about the effect of the bad weather on the price of soybeans, not on a farmer’s income. They are not the same thing.

        2. pgl

          Yep – in the CoRev advanced model, inward shifts of the supply curve actually lowers prices. I tell you – this dude is as confused as it gets!

          Reply
      3. pgl

        More links to soybean prices? Are you saying these links provide future prices? Dude – they are reports of spot prices just like MacroTrend’s series. Oh wait – you STILL do not get the difference. Go figure!

        Reply
  8. pgl

    Menzie reminds us of this:

    “CoRev
    July 18, 2018 at 5:23 pm
    Menzie, if you want a different site, OK. What I have with the MacroTrends down load is daily futures prices.”

    I have provided the same link to what MacroTrends provides and it is NOT future prices. They provide 45 years of daily quote for SPOT prices. Now I know CoRev writes so much contradictory gibberish it is hard to keep up. But if he still does not know the difference between future market and spot markets – why is anyone bothering to even read his incessant gibberish?

    Reply
  9. pgl

    Here is the MacroTrend link:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data

    Note the header:

    “Soybean Prices – 45 Year Historical Chart
    Interactive chart of historical daily soybean prices back to 1971. The price shown is in U.S. Dollars per bushel. The current price of soybeans as of July 05, 2019 is $8.7600 per bushel.”

    This chart is showing spot prices. CoRev claims he knows the difference between future markets and spot markets but he continues to refer to this chart as daily future prices. Go figure!

    Reply
      1. pgl

        He is linking to another series of spot prices for soybeans. Hard to tell from his latest comments if he knows the difference!

        Reply
    1. CoRev

      Uh huh! I know nothing, I use a different source than pgl’s macrotrends, https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price, and the 1 year format to get daily prices. Both show “historical daily soybean prices”; except the version of the macrotrends data shown by pgl, https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-prices-historical-chart-data, is NOT DAILY. Yet he made much of that when berating Bruce Halls use of the other source.

      Since we are comparing a specific date’s price in the prediction, using daily data is important. Shh, don’t tell pgl. He has yet to figure it out. As well as howand why futures and spot prices converge. But its alright. Let him continue to amaze us.

      Pgl is still confused that the historical daily soybean prices convert to spot prices, Friday’s price, on Monday is the historical daily soybean SPOT price. Menzie has admitted so several times now. “CoRev: OK, I’ll use 872 for front-month futures on 7/15 (which is standard proxy for spot — did you know that by the way?).” Standard proxy for spot? Yes I did know , and have tried several times now to explain it it to pgl. He still doesn’t get it after both mine and Menzies’s explanations.

      It is for these ample FAILED attempts to explain it to pgl that I berate his understanding.

      Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        CoRev: When I click on the URL you provide, there is a big red button with the text “download historical data”. When I click on that button, I get …lo and behold…45 years of daily data on soybean prices. What gives?

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “He still doesn’t get it after both mine and Menzies’s explanations.”

          CoRev thinks he is saying the same thing you are? Even as he thinks he is showing you up as an economist? I don’t get one thing – why this troll persists in his utter nonsense.

          Reply
        2. pgl

          CoRev just said this data “is NOT DAILY”. But it is daily data. Daily spot prices that is.

          I guess we need to teach CoRev what the word “daily” is. Maybe when he grasped that – he can take off his shoes and learn to count past ten!

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Pgl, go to your 45 year chart, which you have referenced and shown many times now. Pick any date. Move the cursor to the next date and see what it is. Your 45 year chart shows weekly averages. Outside NYC WEEKS are not DAYS.

            I guess we need to teach pgl what the word “daily” is. Maybe when he grasps that – he can take off his shoes and learn to count past ten! Or maybe we can expect pgl to discuss DAILY data without showing WEEKLY, over and over and over. It reminds me of his many references to BEA data without specificity.

            He does amaze.

          1. pgl

            “I use a different source than pgl’s macrotrends”. OK but you still do not get that both of them are providing the same thing – spot prices. Neither one provide future prices. Oh wait – you don’t get the difference. OK!

            Both are reporting on a daily basis but for some reason you claimed Macrotrends is not reporting daily quotes. It is and back to 1971.

            Once again you have gotten your panties are twisted over nothing.

          2. CoRev

            Pgl how ignorant you can be. You still don’t realize a FUTURES price after EXPIRATION is the SPOT PRICE. Any historical source for soybean prices shows the SPOT price prior to the then current date. Repeat after me: A future price prior to the current date is the SPOT PRICE for that date. Even Menzie, calls it a proxy for the front month(s).

            Although this simple concept has been explained many times, several just for you, you still fail to get it.

            I laughed at you early on when you didn’t realize your error, continuing to do so is now exemplary of your ignorance and/or willingness not to understand.

            You do amaze!

          3. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: You’ve got it reversed…or at least reversed my quote. The front month futures is often a proxy for spot rate, not vice versa.

          4. CoRev

            Menzie, now showing more bias and lack of objectivity claims: “pgl: Give it up. CoRev is citing opportunistically any price that he thinks supports his view.” Data is now opportunistic?

            Worse, he claims that after a year + of writing article after article at low points in the prices. Now that’s opportunistic citing to support a view point.

          5. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: You said price will be at price at last harvest (2017). Looking at high-low range Sept 24-end-November of 910-960 950-1000, mean is 935 975. Current price is 875. I feel pretty good about my guess (887.5) relative to yours…

          6. CoRev

            Menzie, I’ve got it reversed? Please translate “Front Month” to a specific date int heat month, for instance July and the 15th. You seem to be making the pgl mistake of mixing or misunderstanding time frames, front month days versus front month when establishing a sinfle day spot price.

            ” What is Front Month?

            Front month, also called ‘near’ or ‘spot’ month, refers to the nearest expiration date for a futures contract. Contracts that have later expiration dates than front month contracts are called back month, or ‘far month’, contracts.
            Understanding Front Month

            Front month contracts have an expiration date that is closest to the current date. …”
            https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/front-month-contract.asp

            Since we have all along been talking about a DAILY spot price, July 15, 2019, and not about the expiration date for July futures contract(s). I then translate a DAY in that the front MONTH explanation to a DAILY price for July 15. You already agreed that the data source would be: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price It was you who introduced the term, front month, along with that agreement.

            Where’s the confusion? Is this another “CoRev: When I click on the URL you provide, there is a big red button with the text “download historical data”. When I click on that button, I get …lo and behold…45 years of daily data on soybean prices. What gives?” when 2 links were shown?

            I have been consistent in both understanding your prediction’s phrasing and in sourcing the data.

          7. CoRev

            Mernzie:, YUP I admit it! Looks like my forecast, as phrased, was wrong for the 2018 harvest season. It also looks like you got a little lazy and didn’t cite the whole phrasing of that forecast. I remember a conditional associated with it and different phrasing.

            BTW, prices rose mid to late harvest season and not as harvest season approaches as I phrased it. The forecast timing was off.

            BTW, what is this supposed to mean:
            “CoRev: You said price will be at price at last harvest (2017). Looking at high-low range Sept 24-end-November of 910-960 950-1000, mean is 935 975. Current price is 875. I feel pretty good about my guess (887.5) relative to yours…” other than a repeat of your attempt change the parameters of your prediction?

            It again is hard to compare your results without showing the source of your data. Which years do your strike through and non-struck data represent?

            Your July 15, 2018 prediction is a better example of an all data inclusive comment with the exception of data source, which has since been agreed.

      2. pgl

        “Pgl is still confused that the historical daily soybean prices convert to spot prices, Friday’s price, on Monday is the historical daily soybean SPOT price.”

        Mother of pearl. You have no shame about lying do you. Your source and the MacroTrend link provide the same spot prices which I have ALWAYS noted when some idiot keeps saying they report future prices. Oh I’m sorry – that idiot is CoRev.

        Do you take some great pride at infesting this comment section with your Trump trolling laced with incredible stupidity and down right lying? I guess so.

        CoRev – as pointless as ever. But the troll goes on and on and on and on. What an utter waste.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Wow! Please assure your trash is out for the collection. You seem amazed after claiming for these many months I didn’t understand the difference. “Your source and the MacroTrend link provide the same spot prices“, except, of course, for the difference I noted above in your highly touted 45 year history. Mother of pearl. You have no shame about lying do you.

          I’m so happy you finally are getting it I’m going to repeat your comment: ” Your source and the MacroTrend link provide the same spot prices which I have ALWAYS noted when some idiot keeps saying they report future prices.” Really!? You’ve always noted that they were the same spot prices?

          Funny I remember you saying that my source was for FUTURE prices and not SPOT and that I didn’t understand that. As I’ve said it was YOU WHO WAS CONFUSED. i love your admission so much I’m going to repeat a 3rd time: “Your source and the MacroTrend link provide the same spot prices which I have ALWAYS noted ” Ear to ear smile here on my end.BTW, care to show the multiple times you pointed out that noted error?

          You do amaze.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Dumba$$ – you have provided all sorts of stuff you do not understand. Yes when you link to a future price and claim it was the same as a spot price, I did call you on that. But yea – your favorite new link are spot prices which someone where in your incessantly confused babbling you equated to a future price.

            Your stupidity is not my problem. Move on – clown.

      3. pgl

        “CoRev
        July 8, 2019 at 10:00 am
        Uh huh! I know nothing, I use a different source than pgl’s macrotrends”

        God – you are really huffing and puffing over nothing here. This is like when you accused Menzie of lying when he sourced employment data ala FRED instead of BLS. Of course FRED notes it is reporting BLS data.

        I hope you realize that even your own dog is laughing at your incessant stupidity. Dude – get a real life.

        Reply
    1. pgl

      Seriously? You have accused him of lying for way too long. No CoRev – it is you that infect this comment section with one lie after another – all with a common theme. Your total lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. But do troll on. It is your forte!

      Reply
  10. pgl

    I’ve been searching for an analogy to CoRev’s all over the maps ranting about CoRev prices and it strikes me that what has been happening in Ridgecrest, California is the closest that I could come up with:

    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/07/08/ridgecrest-earthquake-7-aftershocks-overnight/

    “The earth continues to tremble in Ridgecrest, which continues to recover after being hard-hit by two large earthquakes over the Fourth of July holiday weekend. As many as 11 small earthquakes, each one more than 3 in magnitude, struck the Ridgecrest area overnight”.

    Yes – his comments show no logical foundation range from silly comments to just plain incredible whoppers. And alas his confusion seems to have no end!

    Reply
  11. CoRev

    Pgl it’s really difficult to find an analogy for something you never understood from the beginning. What ‘s your estimate for soybean spot prices for July 15,2019? You can use mine, NOT $8.72, if you want.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      I never made any prediction. I do find Menzie’s use of the data compelling. But the real world makes Trump’s trade war look stupid so his favorite troll has to go on and on and on and on calling everyone else a liar.

      Trump has serious emotional problems. You do too. Seek professional help.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      “What ‘s your estimate for soybean spot prices for July 15,2019? You can use mine, NOT $8.72”.

      So if soybean prices are $8.73 or higher – you win? And if they are $8.71 or lower you still win?

      Only the dumbest person on the planet would call that a forecast. Oh wait – you get paid for being the dumbest person on the planet. I get it!!!

      Reply
      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        pgl: Call it the CoRev loss function. It’s not MSE, not MAE, not a profit-based loss function. I guess it’s a horseshoes/handgrenades function.

        Reply
      2. CoRev

        Pgl and Menzie, for many months now I have quoted Menazies’s actual words used in his prediction. As I have pointed out the several attempts to change the parameters of that predictions it stands in history.

        Now as the day approaches, realization is setting in about how poorly STATED that prediction really was. You can note the difference between his and mine.

        Pgl finally gets something: “So if soybean prices are $8.73 or higher – you win? And if they are $8.71 or lower you still win?” You might be surprised to find that it was true immediately upon hitting the “Post Comment” Button.

        If you believe he was forecasting, let me show you the difference:
        “Difference between forecast and prediction
        The main difference between forecast and prediction is that forecast is mainly used in the context of weather and economy whereas prediction can be used in almost any context. What Does Forecast Mean … Forecast is a calculation or estimate of future events. Prediction is the act of declaring or indicating something in advance.” The date July 15, 2019 and the event spot price for soybeans being $8.72. Did you notice the difference?

        I didn’t write it the way it was presented, and I’ve called it what it was.

        You do amaze!

        Reply
          1. CoRev

            2slugs, if only he had added the error intervals or the conditionals in his prediction or written as a forecast. He did NOT. I invite you to compare our two predictions.

            I’ve used the simpler scientific prediction definitions as shown above. If you read using that definition as a filter, you will find they differ little, with the exception that NIST’s fuller definition and examples read more like a forecast.

          2. CoRev

            2slugs, let me translate the opening sentence of the NIST definition substituting from Menzie’s prediction.
            “As mentioned earlier, the goal of prediction is to determine future value (the July 15 2019 spot price of soybeans) of the response variable that are associated with a specific combination of predictor variable values (to be 8.72).”

        1. Dave

          CoRev spouts nonsense.

          Oh man dude. He just let the cat out of the bag. In CoRev’s mind, he wins if soybean prices do not end up exactly to the penny what Menzie predicted a year ago.

          CoRev. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this is just utter nonsense. You are wrong and were wrong. Just admit it.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Dave, talk to Menzie about how and why he phrased his prediction as he did.

            Saying this: “Oh man dude. He just let the cat out of the bag. In CoRev’s mind, he wins if soybean prices do not end up exactly to the penny what Menzie predicted a year ago.” Only shows your inability to understand what was ACTUALLY written. You’re imputing meaning into what he wrote that wasn’t there.

            After these many months, the articles and comments attacking or mocking me have been hilarious, as is your latest.

            It has been a study into the impartiality of the liberal . Showing how what they think they understand may not be what truly exists.

            Dave, you are wrong and were wrong. Just admit it.

          2. 2slugbaits

            CoRev I believe you took Menzie’s quote out of context, which is dishonest; although in your particular case I suspect it might be because you didn’t bother to read the paper that further describes how he made his prediction. Before you hijacked the discussion (as you typically do) the original topic was about testing various models to predict prices at various horizons. But you had to actually read the paper the follow the discussion. And it’s perfectly clear that you didn’t read the paper, which is why you still don’t understand that the forecast model included this important parameter “epsilon.” The reason everyone is mocking you and having a good laugh at your expense is because you remind us all of the lazy kid in school who didn’t do last night’s homework assignment and as a result keeps talking nonsense. That’s why it took us all quite a while to finally figure out that your whole (rather stupid) argument comes down to your belief that Menzie didn’t feel it was necessary to include an “epsilon” parameter in his prediction. Apparently you are the only person here who thought it was necessary. Like I said, maybe that’s because you didn’t read the paper. Or maybe the good ol’ boys down at the American Legion watering hole don’t follow econometrics, so you perhaps your sophomoric comments sound clever in that crowd. But this isn’t an American Legion watering hole and your inability to understand statistics 101 is just embarrassing.

          3. CoRev

            2slugs, to which quote are you referring that I took out of context?

            Your defense of his PREDICTION is getting a little tedious. If you want to admit Menzie was lazy, or let his arrogance influence his phrasing or … then OK. But, Menzie has had a year to make such a case, and still has not, even though given the opportunity to do so. He has lived by his own phrasing of his PREDICTION. Stop imputing meaning to the quote that wasn’t included.

            Anyone with common sense would have gone back to the original article, especially the oft quoted prediction, to evaluate according to what I was providing. Not one of you did so. Instead of mocking me with Am. Legion (I am not a member), and then admitting your own arrogant laziness: “That’s why it took us all quite a while to finally figure out that your whole (rather stupid) argument comes down to your belief that Menzie didn’t feel it was necessary to include an “epsilon” parameter in his prediction.”

            It wasn’t a feeling! Menzie did not include any error bars in his PREDICTION, and maybe that was because, as you say (not me) he didn’t include “an “epsilon” parameter in his prediction.” After a year he still hasn’t?

            Still after this long time and the many articles aimed directly at me with the many mocking comments, you finally understand why I was so adamant. Menzie has known for months now, but instead he doubled down on his mockery, when he could have simple admitted an error and changed his original PREDICTION. The rest of you are laughable in not ever realizing your misunderstanding until I spelled it out.

            IT NEVER WAS ABOUT HIS MODEL, BUT HOW MENZIE INTERPRETED THE RESULTS AND THEN PHRASED THEM WHILE MAKING A PREDICTION AND NOT A FORECAST. It always was about Menzie’s logic.

            Worse, as you did for the past year, you blindly believed something to be true without actually understanding it, like predictions in the MSM of catastrophic climate impact. I sincerely hope this causes you to consider consensus is not necessarily science.

            Y’all did amaze! Some more often than others.

          4. Barkley Rosser

            Uh oh. CoRev is back to claiming that he knows more about “predictions in the MSM of catastrophic climate impact.” We had all better be careful. If he does that he may well shortly be back to claiming even more expertise on the US space program and telling us about his nonexistent Apollo 11 award or awards. I mean, the half century anniversary of it is coming up next Tuesday. How can he resist?

  12. Dave

    CoRev stupidly wrote “It wasn’t a feeling! Menzie did not include any error bars in his PREDICTION, and maybe that was because, as you say (not me) he didn’t include “an “epsilon” parameter in his prediction.” After a year he still hasn’t?

    Still after this long time and the many articles aimed directly at me with the many mocking comments, you finally understand why I was so adamant. Menzie has known for months now, but instead he doubled down on his mockery, when he could have simple admitted an error and changed his original PREDICTION. The rest of you are laughable in not ever realizing your misunderstanding until I spelled it out.

    IT NEVER WAS ABOUT HIS MODEL, BUT HOW MENZIE INTERPRETED THE RESULTS AND THEN PHRASED THEM WHILE MAKING A PREDICTION AND NOT A FORECAST. It always was about Menzie’s logic.”

    CoRev, what you don’t seem to grasp is that your entire argument is vacuous. We took a long time to grok the point you were trying to make because we thought we were dealing with someone with a scintilla of common sense, intelligence, and/or intellectual honesty. The fact is that Menzie’s prediction was much closer to what we are going to end up with compared to your predicted “blip” after which we would return to “last year’s harvest prices”. My guess is that you do have the common sense and intelligence to understand that. It is the intellectual honesty you lack. That is why I call you a liar. Liar.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Dave, again pop up misunderstanding the differences in our two statements. Mine was conditional. Menzie’s was not. Mine was closer to a trend FORECAST. Menzie’s was a specific value point prediction. The fact is the “blip” occurred later in the harvest season than I thought, but it was still there. What is funny is that you still, in your failure to understand the fundamentals say this: “The fact is that Menzie’s prediction was much closer to what we are going to end up with compared to your predicted “blip” after which we would return to “last year’s harvest prices”. ” That’s an apples to kumquats comparison and you never did/don’t realize it, along with a misquote or another misunderstanding “after which we would return … of what I said. Please stop imputing your own meaning into what was actually said.

      Please do a better job of reading and at least make an attempt at understanding it instead of emoting. The funniest part is that you cherry picked from your own CREATION. My guess is that you do NOT have the common sense and intelligence to understand that. You lack intellectual honesty. That is why I call you an emotional and ill informed liar. Liar.

      The liberal mind does amaze!

      Reply
      1. Dave

        CoRev. A little advice from me to you: stop digging a hole.

        You are so deep in the hole you should just delete your account. You stated, and this is not a misquote:

        “Those of us arguing against the constant anti-tariff, anti-Trump dialogs have noted this will probably be a price blip lasting until US/Chinese negotiations end. We are on record saying the prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices”

        This was in July 2018. It is now 2019. Did prices “approach[] last year’s harvest season prices”? How long can a “blip” last and still be a “blip”?

        The absurdity of your current position becomes even more apparent in the context of the wider discussion. The context is that Trump was and is wrong about trade wars being easy to win and that certain blog commentators were and are wrong that the trade war would have little impact on soybean prices.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Dave, thank you for confirming the errors I found in you earlier comment, ignored the conditional and misquoted what I actually said.

          You asked: “Did prices “approach[] last year’s harvest season prices”? How long can a “blip” last and still be a “blip”? ” Yes, but my forecast’s timing was wrong. Instead of approaching the prices approached 2017’s $9.87 (as calculated by Menzie) at the end of the 2018 harvest season. The blip ends with the end of the conditional.

          I admitted several times now that I was wrong about the trade war length. I remember no one, certainly not me, saying the the tariffs “would have little impact on soybean prices.”

          As for context, Menzie and others have negatively reacted to my contention since the very beginning that other things also impact prices,. Now we’ve seen ASF and weather impact prices. Weather was my big concern for the farmer as its risk is higher than a loss of income from price drops. Then came the 2019 US planting season, a modest hit. But the real impact of weather is the possibility of a total loss of the farm, the FAMILY and it equipment. I don’t remember anyone accepting that context.

          An alternative context, which some here support, trade wars are better than a shooting war. We were approaching that under previous policies with China and N. Korea.

          Reply
          1. Dave

            CoRev ignorantly writes
            “trade wars are better than a shooting war. We were approaching that under previous policies with China and N. Korea.”

            Uhh. Dude. That is just ignorant. Trump started the whole “fire and fury” bull. There was no shooting war approaching under Obama.

            CoRev ignorantly writes
            “I remember no one, certainly not me, saying the the tariffs “would have little impact on soybean prices.”

            Uhh. Dude. That is just plain ignorant. You remember no one? No doubt. I believe you. I also believe it likely that you can’t remember what you had for breakfast this morning. Your “blip” comment was in defense of “Princeton” Steve’s incorrect assertion that “Best I can tell, US soybean prices are discounted about 35 cents per bushel of around $9.10, so a 4% price discount, call it. That’s not immaterial, but two factors will continue to reduce that arb over time.”

            “As for context, Menzie and others have negatively reacted to my contention since the very beginning that other things also impact prices,. Now we’ve seen ASF and weather impact prices. Weather was my big concern for the farmer as its risk is higher than a loss of income from price drops. Then came the 2019 US planting season, a modest hit. But the real impact of weather is the possibility of a total loss of the farm, the FAMILY and it equipment. I don’t remember anyone accepting that context.”

            As we have stated repeatedly, those weather factors would RAISE prices, not reduce soybean prices. And no one here has denied that other factors can affect spot prices. The point Menzie was trying to make was the immediate change in FUTURES prices in the short period analyzed right during the exogenous event (Trump announces tarrifs) can be essentially attributed to the actual exogenous event.

          2. CoRev

            Dave, you’re letting your emotions over ride your logic. “As we have stated repeatedly, those weather factors would RAISE prices, not reduce soybean prices. And no one here has denied that other factors can affect spot prices. The point Menzie was trying to make was the immediate change in FUTURES prices in the short period analyzed right during the exogenous event (Trump announces tarrifs) can be essentially attributed to the actual exogenous event.” Well duh! That point was accepted then and several times since. It is for this reason I comment on your emoting instead of thinking logically. Do you even read the comments?

            I wasn’t talking about prices, but farmers’ concerns. Weather is almost always paramount, because it and fire are what can economically wipe them out and occasionally kill them. Regardless of the extreme effects, weather is what drives their season’s production. Look at the 2019 planting season. Too many farmers weren’t able to plant a crop(s) and took insurance instead. to date that Spring weather has raised prices.

            BTW, it was Obama who let things get as far as they did with both China and N. Korea. He was all talk and unable/unwilling to back it up: https://youtu.be/klloTIbvjZg If you want I can find others for N. Korea and their threats to fire missiles into the US. Or you might consider under which administration China made its greatest territorial gains in the S. China Sea: https://www.newsweek.com/china-south-china-sea-islands-build-military-territory-expand-575161 Obama was the “kowtower in Chief”.

            Why did you include Steven Kopits’ quote? Was his estimate wrong? Are you refuting it? Or are you again emoting without knowledge or logic?

            From my previous comment: “Dave, thank you for confirming the errors I found in you earlier comment, ignored the conditional and misquoted what I actually said.” You continue to respond to what you think I said, and rarely to what I actually said. FACTS OVER EMOTION!

      2. Dave

        “The liberal mind does amaze!”

        All I can say CoRev is that no one who knows me thinks I am a liberal.

        I do think Trump is a terrible President though.

        Reply
  13. CoRev

    I am still totally unimpressed with Barkley’s skill set. He claimed to google “Apollo 11 awards, and got only 1. When I did it I got a whole long list, but they were for the movie. Notice his IMDb reference in his find. IMDb is: “IMDb is an online database of information related to films, television…”

    Now had he searched for Apollo 11 medallions, my claim, he woudl have found a totally different long list. https://www.bing.com/shop?q=Apollo+11+medallions&FORM=SHOPPA&originIGUID=4FFE5CF6C67F4E35AF9AE847E3099B40 None of these are what I received, as they are mostly still available memorabilia.

    I note in the only working link Barkley provided, his father was “was a member of the space vehicle panel for the advisory committee of the Apollo project;” There was no mention of the Mercury and Gemini programs. Remember Jrs 1st story to which I pulled out the BS flag. Rosser Sr. saved all three programs.

    Not only a probable exaggeration but possibly an out right lie, although its hard to make a case they are not the same, Barkley Rosser Jr’s desperation disprove my awards and his shifting story lines are hilarious. So what is it? Got any evidence?

    One day I might show my medallion, but not today!

    Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      I am not sure which is worse here, CoRev, you repeating lies you have said before or this joke of a link to a bunch of current Apollo 11 memorial coins an stuff. As it is, I never said my late father “saved the Mercury and Gemini programs.” This is something you made up and attributed to me. I always said that the importance of what he did was for Apollo, although he was involved with things throughout all of them.

      The first link that does not work has much more. In fact he was on the Space Vehicle Committee and helped set up the Mercury program as well as helping to organize the Explorer and Vanguard satellites well before Mercury, indeed being involved with this stuff going back into WW II and working with Wernher von Braun after the war. There is a lot more than that as well (sorry that first link did not work).

      Sorry, bozo, but this is just a joke. You have shown nothing of what you supposedly did and just lied again about what I said. Get lost, you worthless liar.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Barkley, you have every reason to be proud of your father. The issue has not been with your fathers experiences, but with you and your telling of a specific story of your father. You exaggerated the impact of his story beyond reasonable range, across the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Worse, when YOUR exaggeration was challenged, the story has changed almost every time you have told it, while calling the challenger a liar.

        Your latest version: “In fact he was on the Space Vehicle Committee and helped set up the Mercury program as well as helping to organize the Explorer and Vanguard satellites well before Mercury, …” differs even again from the first and succeeding versions.

        You are the liar here. It’s been clear from the 2nd telling. Get over it!

        BTW, why are you so concerned over my awards and credentials of multiple degrees and awards? Is success outside of your chosen field that threatening? I don’t need to lie to show error and weaknesses in arguments. If this keeps up I will again quote your versions of the story versions, show how far they have shifted from that origianal.

        Reply
        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          CoRev: I think it’s a bit rich you can critique and critique a description when — because Barkley Rosser is commenting under his own name — we can verify matters. On the other hand, you come in under a pseudonym, and we *cannot verify a single thing*; we cannot even verify you’re a human being… So, yes, some skepticism is warranted.

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Menzie, did he lie or exaggerate his story or not? I’ve extensively quoted his various versions from the throw of the BS flag. The mere citing and quoting of those versions is evidence of his “lack of candor.” Your questioning if I am a robot when you obviously know the answer is reason and evidence enough to stay anonymous. This answer alone is evidence I’m not.

            BTW, why are you and Barkley so concerned over my credentials of multiple degrees and awards?

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            CoRev: I’m not concerned over your credentials at all. I don’t think I’ve asked before. I’m just highlighting the asymmetry in our knowledge regarding you two.

          3. CoRev

            Menzie, are you now taking after Barkley? All of these quotes were in this comment, and my responses in recent comments. “I’m not concerned over your credentials at all.”, and yet you have asked on several occasions the level and subjects of my education. Even more telling you say: ” I’m just highlighting the asymmetry in our knowledge regarding you two.” That would be true for most of us commenting here.

            What makes my credentials so special? Is success outside of your chosen field that threatening?

  14. Barkley Rosser

    Just to give CoRev credit, Menzie, you did once challenge him (back during the period he was claiming to be a major expert on climate change and declaring I was not, and you noted that I had cited publications on the matter in reffed journals while his record was unavailable) when you asked him what his “advanced degrees” were. That was when he declared that he was “tired of playing this game” or words to that effect, and declared that his degree was in womens’ studies, later clearly assuming that we were supposed to know that was a satire. He has since informed he has a “diploma in a tube” making a big fuss that I was “lying” when i mentioned “diploma(s) in a tube(s).”

    Somehow he thinks he can mix false accusations with obvious satire and be taken seriously. This latest entry is really a perfect example. Given that is is completely clear that he never got any awards for anything having to do with the US space program, even inventing non-existent awards, he thinks he is being really cute by linking to a site with commemorative medallions about the space program, while noting in bold-faced letters that this is not what he got (and still apparently claiming he has some sort of medallion, which at one point he claimed went to the moon and back, but which is so unimportant he now keeps it in a drawer with that one tube containing his mysterious only diploma). I mean, I cannot tell when he is consciously making fun, consciously lying, and, well, I do not know what. I suspect he is back because that half century anniversary of Apollo 11 is coming up on Tuesday, and he is sitting here in this limbo between what he thinks are jokes and just a pack of ludicrous outright lies, with an unresponded-to demand from me for an apology for his lies.

    Which, of course, he has responded to by repeating lies yet again, along with all this goofball nonsense. In particular he keeps claiming that I said my father “saved the Mercury and Gemini programs” when I said no such thing. He did not quote me. He simply claimed I said that. My original and continuing story has all along been very simple about one thing involving clocks that my old man did, which I noted was very important for the Apollo program. As he has continued to repeatedly claim that somehow I was either lying or exaggerating about my old man’s work, I have added more, but never contradicting myself or saying anything untrue. Again, he did a lot, a lot more than has been mentioned here.

    Just to pinpoint his latest attempt to charge me with lying I noted that my old man was involved in all of the space programs, and CoRev himself admits he was publicly identified with the Apollo program. While CoRev right here above somehow wants to twist that into me saying he “saved the Mercury and Gemini programs” that is not what I said. I said he helped set them up, which is true, but that is quite separate from this simple clock matter, which was my original story and has not been successfully challenged by CoRev, although he has tried to say that either it did not happen or that if it did, it was not important. I note that at one point in claiming it never happened he declared from the beginning he was involved in the Mercury program, and that he could “personally” assure us that the clocks were synchronized for all flights from the beginning. Pretty clearly this is massive lying on a giant scale, although perhaps we are all supposed to know that these “personal” assurances were merely satire, kind of like his supposed womens’ studies degree.

    One can see more about my old man by googling “Rosser Computer pioneers” and looking at the first hit, which looked to me to be https://history.computer.org/pioneers/rosser.html , which may not work here, but you will find it by googling it. It mentions his numerous books on the mathematics of rocket flight from 1946 to 1966 as well as noting that he “served on various panels and committees associated with the US space program.”

    And, CoRev, the only reason people ask about your credentials is that you have claimed to have them while claiming others, me and my late father, don’t have any. Ours are pretty easily found, as Menzie notes, matters of public record. Yours remain totally unverified, with some of them you have claimed not even appearing to exist at all, e.g. the “Apollo 11 award,” which you initially claimed to have one of, later expanded to be “Apollo 11 awards.” Again, was this satire like the links to these medallions, or outright lies? I would not care except that you keep falsely accusing me of lying.

    Both you and “Moses Herzog” owe me an apology. Neither has delivered. MH replied by making stupid demands. You just issue fresh and even more obviously false accusations of lying.

    Reply
    1. CoRev

      Barkley, I’ve learned the easiest way to refute your constant lying is to quote you. This is your original version of the story:
      “So, I am going to go out on this by telling a real story, as I am completely disgusted by CoRev’s apparent claim that his somehow having some input into modeling a cost projection for some input to the moon mission was equivalent to actually physically modeling the moon mission itself. I mean, the lying jerk even capitalized his silly claim. So now I shall tell a real story about how the US got to the moon.

      This involves my late old man, yes, J. Barkley Rosser [Sr.], whom I have always recognized as being more mathematically brilliant than I am and more important in world history than I am. This story is one reason why. My old man played a crucial role in getting us to the moon.

      So, he had long been on the secret space committee of the US government from WW II on, one of its deepest advisers. As the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs proceeded there was a growing problem. The longer they were in space, the further they landed from where they were supposed to. Yeah, CoRev, this is the actual physical modeling, and Houston was messing up. It was my old man who figured it out and then they got it fixed.

      The problem was that the clocks on the ground and the clocks in the space vehicles were on different times, off by about 1/365. The ground was on solar time while the space vehicles were on sidereal time, tied to the stars. These systems were off by one day per year due to the revolution of the earth around the sun. So, the longer they were up, the further off they landed. Needless to say, if this had not been fixed, a shot to the moon would have missed with our astronauts going off into deep space to die.” I’ve removed the unrelated beginning and ending commentary.

      So when you claim: ” he keeps claiming that I said my father “saved the Mercury and Gemini programs” ” after you said this in your story: ” As the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs proceeded there was a growing problem. The longer they were in space, the further they landed from where they were supposed to. Yeah, CoRev, this is the actual physical modeling, and Houston was messing up. It was my old man who figured it out and then they got it fixed….Needless to say, if this had not been fixed, a shot to the moon would have missed with our astronauts going off into deep space to die”

      So yeah you did say your father saved the Mercury and Gemini AND APOLLO programs. Your continuous lying would be an interesting case study for a psychologist.

      Reply
  15. CoRev

    Here we are on close of the US Futures Market and the results are in. Today’s. close was $9.02 From here: https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybeans-price That shows that Menzie’s PREDICTION was WRONG!

    That’s $.30 higher than Menzie’s prediction of $8.72 for this date from last year July 15, 2018 when the price was $8.30. The average trading price for the year was $8.56 (low $7.81 + High $9.31)/2= $8.56 The high price for the year was $9.31

    My quantitative estimate was for the prices to APPROACH the 2017 market price as we approached the 2018 harvest season with a conditional only IF THE US/CHINA TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ENDED. They still have not ended. So the prices have been depressed at a new plateau since they tariffs were implemented. I picked early harvest to be the first months September and October, as any prices earlier would be based upon estimates and not actual harvest numbers. My guess without doing the analysis to add precision is the plateau is around $8.70-$8.80 for YTD since July 15 2018. Accordingly my conditional quantitative forecast should be considered with the new tariff driven plateau $8.70-$8.80 against the 2017 early harvest season (late Sept – Late Oct 2017) price average of $10.09 ($9.43 – $10.75) versus a similar period in 2018 $8.53 ($8.14-$8.92)/2.

    My conditional quantitative forecast was wrong. Prices reached above that plateau price starting in November 2018, later in the harvest season not as we approached harvest, Sept and Oct.

    I was off by ~$.17 -$.27. Menzie was off by $.30.

    Reply
    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      CoRev: Are you serious? You’ve just added a bunch of post hoc amendations to your only quantitative prediction. The price of soybeans ranged about $9.50-$10.00 for 9/24-11/30/2017, the harvest season in North America for soybeans. I don’t know how you rationalized cherry picking the November price off of a unobserved counterfactual — and Nov is not the harvest season. I will quote the only quantitative prediction you made, yet again, on July 9, 2018: “We are on record saying the prices will be back approaching last year’s harvest season prices.” (That is the only time you say “on the record” by the way…

      Fuller analysis in a post coming tomorrow. And maybe some comment on the use of the “royal We”. I’m also going to discuss your bizarre interpretation of forecast accuracy — when your forecast of “not X” beats a point estimate of Y. It’s forecasting like nobody in the statistically educated world does.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.