Grain Futures Markets: What Have They Learned?
Taken together, studies that examine how well commodity futures markets perform find that risk premiums are common—and so unbiasedness is not—and markets are not uniformly efficient across commodities or forecast horizons. This large body of research sheds important light on whether and to what extent commodity-futures markets forecast optimally future spot prices and, so, enable commercials to manage price risk by effectively parsing out much of it to speculators, a process that improves the total welfare of an economy with competitive but otherwise-incomplete markets. Nevertheless, that speculators can, in effect, improve welfare in this way has done little to quell popular hostilities toward futures markets. Such hostilities—and, in particular, those directed at speculators—in North America date to the inception of these markets in the nineteenth century, and have contributed to the unflattering depiction of the early futures exchange as an inchoate and poorly managed institution that initially served only the (illegitimate) aspirations of gamblers, an original-sin creation narrative that surely compromises the legitimacy of modern futures markets. Unfortunately, economists’ understanding of early commodity-futures markets is particularly fragmented—the extant literature focuses almost exclusively on the post-World War II era—and, as such, claims regarding the performance of early futures markets remain largely unsubstantiated in any quantitatively measurable sense. In this paper, I test and compare the efficiency properties of wheat, corn, and oats futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBT) from 1880 to 1890 and from 1997 to 2007. I demonstrate that, on balance, these nascent nineteenth-century grain-futures markets were, like their contemporary counterparts in this case, mostly efficient. As such, these results support the claims of early proponents of futures markets who argued that the development of the futures exchange was shaped primarily by commercial interests who sought to mitigate price risk.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (217) 333-1810
Fax: (217) 333-5538
Web page: http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/nccc134/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Engle, Robert F & Granger, Clive W J, 1987. "Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 251-76, March.
- White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-38, May.
- Danthine, Jean-Pierre, 1978. "Information, futures prices, and stabilizing speculation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 79-98, February.
- Joseph Santos, 2002. "Did Futures Markets Stabilise US Grain Prices?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 25-36.
- Johansen, Soren, 1988. "Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 231-254.
- Dickey, David A & Fuller, Wayne A, 1981. "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1057-72, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nccc09:53040. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.