A reappraisal of the forecasting performance of corn and soybean new crop futures

Forecasting performance of December corn and November soybean futures contracts during the previous spring was evaluated using the commonly specified price-level and percent-change models. These models invoke different assumptions regarding stationarity. Using Stein's analytical framework, results for the price-level model suggest avoidable social loss existed in the soybean market since 1973, because November futures provided biased forecasts. Regression R²s for both corn and soybeans declined substantially between 1952–1972 and 1973–1997, suggesting total social loss increased. By contrast, results from the percent-change model suggest only unavoidable social loss existed in the corn and soybean markets, because the futures provided unbiased forecasts. R² increased for corn but declined for soybeans, suggesting unavoidable social loss declined for corn, but increased for soybeans. The important, conflicting nature of the results from the two models underscores the importance of examining alternative model specifications when evaluating price forecasting performance. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 19: 604–618, 1999     

The realized volatility of FTSE‐100 futures prices

Five‐minute returns from FTSE‐100 index futures contracts are used to obtain accurate estimates of daily index volatility from January 1986 to December 1998. These realized volatility measures are used to obtain inferences about the distributional and autocorrelation properties of FTSE‐100 volatility. The distribution of volatility measured daily is similar to lognormal while the volatility time series has persistent positive autocorrelation that displays long‐memory effects. The distribution of daily returns standardized using the measures of realized volatility is shown to be close to normal, unlike the unconditional distribution. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:627–648, 2002     

Estimation bias of futures hedging performance: A note

The conventional approach applies an estimated optimal hedge ratio to evaluate and compare hedging performance. This note shows that the approach produces a biased result. Moreover, it tends to underestimate the true hedging performance. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:835–841, 2006