scholarly journals Relationship between Spot and Futures Markets of Selected Agricultural Commodities in India: An Efficiency and Causation Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghavendra RH ◽  
Velmurugan PS
Author(s):  
Nicole Moran

Society relies on agricultural commodities to feed and clothe the world’s population and play an important role in the economy as well as the financial markets. Unlike other commodities, agricultural commodities (grains and oilseeds, dairy, and softs) have unique characteristics that may include seasonality, perishability, and production dependent on weather conditions. Further, these products are an important part of international trade and are crucial in providing food security to ensure a stable supply of food worldwide. Financial investments within the agriculture industry have increased over the last several decades due in part to the commercialization of food production, the introduction of agricultural commodity index funds, and the increased investment in futures markets. This chapter introduces the major agricultural products, discusses price determinants and how to invest in agriculture, and highlights the differences between agricultural commodities and other commodities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Keshab Shrestha ◽  
Ravichandran Subramaniam ◽  
Thangarajah Thiyagarajan

In this study, we empirically analyze the contribution of futures markets to the price discovery process for seven agricultural commodities using the generalized information share proposed by Lien and Shrestha (2014) and component share based on the permanent-temporary decomposition proposed by Gonzalo and Granger (1995). We find that most of the price discovery takes place in the futures markets with the exception of cocoa. Our results show that futures markets play an important role in price discovery process. These results are important to academicians, practitioners, policymakers as well as business leaders.


1997 ◽  
Vol 48 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 408-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Aulton ◽  
C. T. Ennew ◽  
A. J. Rayner

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeria Martinez ◽  
Paramita Gupta ◽  
Yiuman Tse ◽  
Jullavut Kittiakarasakun

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Meniscal tears and osteoarthritis (osteoarthrosis, degenerative arthritis, or degenerative joint disease) are two of the most common conditions involving the knee. This article includes definitions of apportionment and causes; presents a case report of initial and recurrent tears of the medial meniscus plus osteoarthritis (OA) in the medial compartment of the knee; and addresses questions regarding apportionment. The authors, experienced impairment raters who are knowledgeable regarding the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), show that, when instructions on impairment rating are incomplete, unclear, or inconsistent, interrater reliability diminishes (different physicians may derive different impairment estimates). Accurate apportionment of impairment is a demanding task that requires detailed knowledge of causation for the conditions in question; the mechanisms of injury or extent of exposures; prior and current symptoms, functional status, physical findings, and clinical study results; and use of the appropriate edition of the AMA Guides. Sometimes the available data are incomplete, requiring the rating physician to make assumptions. However, if those assumptions are reasonable and consistent with the medical literature and facts of the case, if the causation analysis is plausible, and if the examiner follows impairment rating instructions in the AMA Guides (or at least uses a rational and hence defensible method when instructions are suboptimal), the resulting apportionment should be credible.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.


2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document