Soft Commodities

Archive for Soft Commodities

How everyone pays the cost for patents on seeds, and private companies get rich from keeping them secret

By Julie Dawson, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Kiki Hubbard, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Paulina Jenney, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The United States is one of only a handful of countries that allows companies to hold patents on plant varieties. As a result, a small number of corporations can – and do – suppress competition in the seed industry, stifle innovation and turn taxpayer subsidies intended for farmers into corporate profits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that two companies control more than 70% of U.S. corn and soybean seed sales, and the top four cottonseed companies control nearly 94% of that market.

In a May 2026 court filing in a legal dispute between two U.S. seed companies, the Department of Justice said patents on seeds are obstructing competition and research in the agriculture industry.

As researchers who work on plant breeding and seed policy, we have seen how that plays out. When huge companies assert their patents, smaller businesses and public plant breeders who often lack the legal resources to fight back are frequently dissuaded from conducting research and development that might actually not be illegal at all.

And a lack of competition allows dominant companies – not always based in the U.S. – to collect large sums of taxpayer money that Congress allocated in hopes it would help farmers, not shareholders’ and executives’ bottom lines.

Noah Coppess, a farmer in Iowa, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 28, 2025.

A shift in ownership

For most of human agricultural history, farmers freely saved, exchanged and planted seeds season after season, creating a diversity of crops suited to the places and people who grew them.

While some communities restricted the exchange of seeds for cultural or ceremonial reasons, seeds were broadly understood to be a shared resource. Even as recently as the 1970s, most plant breeding was carried out by public researchers at government stations and universities, while private companies focused on producing and selling those varieties at scale.

That diverse and decentralized system also served as an invisible insurance policy against disease and disaster: If one variety failed, there were plenty of others distinct enough to fill its place.

Beginning in the 20th century, though, governments began to grant companies patents on living organisms, beginning with a genetically engineered bacterium that broke down crude oil. Suddenly, chemical and pharmaceutical companies saw opportunities to earn money by engineering specific traits, such as herbicide tolerance, into key crop plants, including corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, and patenting those varieties.

Then they used those patent rights to prohibit other plant breeders, even university researchers, from conducting research and breeding with their seeds and to forbid farmers from saving their own seeds from one season to the next.

Those steps eliminated seed companies’ two most obvious sources of competition: other developers building on their work and farmers saving seed. The seed companies then had enough market power to set prices so high they took nearly all of farmers’ potential profits, while leaving them just enough of a margin to remain customers.

According to a report from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, the price for genetically engineered seeds has more than quintupled since 1990, rising by 463%. But over that same period of time, the price farmers have received for their crops has increased only by 56%.

Subsidies get diverted

When the prices farmers receive for certain crops fall below a certain threshold, or when farmers suffer losses from bad weather or unexpected trade disputes, the Department of Agriculture has a multitude of programs that offer payments to make up the difference.

But that money tends to spend little time in farmers’ pockets.

An August 2025 study shows that when farm subsidies increase, seed companies respond by raising their prices, charging based on what farmers can afford to pay rather than their own cost of producing and marketing the seed. Specifically, for every 1% increase in farm subsidies, seed companies raise their prices by 0.5%.

And when farmers go to sell their crops to grain processors, those companies benefit from being able to purchase commodity grains, such as corn, soybeans and canola, at a predictable price, held low because subsidies help farmers produce an abundant supply at margins that would otherwise drive farms out of business.

Testifying at an October 2025 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on competition issues in the seed and fertilizer industries, Iowa farmer Noah Coppess put it plainly: “The reality in farming today is we’re price takers rather than price makers. That’s especially true when consolidation limits our options. … I have concerns with our input and equipment supply chains and their ability to manipulate our costs.”

The result is a system in which public money intended for farmers is redistributed to the seed suppliers and commodity purchasers who profit on either side of them.

Limiting research

Dominant seed companies prevent competitors from developing new breeding programs through a complex web of patents and restrictive licensing contracts that make it nearly impossible to acquire enough genetic material to get started.

The patent system is built on the premise that applicants must completely disclose how their inventions were made in order to get protection. This allows the public to understand the scope of the invention, as well as to improve upon it.

Genetic analyses on the protected seeds would be required to understand how a variety was bred and the genetic traits it contains. However, seed companies have also threatened independent researchers with patent-infringement lawsuits. Those threats prevent independent researchers from studying the crops that make up the country’s supply of food, feed, fuel and fiber.

The result is that no one outside of the dominant companies, not even the U.S. government, knows which economically crucial crops, most of which are grown from patented seeds, might be vulnerable to emerging pests and pathogens. For years, plant breeders have been calling for genetic assessments of these seeds and the crops they grow; to date, no such studies have been conducted.

A shift in direction

But the May 2026 Justice Department court filing saying seed patents are blocking agricultural competition and research indicates the tide may be turning.

In 2023, multinational agrochemical company Corteva sued a genetic engineering startup, Inari, for infringing its patents by, among other things, obtaining samples of Corteva’s patented seeds from a public repository and analyzing their genetic makeup.

Though the Justice Department didn’t weigh in favor of either company, its court filing said companies should not be able to restrict the public from sequencing genetic material that was deposited as part of the process of securing patent protection.

Notably, the department’s court filing came from the Antitrust Division rather than the Civil Division, which usually handles intellectual property issues. That difference suggests that the government sees this extension of patent rights as an illegitimate way for a company to exclude other companies from competing.

The case is still winding its way through the legal process. But if the judge agrees, his decision could be consequential. For starters, competitors could begin to understand the strengths and weaknesses in seed varieties on the market and find ways to build on that innovation, which is precisely the type of activity the patent system was designed to encourage.

More competition in the market could provide an important check on seed prices, reducing the burden on American farmers and, thereby, taxpayers. Finally, researchers could conduct the studies that are needed to begin rebuilding the kind of genetic knowledge that was, for most of human history, held in common – an insurance policy in the best interest of us all.

About the Authors:

Julie Dawson, Professor of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Kiki Hubbard, Researcher, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Paulina Jenney, Research Coordinator, Urban and Regional Food System Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Opinions Soft Commodities

17 Jun

Soaring US beef prices likely to rise further thanks to trade tensions and disease outbreaks

By Andrew Muhammad, University of Tennessee and Charles Martinez

It’s summer grilling season, but for many Americans, surging prices mean beef is no longer what’s for dinner.

The cost of beef, having spiked since early 2025, is coming under even more pressure. The most recent is the screwworm outbreak that hit cattle in Mexico and has now spread to the United States, where the cattle herd has already fallen to levels not seen since the 1950s, due in part to drought.

Meanwhile, potential trade disruptions loom. Just before U.S. and Mexican trade negotiators began meeting on June 16-17, 2026, to discuss the long-standing deal binding North America, President Donald Trump warned that Washington may not renew the agreement, which was negotiated during his first term, and instead potentially withdraw from it altogether.

As international trade and livestock economists, we have studied how North American trade has deeply integrated cattle and beef markets, influencing production, prices and the movement of animals and meat products across Canada, Mexico and the United States. And because beef is both a top agricultural import and export for the U.S., the industry is especially vulnerable to any disruptions to the existing trade deal. As one example, the cost of ground beef is up by more than 20% just since January 2025.

Current trade uncertainty, reflecting Trump’s more fragmented, bilateral approach to negotiations, couldn’t come at a worse moment for inflation-weary consumers. The growing turmoil in the North American beef market risks further tightening supplies and raising prices.

A harmonized market

Cross-border trade was anchored in 1994 by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which established free trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It remained in place until Trump replaced it with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which came into force in 2020. Unlike NAFTA, that deal must be jointly reviewed every six years and includes a 16‑year sunset clause. Beef, like other goods covered by the agreement, was exempted from the tariffs that Trump imposed on those trading partners in 2025.

Formally, all three countries must decide by July 1, 2026, whether to extend the deal for another 16 years or let it revert to a series of annual reviews until the full expiration in 2036. But Canada, whose relationship with Trump is especially fraught, is so far sitting out the talks. Instead, U.S. and Mexican negotiators are meeting by themselves and have now turned to agriculture, with beef as one of the key sectors.

Beef prices, production decisions and supply are closely tied together across the three countries, effectively creating a single North American beef market. Cattle and beef products move seamlessly across borders, thanks to the lower tariffs and harmonized regulations that resulted from the 1994 and 2020 trade deals. The U.S. imports young “feeder” cattle to be fattened for slaughter from Mexico, as well as mature, or “fed,” cattle ready for slaughter from Canada, both of which ultimately go to U.S. packing plants. To help meet consumer demand in Mexico, the U.S. also exports beef products and fed cattle.

This integration is also important for maintaining the United States’ own beef supply. Almost all U.S. cattle imports are from Mexico and Canada, amounting to around 2.1 million head in 2024, valued at more than US$3 billion. That number may look small against the total number slaughtered in the U.S. that year – around 32 million head – but having a steady flow into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada helps stabilize supplies and manage prices.

The importance of that relationship became clear in 2025, when live cattle imports plunged by more than 50%. That decrease continued into 2026, as young cattle imports from Mexico collapsed by more than 80% due to the screwworm outbreak. The parasite has now been discovered in cattle in south Texas and New Mexico, which prompted Canada to slap bans on live cattle from the region.

Where’s the beef?

The current trade talks go beyond the beef sector, and agriculture more broadly, to encompass issues such as rules of origin, labor and environmental standards, digital trade and investment provisions that shape North American supply chains. At the same time, U.S. trade negotiators are bringing the Trump administration’s more protectionist and transactional approach to the table.

Beef is among the vital trade relationships at stake if negotiators fail to conclude the review. In 2025, Mexico was the third-largest market for U.S. beef exports, exceeding $1.3 billion, while Canada was the fourth-largest market at $874 million. On the flip side, Canada and Mexico ranked second and third, respectively, among countries exporting beef to the U.S., with more than $5 billion combined.

Trump’s threat notwithstanding, the U.S. has a lot to lose if it quits the 2020 deal altogether. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs earlier this year, the administration has a stronger incentive to keep its other tools in trade talks. And U.S. farm groups, a key Trump constituency, are strongly lobbying the Trump administration to keep the deal.

If the U.S. exits the pact, North American trade would likely revert to more basic international rules, which would free Mexico and Canada to impose their own tariffs, raising costs for producers, processors and, ultimately, consumers.

The two trading partners would also have a freer hand with nontariff barriers, such as requiring stricter inspections, more paperwork and potential quotas on U.S. exports, all of which could slow down trade. Because cattle often cross borders multiple times during production, even small delays can create significant disruptions.

The result would likely be less efficient supply chains, fewer imported cattle, tighter U.S. supply and, in the end, higher prices. And some U.S. ranchers are already bracing for a worst-case scenario, like what soybean farmers have already seen when a key export market disappears.

“We can’t lose demand for our products,” one rancher told us. “Look what happened with soybeans last year when China quit buying.”

About the Authors:

Andrew Muhammad, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Blasingame Chair of Excellence, University of Tennessee and Charles Martinez, Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Opinions Soft Commodities

14 Jun

COT Soft Commodities Charts: Weekly Speculator Bets led lower by Corn and Soybean Meal

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) reports data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday June 9th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led lower by Corn and Soybean Meal

The COT soft commodities markets speculator bets were overall lower this week as just one out of the eleven softs markets we cover had higher positioning while the other ten markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the softs markets was Sugar with a small increase by 2,105 weekly contracts.

The markets with the declines in speculator bets this week were Corn (-96,383 contracts), Soybean Meal (-70,583 contracts), Soybeans (-37,321 contracts), Soybean Oil (-26,485 contracts), Wheat (-17,091 contracts), Cotton (-9,249 contracts), Coffee (-7,212 contracts), Cocoa (-6,185 contracts), Lean Hogs (-5,067 contracts) and with Live Cattle (-3,036 contracts) also registering lower bets on the week.

Cocoa and Coffee lead Soft Commodities price performance

Leading the Soft Commodities price gains this week was Cocoa, which rose by almost 4% with a 3.79% gain. Coffee came in second with a 2.90% rise on the week. Wheat was also up by over 2% with a 2.26% increase.

On the downside, Live Cattle was virtually unchanged with a -0.14% dip. Cotton was lower by -0.50%, Soybeans fell by -0.62%, followed by Corn, which declined by -0.96%. Lean Hogs was next with a -1.37% decline, followed by Soybean Meal, which dropped over 2% by -2.08%.

Soybean Oil was down by -2.41%. And Sugar was the biggest decliner with a -2.97% drop.

Soft Commodities Data:

Legend: Weekly Speculators Change | Speculators Current Net Position | Speculators Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Cotton & Soybean Oil

COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that Cotton (84 percent) and Soybean Oil (80 percent) lead the softs markets this week. Soybeans (77 percent), Soybean Meal (70 percent) and Live Cattle (59 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, Lean Hogs (0 percent) and Cocoa (0 percent) come in at the lowest strength levels currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are the Sugar (29 percent) and the Coffee (29 percent).

Strength Statistics:
Corn (50.3 percent) vs Corn previous week (63.4 percent)
Sugar (28.9 percent) vs Sugar previous week (28.5 percent)
Coffee (29.4 percent) vs Coffee previous week (36.6 percent)
Soybeans (77.0 percent) vs Soybeans previous week (85.3 percent)
Soybean Oil (79.9 percent) vs Soybean Oil previous week (90.6 percent)
Soybean Meal (69.9 percent) vs Soybean Meal previous week (98.6 percent)
Live Cattle (59.2 percent) vs Live Cattle previous week (62.2 percent)
Lean Hogs (0.0 percent) vs Lean Hogs previous week (3.5 percent)
Cotton (84.3 percent) vs Cotton previous week (89.8 percent)
Cocoa (0.1 percent) vs Cocoa previous week (5.7 percent)
Wheat (50.6 percent) vs Wheat previous week (65.0 percent)

Sugar & Cocoa top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Sugar (8 percent) and Cocoa (0.1 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for soft commodities.

Wheat (-49 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with Lean Hogs (-40 percent), Corn (-32 percent) and Soybean Meal (-23 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

Strength Trend Statistics:
Corn (-32.3 percent) vs Corn previous week (-8.7 percent)
Sugar (7.6 percent) vs Sugar previous week (9.5 percent)
Coffee (-18.9 percent) vs Coffee previous week (-5.9 percent)
Soybeans (-9.6 percent) vs Soybeans previous week (-5.2 percent)
Soybean Oil (-20.1 percent) vs Soybean Oil previous week (-8.3 percent)
Soybean Meal (-23.3 percent) vs Soybean Meal previous week (8.0 percent)
Live Cattle (-17.7 percent) vs Live Cattle previous week (-16.8 percent)
Lean Hogs (-40.1 percent) vs Lean Hogs previous week (-42.1 percent)
Cotton (-3.0 percent) vs Cotton previous week (1.6 percent)
Cocoa (0.1 percent) vs Cocoa previous week (1.9 percent)
Wheat (-49.4 percent) vs Wheat previous week (-12.8 percent)

Individual Soft Commodities Markets:

CORN Futures:

Positioning Notes:

CORN large speculator standing this week was a net position of 103,559 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position reduction of -96,383 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 199,942 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 50.3 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 49.1 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 62.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

CORN Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	25.0	44.4	7.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	19.6	47.2	10.0
– Net Position:	103,559	-53,122	-50,437
– Gross Longs:	477,576	848,686	141,418
– Gross Shorts:	374,017	901,808	191,855
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.9 to 1	0.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	50.3	49.1	62.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-32.3	34.7	6.9

SUGAR Futures:

Positioning Notes:

SUGAR large speculator standing this week was a net position of -105,058 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position rise of 2,105 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -107,163 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 28.9 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 72.4 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 30.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

SUGAR Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	22.3	50.9	8.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	32.7	40.3	8.3
– Net Position:	-105,058	106,415	-1,357
– Gross Longs:	225,149	513,549	82,833
– Gross Shorts:	330,207	407,134	84,190
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.7 to 1	1.3 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	28.9	72.4	30.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	7.6	-5.0	-12.5

COFFEE Futures:

Positioning Notes:

COFFEE large speculator standing this week was a net position of 6,176 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position reduction of -7,212 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 13,388 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 29.4 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 72.6 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 8.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

COFFEE Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	24.1	41.4	4.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	21.2	44.1	4.3
– Net Position:	6,176	-5,785	-391
– Gross Longs:	51,440	88,452	8,747
– Gross Shorts:	45,264	94,237	9,138
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.1 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	29.4	72.6	8.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-18.9	18.7	-6.9

SOYBEANS Futures:

Positioning Notes:

SOYBEANS large speculator standing this week was a net position of 150,463 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decrease of -37,321 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 187,784 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 77.0 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 24.7 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 24.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

SOYBEANS Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	26.3	48.8	4.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	11.5	60.8	7.3
– Net Position:	150,463	-122,120	-28,343
– Gross Longs:	267,406	495,979	45,342
– Gross Shorts:	116,943	618,099	73,685
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.3 to 1	0.8 to 1	0.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	77.0	24.7	24.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-9.6	10.1	-1.9

SOYBEAN OIL Futures:

Positioning Notes:

SOYBEAN OIL large speculator standing this week was a net position of 121,954 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position lowering of -26,485 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 148,439 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 79.9 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 18.6 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 83.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

SOYBEAN OIL Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.1	45.9	5.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	9.4	65.5	4.0
– Net Position:	121,954	-135,102	13,148
– Gross Longs:	186,964	316,763	40,539
– Gross Shorts:	65,010	451,865	27,391
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.9 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	79.9	18.6	83.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-20.1	18.6	9.3

SOYBEAN MEAL Futures:

Positioning Notes:

SOYBEAN MEAL large speculator standing this week was a net position of 85,604 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position lowering of -70,583 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 156,187 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 69.9 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 29.8 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 78.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

SOYBEAN MEAL Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	26.9	48.6	8.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	12.9	66.6	4.5
– Net Position:	85,604	-109,770	24,166
– Gross Longs:	164,267	297,197	51,481
– Gross Shorts:	78,663	406,967	27,315
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.1 to 1	0.7 to 1	1.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	69.9	29.8	78.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-23.3	20.4	39.3

LIVE CATTLE Futures:

Positioning Notes:

LIVE CATTLE large speculator standing this week was a net position of 82,486 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position lowering of -3,036 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 85,522 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 59.2 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 33.2 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 60.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

LIVE CATTLE Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	43.2	31.2	8.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	17.2	53.8	12.1
– Net Position:	82,486	-71,638	-10,848
– Gross Longs:	137,031	99,064	27,433
– Gross Shorts:	54,545	170,702	38,281
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.5 to 1	0.6 to 1	0.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	59.2	33.2	60.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-17.7	18.5	10.6

LEAN HOGS Futures:

Positioning Notes:

LEAN HOGS large speculator standing this week was a net position of -42,121 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decline of -5,067 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -37,054 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 92.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

LEAN HOGS Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	22.8	41.8	8.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	36.3	28.4	7.9
– Net Position:	-42,121	41,690	431
– Gross Longs:	71,117	130,274	25,107
– Gross Shorts:	113,238	88,584	24,676
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.5 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	0.0	100.0	92.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-40.1	38.9	30.7

COTTON Futures:

Positioning Notes:

COTTON large speculator standing this week was a net position of 75,957 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position lowering of -9,249 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 85,206 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 84.3 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 19.0 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 50.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

COTTON Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	38.9	37.4	4.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	15.5	62.6	2.9
– Net Position:	75,957	-81,917	5,960
– Gross Longs:	126,353	121,661	15,510
– Gross Shorts:	50,396	203,578	9,550
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.5 to 1	0.6 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	84.3	19.0	50.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-3.0	6.0	-34.2

COCOA Futures:

Positioning Notes:

COCOA large speculator standing this week was a net position of -23,497 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position lowering of -6,185 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -17,312 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.1 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 18.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

COCOA Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	19.4	53.6	5.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	30.9	41.6	5.8
– Net Position:	-23,497	24,426	-929
– Gross Longs:	39,354	108,965	10,789
– Gross Shorts:	62,851	84,539	11,718
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.6 to 1	1.3 to 1	0.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	0.1	100.0	18.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	0.1	1.9	-22.0

WHEAT Futures:

Positioning Notes:

WHEAT large speculator standing this week was a net position of -57,853 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decrease of -17,091 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -40,762 net contracts.
This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 50.6 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 51.3 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 62.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

WHEAT Futures Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	25.5	40.6	8.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	38.2	28.2	7.6
– Net Position:	-57,853	56,192	1,661
– Gross Longs:	115,711	184,410	36,405
– Gross Shorts:	173,564	128,218	34,744
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.7 to 1	1.4 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	50.6	51.3	62.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-49.4	51.3	-2.9

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

COT Updates Financial News Soft Commodities

31 May

COT Soft Commodities Charts: Speculator Changes led by Coffee

By InvestMacro

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) reports data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday May 26th and shows a quick view of how large traders (for-profit speculators and commercial entities) were positioned in the futures markets.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Coffee

The only market with a gain for the softs markets this week was Coffee with a small increase by 671 contracts.

The markets with the declines in speculator bets this week were Corn (-56,100 contracts) with Soybean Oil (-16,534 contracts), Lean Hogs (-16,412 contracts), Wheat (-9,721 contracts) and Soybeans (-7,563 contracts), Soybean Meal (-5,147 contracts), Cotton (-4,796 contracts), Live Cattle (-4,053 contracts), Sugar (-841 contracts) and with Cocoa (-752 contracts) also registering lower bets on the week.

Soft Commodities price performance was led by Soybean Oil and Cocoa

The past five days price performances for the Soft Commodities markets were led by Soybean Oil, which rose by 3.83% for the week, and was followed up by Cocoa, which rose by 3.56% on the week. These were the only two markets that had higher five-day performances.

On the downside, Live Cattle was lower by -0.23%, followed by Lean Hogs which saw a dip by -0.52%. Next, Soybean Oil was lower by -0.63%, while Soybeans was close behind with a -0.81% decline.

Cotton saw lower levels by -1.64% on the week, while Coffee was down by over -2.5% with a -2.74% decrease. Corn dropped by more than -3% with a -3.56% shortfall, followed by Wheat, which decreased by -4.73% on the week.

Finally, Sugar was the biggest decliner on the week with a -5.57% drop.