Cointegration Analysis of Commodity Prices: Much Ado about the Wrong Thing? Mindy L. Mallory and Sergio H. Lence September 17, 2010

Similar documents
Demand for Coffee: The Role of Prices, Preferences and Market Power

Integration of Major Agricultural Product Markets of China

Gasoline Empirical Analysis: Competition Bureau March 2005

Update to A Comprehensive Look at the Empirical Performance of Equity Premium Prediction

Dietary Diversity in Urban and Rural China: An Endogenous Variety Approach

STOCHASTIC LONG MEMORY IN TRADED GOODS PRICES

Asymmetric Return and Volatility Transmission in Conventional and Islamic Equities

Not to be published - available as an online Appendix only! 1.1 Discussion of Effects of Control Variables

VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF TEA MARKETS IN VIETNAM

BORDEAUX WINE VINTAGE QUALITY AND THE WEATHER ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

Composition and Value of Loin Primals

The Development of a Weather-based Crop Disaster Program

AAFCO Meeting August, Moisture Best Practices By Dr. Jane Caldwell Assistant Technical Director Midwest Laboratories

Preferred citation style

Gail E. Potter, Timo Smieszek, and Kerstin Sailer. April 24, 2015

Impact of Changes in Dietary Preferences on U.S. Retail Demand for Beef: Health Concerns and the Role of Media

Fair Trade and Free Entry: Can a Disequilibrium Market Serve as a Development Tool? Online Appendix September 2014

Imputation of multivariate continuous data with non-ignorable missingness

Testing the J-Curve Hypothesis: A Case of Nepal #

The Effects of Exchange Rate Change on the Trade Balance of Slovakia

Final Exam Financial Data Analysis (6 Credit points/imp Students) March 2, 2006

Problem Set #3 Key. Forecasting

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Import Demand for Nuts

Long Memory in Turkish Inflation Rates

Forecasting the spot prices of various coffee types using linear and non-linear error correction models

Comparing R print-outs from LM, GLM, LMM and GLMM

STAT 5302 Applied Regression Analysis. Hawkins

Effects of Election Results on Stock Price Performance: Evidence from 1976 to 2008

The J-Curve Effect on the Trade Balance in Armenia

Study on Export and Retail Price Behavior of Coffee Seed in India: An Econometric Analysis

Should We Put Ice in Wine? A Difference-in-Differences Approach from Switzerland

Valuation in the Life Settlements Market

Appendix A. Table A.1: Logit Estimates for Elasticities

Flexible Working Arrangements, Collaboration, ICT and Innovation

The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective

Tariff Endogeneity: Effects of Export Price of Desiccated Coconuts on Edible Oil Market in Sri Lanka

An Empirical Comparison of Coffee Price Transmission in Vietnam and Colombia

Demographic Change, Price Subsidy and the Rising Oil Demand in OPEC

Are United Kingdom expenditure data well-behaved?

Asymmetric fuel price responses under heterogeneity

Coffee Market Liberalisation and the Implications for Producers in Brazil, Guatemala and India*

Pitfalls for the Construction of a Welfare Indicator: An Experimental Analysis of the Better Life Index

wine 1 wine 2 wine 3 person person person person person

Does Consumer Sentiment Predict Regional Consumption?

The Nature of the Relationship Between International Tourism and. International Trade: the Case of German Imports of Spanish Wine

Online Appendix to. Are Two heads Better Than One: Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games. David C. Cooper and John H.

The dynamics of national innovation systems: a panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity

Missing value imputation in SAS: an intro to Proc MI and MIANALYZE

The Bank Lending Channel of Conventional and Unconventional Monetary Policy: A Euro-area bank-level Analysis

To: Professor Roger Bohn & Hyeonsu Kang Subject: Big Data, Assignment April 13th. From: xxxx (anonymized) Date: 4/11/2016

STRUCTURAL BREAKS, COINTEGRATION AND THE DOMESTIC DEMAND FOR CHILEAN WINE

Comparative Analysis of Fresh and Dried Fish Consumption in Ondo State, Nigeria

Hybrid ARIMA-ANN Modelling for Forecasting the Price of Robusta Coffee in India

Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Jg., Heft 5, 2015, Online- Anhang

PSYC 6140 November 16, 2005 ANOVA output in R

Analysis of Fruit Consumption in the U.S. with a Quadratic AIDS Model

Cattle Summary. Million Pound /19 11/21 10/24 12/5 11/7 1/ USD per CWT

A latent class approach for estimating energy demands and efficiency in transport:

The premium for organic wines

Regression Models for Saffron Yields in Iran

PRICE TRANSMISSION AND ADJUSTMENT IN THE ETHIOPIAN COFFEE MARKET

The R survey package used in these examples is version 3.22 and was run under R v2.7 on a PC.

Table A.1: Use of funds by frequency of ROSCA meetings in 9 research sites (Note multiple answers are allowed per respondent)

Discussion Papers. John Beirne Guglielmo Maria Caporale Marianne Schulze-Ghattas Nicola Spagnolo

Relationships Among Wine Prices, Ratings, Advertising, and Production: Examining a Giffen Good

Appendix A. Table A1: Marginal effects and elasticities on the export probability

Cost Pass-Through in the Swedish Coffee Market

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN (Paper) ISSN (Online) Vol.5, No.5, 2014

GRAIN TRADE AUSTRALIA. Section 9 MILLING BY-PRODUCTS & FIBRE STANDARDS 2014/2015 SEASON

The hedonic price of pair trade coffee for the Italian consumer

A Comparison of Approximate Bayesian Bootstrap and Weighted Sequential Hot Deck for Multiple Imputation

"Primary agricultural commodity trade and labour market outcome

Citrus Attributes: Do Consumers Really Care Only About Seeds? Lisa A. House 1 and Zhifeng Gao

Analysis of Things (AoT)

Dairy Market R E P O R T

The multivariate piecewise linear growth model for ZHeight and zbmi can be expressed as:

QUARTELY MAIZE MARKET ANALYSIS & OUTLOOK BULLETIN 1 OF 2015

(A report prepared for Milk SA)

Spatial and Temporal Maize Price Analysis in East Africa

Market Report provided by American Restaurant Associationwww.AmericanRestaurantAssociation.com-

The Elasticity of Substitution between Land and Capital: Evidence from Chicago, Berlin, and Pittsburgh

PEEL RIVER HEALTH ASSESSMENT

Using Growing Degree Hours Accumulated Thirty Days after Bloom to Help Growers Predict Difficult Fruit Sizing Years

Analysis of Influencing Factors of Deviation of Consumer Willingness and Behavior in Popular Tea Consumption

INSTITUTE AND FACULTY OF ACTUARIES CURRICULUM 2019 SPECIMEN SOLUTIONS. Subject CS1B Actuarial Statistics

Saskatchewan September 2017

The Sources of Risk Spillovers among REITs: Asset Similarities and Regional Proximity

Impact of Port Reform, Political and Economic Events on Maritime Traffic in Chinese Ports

( ) Page: 1/21 NOTIFICATION

Wine-Tasting by Numbers: Using Binary Logistic Regression to Reveal the Preferences of Experts

Missing Data Treatments

Alberta Agri-Food Exports, 2008 to 2017 (1)

A Note on a Test for the Sum of Ranksums*

Quality of western Canadian peas 2009

Journal of Applied Economics

The Wage Effects of Fixed-term Contract Employment Revisited: an Investigation Based on Social Security Records. Preliminary!

Market Report provided by American Restaurant Associationwww.AmericanRestaurantAssociation.com-

Working Paper. Working Papers in Interdisciplinary Economics and Business Research

MONTHLY REPORTS EDIBLE OIL JUNE - JULY 2016

Transcription:

Cointegration Analysis of Commodity Prices: Much Ado about the Wrong Thing? Mindy L. Mallory and Sergio H. Lence September 17, 2010

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices What is cointegration analysis?

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Ethanol Corn 2 1 0

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices How do we use cointegration analysis? Spatial Arbitrage Law of One Price Trade Conditions Purchasing Power Parity Farm-Retail, Retail-Farm Price Transmission

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Two Basic Approaches Error Correction Type Models Include an equilibrium term in a VAR type model Residual Based Models Test for unit root in the residuals of a regression of one variable on the others

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Residual Based Models Test for unit root in the residuals of a regression of one variable on the others x = β + β x + βx + ε 1t 0 1 2t 3t t

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Residual Based Models Test for unit root in the residuals of a regression of one variable on the others x = β + β x + βx + ε 1t 0 1 2t 3t t p = β + β p + βp + ε corn ethanol natural gas t 0 1 t t t

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Residual Based Models Test for unit root in the residuals of a regression of one variable on the others x = β + β x + βx + ε 1t 0 1 2t 3t t p = β + β p + β p + ε corn ethanol natural gas t 0 1 t t t

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Error Correction Type Models Include an equilibrium term in a VAR type model k 1 αβ t ' t 1 i= 1 i t i t X = X + Γ X + e

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Error Correction Type Models c c c p t p t p t 1 p = αβ ' p + Γ p + e ng ng ng p t p t p t 1 eth eth eth t t t 1 t

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Error Correction Type Models c c c p t p t p t 1 p = αβ ' p + Γ p + e ng ng ng p t p t p t 1 eth eth eth t t t 1 t Johansen test: estimates the rank of the matrix αβ

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Previous Research Unit Root testing (therefore residual based tests) Negative Moving Average (NMA) in the error term small sample size distortion and low power Schwert 1989 notes that DF type tests do not converge to stated asymptotic distribution when NMA present

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Previous Research Error Correction Johansen framework Also note poor small sample performance when NMA is present Cheung and Lai, Toda, Johansen (2002), Ahn and Reinsel, and Reimers Engle (2000)

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Our study: How prevalent are NMA errors in commodity price data? How bad is the size distortion-low power? How much data does one need to overcome the small sample issues?

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices How prevalent are NMA errors in commodity price data?

Commodity Model: φ 1 φ 2 φ 3 φ 4 θ 1 θ 2 θ 3 θ 4 R 2 Alfalfa meal 1.73 *** 0.99 *** 1.70 *** 0.96 *** 0.087 (160.34) ( 92.25) ( 71.71) (40.51) Barley 0.91 *** 0.63 *** 0.13 ** 0.69 *** 0.37 *** 0.145 (6.17) (-7.56) (2.35) ( 4.66) (4.08) Butter 1.32 *** 0.95 *** 1.30 *** 0.99 *** 0.050 ( (60.02) ( 43.31) 129.25) (99.11) Chicken, 0.23 0.23 0.043 whole (0.94) ( 0.09) Chicken 0.72 0.67 0.003 breast ( 1.49) (1.31) Chicken Legs 1.60 *** 0.87 *** 1.58 *** 0.81 0.058 (18.90) ( 11.14) ( 16.00) (8.09) Corn 0.13 0.10 0.17 *** 0.10 0.11 0.048 ( 0.27) (0.22) (3.42) ( 0.95) ( 1.62) Corn gluten 1.04 *** 0.06 0.45 ** 0.14 ** 1.02 *** 0.21 0.68 *** 0.106 feed (6.14) (0.19) ( 2.06) ( 2.29) ( 6.15) ( 0.74) (4.13) Corn gluten 0.87 *** 0.07 0.004 0.10 0.97 *** 0.062 meal (13.54) ( 0.98) (0.058) (1.65) ( 31.40) Corn meal 0.35 0.54 *** 0.037 ( 1.51) (2.57)

Commodity Model: φ 1 φ 2 φ 3 φ 4 θ 1 θ 2 θ 3 θ 4 R 2 Cottonseed 0.23 0.18 0.06 0.13 * 0.15 0.143 meal ( 0.51) ( 1.03) ( 0.55) ( 1.91) ( 0.33) Crude oil 1.27 *** 0.23 ** 0.18 *** 0.90 *** 0.244 (15.88) ( 2.23) ( 2.69) ( 16.06) Diesel 1.10 *** 0.1 0.12 * 0.93 *** 0.073 (13.55) ( 1.11) ( 1.91) ( 16.52) Eggs 1.62 *** 0.81 0.11 1.79 *** 1.11 ** 0.08 0.123 (5.59) ( 1.60) ( 0.39) ( 6.14) (2.22) ( 0.27) Feeder cattle 0.90 *** 0.98 *** 0.87 *** 0.98 *** 0.040 ( 55.08) ( 60.26) (55.42) (63.59) Gasoline 1.90 *** 1.53 *** 0.58 *** 0.25 *** 1.73 *** 1.00 *** 0.198 (31.53) ( 11.99) (4.46) ( 3.94) (64.41) (64.41) Ground beef 0.02 0.17 0.033 ( 0.07) ( 0.58) High fructose 1.67 *** 1.81 *** 1.50 *** 0.87 *** 1.55 *** 1.56 *** 1.39 *** 0.82 *** 0.266 corn syrup (28.04) ( 15.98) (13.91) ( 16.17) ( 24.84) (15.01) ( 14.47) (15.02)

Commodity Model: φ 1 φ 2 φ 3 φ 4 θ 1 θ 2 θ 3 θ 4 R 2 Lean hogs 0.47 ** 0.02 0.12 ** 0.52 ** 0.026 (2.21) ( 0.46) ( 2.22) ( 2.43) Live cattle 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.20 *** 0.19 *** 0.085 (0.52) ( 0.21) ( 1.34) ( 4.32) ( 2.98) Meat and 0.99 *** 0.34 *** 0.30 *** 0.13 ** 0.90 *** 0.077 bone meal ( 9.18) ( 4.46) ( 3.38) ( 2.33) (9.31) Milk, 2.59 *** 3.11 *** 1.94 *** 0.62 *** 2.12 *** 2.27 *** 1.43 *** 0.57 *** 0.520 farmgate (23.35) ( 11.76) (7.82) ( 6.87) ( 19.78) (11.17) ( 8.90) (8.99) Milk, 0.07 0.11 0.21 ** 0.56 0.214 wholesale ( 0.15) (0.44) ( 1.94) (1.07) Oats 0.04 0.29 0.058 ( 0.15) (1.18) Pork bellies 0.80 *** 0.15 *** 0.09 * 0.96 *** 0.046 (15.86) (2.63) ( 1.91) ( 40.57) Potatoes 1.38 *** 0.49 *** 0.96 *** 0.256 (24.31) ( 8.92) ( 36.63) Sorghum 0.37 0.23 0.063 (0.21) (1.24)

Commodity Model: φ 1 φ 2 φ 3 φ 4 θ 1 θ 2 θ 3 θ 4 R 2 Soybean 0.85 *** 0.09 0.12 ** 0.94 *** 0.043 (15.94) (1.59) ( 2.46) ( 30.63) Soy meal 0.13 0.06 0.20 *** 0.12 0.041 (0.58) (1.43) ( 4.43) ( 0.52) Soy oil 0.11 0.23 ** 0.17 *** 0.36 0.137 (0.35) (2.31) ( 2.97) ( 1.12) Sugar 0.97 *** 0.95 *** 0.51 *** 0.01 0.43 *** 0.89 *** 0.541 (15.49) ( 13.83) (8.66) ( 0.19) ( 11.33) (26.50) Urea 0.69 *** 0.83 *** 0.34 *** 0.39 0.95 *** 0.64 *** 0.85 *** 0.222 ( 9.99) (8.00) (4.11) ( 6.83) (16.80) ( 6.55) ( 15.26) Wheat 0.00 0.31 0.088 (0.003) (1.86) * Wheat bran 1.06 *** 0.17 0.67 *** 1.28 *** 0.03 0.88 *** 0.27 *** 0.160 (4.64) (0.42) ( 2.95) ( 5.72) ( 0.08) (3.22) ( 4.34) Wheat flour 1.00 *** 1.08 *** 0.09 0.05 ( 156) (19.61) (1.63)

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices How prevalent are NMA errors in commodity price data? 20 out of 35 have NMA significantly diff from zero at 5% 26 out of 35 have NMA point estimates

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices Monte Carlo Investigation (following Banerjee et al 1986 and Haug 1996) X X = ε, ε = ρε + u 1, t 2, t t t t 1 t X + X =Ψ, Ψ =Ψ + v, v = w + θ w 1, t 2, t t t t 1 t t t t 1 2 u iid t 0 σ, u σ uw N 2 w = t 0 σuw σ w

Cointegration Analysis, Commodity Prices 2. Monte Carlo Investigation k 1 X = αβ ' X + Γ X + e t t 1 i= 1 i t i t

Table 4: Empirical Daily Data from a Bivariate System. Parameterization b Sample Length Empirical Size Based on Standard 5% Asymptotic Critical Value b Actual 5% Critical Value Trace Test Max Test Trace Test Max Test θ = 0, k = 2 1 month 0.18 0.12 24.38 20.24 3 months 0.08 0.04 19.58 16.15 6 months 0.06 0.03 18.49 15.35 2 years 0.05 0.03 18.22 15.34 4 years 0.05 0.03 18.27 15.17 10 years 0.05 0.03 18.44 15.33 20 years 0.05 0.03 18.16 15.00 100 years 0.05 0.03 18.22 15.11 θ = 0.8, k = 2 1 month 0.20 0.14 25.07 20.89 3 months 0.07 0.04 19.33 16.02 6 months 0.06 0.03 18.63 15.44 2 years 0.05 0.03 18.11 14.95 4 years 0.04 0.02 17.72 14.69 10 years 0.04 0.02 17.74 14.88 20 years 0.04 0.02 17.83 14.84 100 years 0.04 0.02 17.68 14.62

Table 4: Empirical Daily Data from a Bivariate System. Parameterization b Sample Length Empirical Size Based on Standard 5% Asymptotic Critical Value b Actual 5% Critical Value Trace Test Max Test Trace Test Max Test θ = 0.8, k = 2 1 month 0.22 0.15 25.13 20.92 3 months 0.39 0.30 28.37 25.06 6 months 0.60 0.52 35.48 32.03 2 years 0.73 0.67 53.01 49.91 4 years 0.75 0.70 58.54 55.68 10 years 0.77 0.71 63.71 61.04 20 years 0.77 0.72 66.14 62.99 100 years 0.77 0.72 68.08 65.29

Table 6. Size-Adjusted Finite-Sample Power under the Alternative of Cointegration for Daily Data from a Bivariate System. Persistence a Sample θ = 0, k = 2 b θ = 0.8, k = 2 b θ = 0.8, k = 2 b θ = 0.8, k = 4 b Length Trace Trace Max Trace Max Trace Max Test Max Test Test Test Test Test Test Test ρ = 0.90 1 month 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 3 months 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.05 6 months 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.04 2 years 0.99 0.99 0.99 1 0.22 0.03 0.57 0.32 4 years 1 1 1 1 0.71 0.25 1 1 10 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ρ = 0.95 1 month 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 3 months 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 6 months 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.04 2 years 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.60 0.09 0.03 0.18 0.05 4 years 1 1 1 1 0.17 0.02 0.61 0.32 10 years 1 1 1 1 0.90 0.62 1 1 20 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 11: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths, Based on Twenty Years of Simulated Monthly Data Under the Null Hypothesis of No Cointegration NMA in the Error Term.

Figure 10: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths, Based on Twenty Years of Simulated Monthly Data Under the Null Hypothesis of No Cointegration No NMA in the Error Term.

Figure 1: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths of Crack Spread Price Data.

Figure 2: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths of Wheat, Flour, and Bran Price Data.

Figure 3: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths of Soybean Crush Price Data.

Figure 4: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths of Cattle Crush Price Data.

Figure 5: Johansen s Trace and Max Statistics for Varying Sample Lengths of Lean Hogs and Pork Bellies Price Data.

Thank You! Presented in the Fall 2010 seminar series of the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 Mindy L. Mallory and Sergio H. Lence 2010

Commodity Group H 0 a Trace Test Maximum Eigenvalue Test Test Critical Value b Test Critical Value b Statistic 5% 1% Statistic 5% 1% Chicken: whole, breast, r 0 56.49 29.68 35.65 48.57 20.97 25.52 and legs r 1 7.91 15.41 20.04 5.22 14.07 18.63 r 2 2.70 3.76 6.65 2.70 3.76 6.65 Corn gluten feed and r 0 19.69 15.41 20.04 16.76 14.07 18.63 corn gluten meal r 1 2.93 3.76 6.65 2.93 3.76 6.65 Crack spread r 0 109.79 29.68 35.65 64.93 20.97 25.52 r 1 44.87 15.41 20.04 39.09 14.07 18.63 r 2 5.77 3.76 6.65 5.77 3.76 6.65 Corn, sorghum, barley, r 0 80.61 47.21 54.46 40.14 27.07 32.24 and oats r 1 40.47 29.68 35.65 23.32 20.97 25.52 r 2 17.15 15.41 20.04 10.73 14.07 18.63 r 3 6.41 3.76 6.65 6.42 3.76 6.65

Commodity Group H 0 a Trace Test Maximum Eigenvalue Test Test Critical Value b Test Critical Value b Statistic 5% 1% Statistic 5% 1% Lean hogs and r 0 42.46 15.41 20.04 27.11 14.07 18.63 pork bellies r 1 15.35 3.76 6.65 15.35 3.76 6.65 Live cattle, feeder r 0 92.15 29.68 35.65 71.37 20.97 25.52 cattle, and corn r 1 20.78 15.41 20.04 15.74 14.07 18.63 r 2 5.05 3.76 6.65 5.05 3.76 6.65 Milk and butter r 0 45.20 15.41 20.04 43.85 14.07 18.63 r 1 1.35 3.76 6.65 1.35 3.76 6.65 Soybean, soybean oil, r 0 84.35 29.68 35.65 52.04 20.97 25.52 and soybean meal r 1 32.31 15.41 20.04 24.19 14.07 18.63 r 2 8.11 3.76 6.65 8.11 3.76 6.65 Wheat, flour, and bran r 0 100.43 29.68 35.65 63.18 20.97 25.52 r 1 37.25 15.41 20.04 34.45 14.07 18.63 r 2 2.78 3.76 6.65 2.77 3.76 6.65

0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 15 20 25 30