An Examination of the Relationships Between Hardwood Lumber and Stumpage Prices in Ohio
Keywords:
Hard maple, hardwood lumber prices, hardwood market history, hardwood stumpage prices, market margin, red oak, white oak, yellow-poplarAbstract
Understanding the relationship between hardwood lumber and stumpage prices is critical in evaluating market efficiency and in understanding the potential impact of changing technology on stump-age markets. Unfortunately, the complexity of the hardwood lumber market and lack of reliable data make it difficult to evaluate this relationship using traditional econometric systems. However, the relationship can be evaluated using economic theory, a review of market history, and statistical procedures. This paper first presents a theoretical development of the demand and supply of hardwood stumpage and then examines the history of the white oak, red oak, yellow-poplar, and hard maple markets between 1970 and 1995. Using this information, a multi-period market margin model was developed. Analysis of short-term relationships between lumber price and stumpage price revealed that these series did not always move in the same direction, but tended to move in the same direction when there were large changes in lumber prices. However, continual declines in lumber prices did not always result in continual declines in stumpage price because of apparent price expectations of the stumpage owner. In the long run, the market margin between stumpage and lumber price has declined in a discrete manner. These declines are related to periodic increases in lumber production and price that occur at the beginning of the hardwood production and price cycle. Theory stipulates that during periods of declining prices, the less efficient sawmills will be forced out of the market. Following these periods, inventories usually are insufficient to satisfy any increase in lumber demand. Therefore, when demand increases, lumber prices increase sharply causing surviving, efficient mills to increase production and to bid up stumpage prices to new, higher levels. This bidding transfers any short-term economic gains that result from increased production or marketing efficiency to the resource owners.References
Birch, T. W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the northern United States, 1994. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Bull. NE-136. 293 pp.nCardellichio, P. A., and C. L. Binkley. 1984. Hardwood demand in the United States: 1950 to 1980. Forest Prod. J. 34(2): 15-22.nDickey, D. A., and W. A. Fuller. 1981. The likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49:1057-1072.nEngle, R. F., and C. W. J. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251-276.nFrye, L. R. 1996. The most popular furniture woods: The historical perspective. Wood Wood Prod. (centennial edition) pp. 304-307.nHamilton, J. D. 1994. Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 799 pp.nHardwood Market Report. 1970-1995. Hardwood Market Report, Memphis, TN.nHaynes, R. 1977. A derived demand approach to estimating the linkage between stumpage and lumber markets. Forest Sci. 23(2):281-288.nJohansen, S. 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointcgration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 59(6):1551-1580.nLuppold, W. G. 1981. Demand, supply and price of hardwood lumber: An econometric study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacks-burg, VA. 140 pp.nLuppold, W. G. 1984. An econometric study of the U.S. hardwood lumber market. Forest Sci. 30(4):1027-1037.nLuppold, W. G., and P. A. Araman. 1988. Hardwood trade trends: U.S. exports. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. NE-611. 10 pp.nLuppold, W. G., and G. P. Dempsey. 1989. New estimates of central and eastern U.S. hardwood lumber production. North. J. Appl. For. 6(3):120-123.nLuppold, W. G., and J. E. Baumgras. 1995. Price trends and relationships for red oak and yellow-poplar stumpage, sawlogs, and lumber in Ohio: 1975-1993. North J. Appl. For. 2(4):168-173.nMeyer, C. J., J. H. Michael, S. A. Sinclair, and W. G. Luppold. 1992. Wood material used in the U.S. wood furniture industry. Forest Prod. J. 42(5):28-30.nNolley, J. W. 1994. Bulletin of hardwood market statistics: Winter 1993. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Note NE-358. 43 pp.nOhio Agriculture Statistics Service. 1969-1995. Ohio timber prices. Ohio Agric. Stat. Serv., Columbus. 2 pp.nPowell, D. S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Darr, Z. Zhiliang, and D. W. MacCleery. 1993. Forest resources of the United States, 1992. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234. 132 pp.nShazam. 1993. SHAZAM: The econometric computer program, version 7. Vancouver, B.C. Canada.nStock, J. H., and M. W. Watson. 1993. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica 61(4):783-820.nWidmann, R. H., and M. Long. 1992. Ohio timber products output 1989. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Bull. NE-121. 21 pp.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
