Page 9 -

โครงการหนังสืออิเล็กทรอนิกส์ด้านการเกษตร เฉลิมพระเกียรติพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว

Abstract

This study examines the use of rubber futures market of small rubber planters to

manage their price risk. Using the survey of 396 households from three areas in Thailand:

Southern (Songkla province); North-Eastern (Ubon Ratchathani province); and Eastern
(Chantaburi province), it is found that 17.42% of the sample recognize the TFEX and only

10.35% ever want to (or used to) use the TFEX. Due to the storability of their rubber products
(latex and cup) and their need of income to spend on daily living expenditures, the futures

market may not be a desirable financial products for them to manage risk. In addition, the

underlying asset of futures market is RSS3 makes rubber planters exposes to the basis risk.
Based on the logistic regression, it is documented that gender, education, and the proportion

of income from rubber to total income of the household determine the use of futures market.
In particular, male head of households and higher level education of head of households are

more likely to use the futures market. However, the households with higher proportion of

income from rubber are less likely to use futures market, inconsistent with the concept of
diversification. The financial literacy, risk attitude, and social network are not associated with

the decision to use the futures market. The results is consistent with the argument that the

futures may not be suitable for small rubber planters. Lastly, the study discusses three
alternative policies for price risk management of small planters: government price guarantee;

forward contract; and price insurance. Although each alternative has its own merits and
drawback, our preliminary assessment suggests that the price insurance (with the average price

put option) is more promising among them. However, there is a need for further study in

accessing the potential losses and how to hedge risk of these alternatives.