IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21479.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Has the Performance of the Hog Options Market Changed?

Author

Listed:
  • Urcola, Hernan A.
  • Irwin, Scott H.

Abstract

The hog option contract has served as a risk management tool for the pork industry for more than 20 years. However, very limited information exists about how this market behaves and how it was affected by the contract redesign of 1996. This paper evaluates the efficiency of hog options markets comparing its pricing function during the live hog contract period to the lean hog contract period. Trading returns are computed and adjusted for risk using the Sharpe ratio and the Capital Asset Pricing Model. When the whole sample period is analyzed, results indicate that no profits can be made by taking either side of the hog options markets. However, analyzing the live and the lean hog contracts separately, some evidence suggest that opportunities for speculative profits existed during the live hog contract period. These conclusions are not driven by the extreme price movements in the futures price occurred during late 1998. Further research should investigate whether general futures price movements are responsible for these large returns.

Suggested Citation

  • Urcola, Hernan A. & Irwin, Scott H., 2006. "Has the Performance of the Hog Options Market Changed?," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21479, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/21479
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    2. William Goetzmann & Jonathan Ingersoll & Matthew I. Spiegel & Ivo Welch, 2002. "Sharpening Sharpe Ratios," NBER Working Papers 9116, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. " The Limits of Arbitrage," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 35-55, March.
    4. Carter, Colin A & Rausser, Gordon C & Schmitz, Andrew, 1983. "Efficient Asset Portfolios and the Theory of Normal Backwardation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(2), pages 319-331, April.
    5. Black, Fischer, 1976. "The pricing of commodity contracts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1-2), pages 167-179.
    6. Jackwerth, Jens Carsten, 2000. "Recovering Risk Aversion from Option Prices and Realized Returns," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 13(2), pages 433-451.
    7. Lence, Sergio H., 1996. "Relaxing The Assumptions Of Minimum-Variance Hedging," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(01), July.
    8. Nicolas P. B. Bollen & Robert E. Whaley, 2004. "Does Net Buying Pressure Affect the Shape of Implied Volatility Functions?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 59(2), pages 711-753, April.
    9. Joshua D. Coval, 2001. "Expected Option Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(3), pages 983-1009, June.
    10. Park, Cheol-Ho & Irwin, Scott H., 2004. "The Profitability Of Technical Trading Rules In Us Futures Markets: A Data Snooping Free Test," 2004 Conference, April 19-20, 2004, St. Louis, Missouri 19011, NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    11. Marcus, Alan J, 1984. "Efficient Asset Portfolios and the Theory of Normal Backwardation: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(1), pages 162-164, February.
    12. Dusak, Katherine, 1973. "Futures Trading and Investor Returns: An Investigation of Commodity Market Risk Premiums," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(6), pages 1387-1406, Nov.-Dec..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.