Liquidity constraints and the hedging role of futures spreads

This paper examines the behavior of the competitive firm under price uncertainty in general and the hedging role of futures spreads in particular. The firm has access to a commodity futures market where unbiased nearby and distant futures contracts are transacted. A liquidity constraint is imposed on the firm such that the firm is forced to prematurely close its distant futures position whenever the net interim loss due to its nearby and distant futures positions exceeds a threshold level. This paper shows that the liquidity constrained firm optimally opts for a long nearby futures position and a short distant futures position should the firm be prudent, thereby rendering the optimality of using futures spreads for hedging purposes. This paper further shows that the firm's production decision is adversely affected by the presence of the liquidity constraint. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 24:909–921, 2004     

Liquidity supply and volatility: futures market evidence

This article examines the provision of liquidity in futures markets as price volatility changes. We find that customer trading costs do not increase with volatility. However, for three of the four contracts studied, the nature of liquidity supply changes with volatility. Specifically, for relatively inactive contracts, customers as a group trade more with each other and less with market makers, on higher volatility days. By contrast, for the most active contract, trading between customers and market makers increases with volatility. We also find that market makers' income per contract decreases with volatility for one of the least active contracts in our sample, but is not significantly affected by volatility for the other contracts. These results are consistent with the idea that, for high‐cost, inactive contracts, market makers react to temporary increases in volatility by raising their bid‐ask spreads significantly, and customers provide increased liquidity through standing limit orders. An implication of our results is that electronic systems, where market maker participation is not required, are able to supply adequate liquidity during volatile periods. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 21:1–17, 2001     

Fractional cointegration and futures hedging

This article examines the performance of various hedge ratios estimated from different econometric models: The FIEC model is introduced as a new model for estimating the hedge ratio. Utilized in this study are NSA futures data, along with the ARFIMA-GARCH approach, the EC model, and the VAR model. Our analysis identifies the prevalence of a fractional cointegration relationship. The effects of incorporating such a relationship into futures hedging are investigated, as is the relative performance of various models with respect to different hedge horizons. Findings include: (i) Incorporation of conditional heteroskedasticity improves hedging performance; (ii) the hedge ratio of the EC model is consistently larger than that of the FIEC model, with the EC providing better post-sample hedging performance in the return–risk context; (iii) the EC hedging strategy (for longer hedge horizons of ten days or more) incorporating conditional heteroskedasticty is the dominant strategy; (iv) incorporating the fractional cointegration relationship does not improve the hedging performance over the EC model; (v) the conventional regression method provides the worst hedging outcomes for hedge horizons of five days or more. Whether these results (based on the NSA index) can be generalized to other cases is proposed as a topic for further research. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 19: 457–474, 1999     

Minimum‐variance futures hedging under alternative return specifications

It is widely believed that the conventional futures hedge ratio, is variance‐minimizing when it is computed using percentage returns or log returns. It is shown that the conventional hedge ratio is variance‐minimizing when computed from returns measured in dollar terms but not from returns measured in percentage or log terms. Formulas for the minimum‐variance hedge ratio under percentage and log returns are derived. The difference between the conventional hedge ratio computed from percentage and log returns and the minimum‐variance hedge ratio is found to be relatively small when directly hedging, especially when using near‐maturity futures. However, the minimum‐variance hedge ratio can vary significantly from the conventional hedge ratio computed from percentage or log returns when used in cross‐hedging situations. Simulation analysis shows that the incorrect application of the conventional hedge ratio in crosshedging situations can substantially reduce hedging performance. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 25:537–552, 2005     

Extreme volatility,speculative efficiency,and the hedging effectiveness of the oil futures markets

This study investigates the efficiency of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Division light sweet crude oil futures contract market during recent periods of extreme conditional volatility. Crude oil futures contract prices are found to be cointegrated with spot prices and unbiased predictors of future spot prices, including the period prior to the onset of the Iraqi war and until the formation of the new Iraqi government in April 2005. Both futures and spot prices exhibit asymmetric volatility characteristics. Hedging performance is improved when asymmetries are accounted for. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 27:61–84, 2007     

Liquidity risk and the hedging role of options

This study examines the impact of liquidity risk on the behavior of the competitive firm under price uncertainty in a dynamic two‐period setting. The firm has access to unbiased one‐period futures and option contracts in each period for hedging purposes. A liquidity constraint is imposed on the firm such that the firm is forced to terminate its risk management program in the second period whenever the net loss due to its first‐period hedge position exceeds a predetermined threshold level. The imposition of the liquidity constraint on the firm is shown to create perverse incentives to output. Furthermore, the liquidity constrained firm is shown to purchase optimally the unbiased option contracts in the first period if its utility function is quadratic or prudent. This study thus offers a rationale for the hedging role of options when liquidity risk prevails. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:789–808, 2006     

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