๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

A note on agricultural options and the variance of futures prices

โœ Scribed by Nikolaos T. Milonas


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
1986
Tongue
English
Weight
351 KB
Volume
6
Category
Article
ISSN
0270-7314

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


he recent introduction of options on agricultural futures has fueled a growing T research interest on issues ranging from risk-return characteristics of option hedging strategies to the valuation of commodity options. Valuation models for options on common stocks have been extensively used ever since Black and Scholes published their seminal paper in 1972. However, direct application of the traditional option pricing models in evaluating agricultural futures options may not be appropriate, especially if the assumptions used to derive the model are not met. The objective of this article is to draw attention to the validity of the assumption of constant variance of the underlying futures price within the framework of an options pricing model. Furthermore, we aim to improve on current aproaches in this area by utilizing recent evidence in futures markets.

Recent evidence which appeared in this Journal (Castelino and Francis, 1982;Anderson, 1985;and Milonas, 1986a) and elsewhere (Castelino, 1981 and Milonas, 1986b) strongly supports Samuelson's (1965) maturity effect hypothesis (futures variance increases as maturity nears) for a wide range of agricultural, metals and financial futures contracts. The agreement of the above studies on the maturity effect is due to the use of a large number of observations and to an improved methodology over previous methodologies which presented mixed results (Miller, 1979 andRutledge, 1976). The new methodology attempted either to control for nonstationarity sources such as the "year effect", "month effect" or "contract month effect" (Castelino, 1981and Milonas, 1986a, 1986b); or to explicitly capture the seasonal factors (Anderson, 1985). Direct measurement of the above nonstationarities was given by Milonas and Vora (1985), whose study also suggested that the incorporation of the above nonstationarities in methodologies dealing with futures prices is required in order to avoid serious biases.

Hauser and Neff (1985), use agricultural options as an example in which direct *The able computer assistance of Jonathan Weaver is acknowledged.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Interdependencies between agricultural c
โœ P. J. Dawson; B. White ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2002 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 126 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

## Abstract Interdependencies between commodity prices can arise from the impact of changing macroeconomic variables, from complementarities or substitutabilities between commodities, or from common responses by speculators. Malliaris and Urrutia (1996) found significant linkages between rollover p

The hedging performance in new agricultu
โœ Joost M. E. Pennings; Matthew T. G. Meulenberg ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1997 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 74 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 2 views

Agribusiness companies and farmers must cope with the risk of price changes when buying or selling agricultural commodities. Hedging price risk with agricultural commodity futures offers a way of minimizing this risk. Information is needed on the hedging effectiveness of these futures. Because many

A note on the valuation of compound opti
โœ Fatma Lajeri-Chaherli ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2002 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 107 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 2 views

## Abstract The value of a compound option, __an option on an option__, has been derived by Geske (1976) using Fourier integrals. This article presents two alternative proofs to derive the value of a compound option. One proof is based on the martingale approach, which provides a simple and powerfu

A note: Do futures prices always reflect
โœ Betsey A. Kuhn ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1988 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 292 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

## DO FUTURES PRICES ALWAYS REFLECT THE CHEAPEST DELIVERABLE GRADE OF THE COMMODITY? his note concerns the price behavior of multi-grade futures contracts. the cash price of the least expensive quality of the commodity deliverable on the futures contract, allowing for any quality differentials sp