Substitution between revenue futures and price futures contracts: A note

In recent years, commercial interest has been expressed in agricultural revenue insurance instruments. Participating parties may look to futures markets to offset assumed positions. In this note, conditions are identified such that revenue futures contracts are perfect substitutes for price futures contracts. If these conditions approximate reality, then it would seem questionable whether sufficient interest would exist to sustain markets in both futures contracts. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:387–391, 2002     

Order imbalance and the pricing of index futures

This study examines whether the aggregate order imbalance for index stocks can explain the arbitrage spread between index futures and the underlying cash index. The study covers the period of the Asian financial crisis and includes wide variations in order imbalance and the indexfutures basis. The analysis controls for realistic trading costs and actual dividend payments. The results indicate that the arbitrage spread is positively related to the aggregate order imbalance in the underlying index stocks; negative order‐imbalance has a stronger impact than positive order imbalance. Violations of the upper no‐arbitrage bound are related to positive order imbalance; of the lower no‐arbitrage bound to negative order imbalance. Asymmetric response times to negative and positive spreads can be attributed to the difficulty, cost, and risk of short stock arbitrage when the futures are below their no‐arbitrage value. The significant relationship between order imbalance and arbitrage spread confirms that index arbitrageurs are important providers of liquidity in the futures market when the stock market is in disequilibrium. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 27:697–717, 2007     

The drift factor in biased futures index pricing models: A new look

The presence of bias in index futures prices has been investigated in various research studies. Redfield ( 11 ) asserted that the U.S. Dollar Index (USDX) futures contract traded on the U.S. Cotton Exchange (now the FINEX division of the New York Board of Trade) could be systematically arbitraged for nontrivial returns because it is expressed in so‐called “European terms” (foreign currency units/U.S. dollar). Eytan, Harpaz, and Krull ( 4 ) (EHK) developed a theoretical factor using Brownian motion to correct for the European terms and the bias due to the USDX index being expressed as a geometric average. Harpaz, Krull, and Yagil ( 5 ) empirically tested the EHK index. They used the historical volatility to proxy the EHK volatility specification. Since 1990, it has become more commonplace to use option‐implied volatility for forecasting future volatility. Therefore, we have substituted option implied volatilities into EHK's correction factor and hypothesized that the correction factor is “better” ex ante and therefore should lead to better futures model pricing. We tested this conjecture using twelve contracts from 1995 through 1997 and found that the use of implied volatility did not improve the bias correction over the use of historical volatility. Furthermore, no matter which volatility specification we used, the model futures price appeared to be mis‐specified. To investigate further, we added a simple naïve δ based on a modification of the adaptive expectations model. Repeating the tests using this naïve “drift” factor, it performed substantially better than the other two specifications. Our conclusion is that there may be a need to take a new look at the drift‐factor specification currently in use. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:579–598, 2002