Risk premia and price volatility in futures markets

1991 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jisoo Yoo ◽  
G. S. Maddala
2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-303
Author(s):  
Wenwen Xi ◽  
Dermot Hayes ◽  
Sergio Horacio Lence

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the variance risk premium in corn and soybean markets, where the variance risk premium is defined as the difference between the historical realized variance and the corresponding risk-neutral expected variance. Design/methodology/approach The authors compute variance risk premiums using historical derivatives data. The authors use regression analysis and time series econometrics methods, including EGARCH and the Kalman filter, to analyze variance risk premiums. Findings There are moderate commonalities in variance within the agricultural sector, but fairly weak commonalities between the agricultural and the equity sectors. Corn and soybean variance risk premia in dollar terms are time-varying and correlated with the risk-neutral expected variance. In contrast, agricultural commodity variance risk premia in log return terms are more likely to be constant and less correlated with the log risk-neutral expected variance. Variance and price (return) risk premia in agricultural markets are weakly correlated, and the correlation depends on the sign of the returns in the underlying commodity. Practical implications Commodity variance (i.e. volatility) risk cannot be hedged using futures markets. The results have practical implications for US crop insurance programs because the implied volatilities from the relevant options markets are used to estimate the price volatility factors used to generate premia for revenue insurance products such as “Revenue Protection” and “Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion.” The variance risk premia found implies that revenue insurance premia are overpriced. Originality/value The empirical results suggest that the implied volatilities in corn and soybean futures market overestimate true expected volatility by approximately 15 percent. This has implications for derivative products, such as revenue insurance, that use these implied volatilities to calculate fair premia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Fousekis ◽  
Dimitra Tzaferi

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the contemporaneous link between price volatility and trading volume in the futures markets of energy. Design/methodology/approach Non-parametric (local linear) regression models and formal statistical tests are used to assess monotonicity, linearity and symmetry. The data are daily price and volumes from five futures markets (West Texas Intermediate, Brent, gasoline, heating oil and natural gas) in the USA. Findings Trading volume and price volatility have, in all markets, a strong nonlinear relation to each other. There are violations of monotonicity locally but not globally. The qualitative nature of the price shocks may have implications for the trading activity locally. Originality/value To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first manuscript that investigates simultaneously and formally all the three important issues (i.e. monotonicity, linearity and asymmetry) for the price volatility–volume relationship using a highly flexible nonparametric approach.


1977 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen L. O'Bryan ◽  
Barry W. Bobst ◽  
Joe T. Davis

Recent commodity price volatility and development of new futures contracts has kindled interest in hedging among farmers in many parts of the country. Due to the importance of feeder cattle production in Kentucky and in the South generally, recent development of a feeder cattle contract is of special interest. This paper addresses some potential problems associated with use of feeder cattle futures markets by Kentucky producers. Specifically, it tries to: (1) determine the effect, if any, of location basis variability on ex post hedging results in Kentucky markets versus delivery markets at Omaha and Oklahoma City, (2) assess the ability of hedging to reduce revenue variability as compared to cash marketing and (3) determining the presence of bias in feeder cattle futures prices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document