Liquidity and Risk Premia in Electricity Futures Markets

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

BORDEAUX WINE VINTAGE QUALITY AND THE WEATHER ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

DETERMINANTS OF GROWTH

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

Internet Appendix for Does Stock Liquidity Enhance or Impede Firm Innovation? *

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DAIRY INDUSTRY 1

Flexible Working Arrangements, Collaboration, ICT and Innovation

Investment Wines. - Risk Analysis. Prepared by: Michael Shortell & Adiam Woldetensae Date: 06/09/2015

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

Monthly Economic Letter

QUARTELY MAIZE MARKET ANALYSIS & OUTLOOK BULLETIN 1 OF 2015

Gasoline Empirical Analysis: Competition Bureau March 2005

Paper Reference IT Principal Learning Information Technology. Level 3 Unit 2: Understanding Organisations

Financing Decisions of REITs and the Switching Effect

COMPARISON OF CORE AND PEEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR DRY MATTER MEASUREMENT IN HASS AVOCADO FRUIT

The Financing and Growth of Firms in China and India: Evidence from Capital Markets

Figure 1: Quartely milk production and gross value

1/17/manufacturing-jobs-used-to-pay-really-well-notanymore-e/

The Roles of Social Media and Expert Reviews in the Market for High-End Goods: An Example Using Bordeaux and California Wines

This appendix tabulates results summarized in Section IV of our paper, and also reports the results of additional tests.

The Development of a Weather-based Crop Disaster Program

Structural Reforms and Agricultural Export Performance An Empirical Analysis

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

Fairtrade Buying Behaviour: We Know What They Think, But Do We Know What They Do?

Internet Appendix to. The Price of Street Friends: Social Networks, Informed Trading, and Shareholder Costs. Jie Cai Ralph A.

Panel A: Treated firm matched to one control firm. t + 1 t + 2 t + 3 Total CFO Compensation 5.03% 0.84% 10.27% [0.384] [0.892] [0.

What does radical price change and choice reveal?

A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Italian Vinegars. Summary. The Model. Vinegar. Methodology. Survey. Results. Concluding remarks.

MARKET ANALYSIS REPORT NO 1 OF 2015: TABLE GRAPES

Debt and Debt Management among Older Adults

Appendix Table A1 Number of years since deregulation

Transportation demand management in a deprived territory: A case study in the North of France

ECONOMICS OF COCONUT PRODUCTS AN ANALYTICAL STUDY. Coconut is an important tree crop with diverse end-uses, grown in many states of India.

NZ Dairy Industry Report 2015

Emerging Local Food Systems in the Caribbean and Southern USA July 6, 2014

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

Dairy Market. Overview. Commercial Use of Dairy Products. U.S. Dairy Trade

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

Online Appendix to The Effect of Liquidity on Governance

The role of non-performing loans in the transmission of monetary policy

Online Appendix to Voluntary Disclosure and Information Asymmetry: Evidence from the 2005 Securities Offering Reform

COMMITTEE ON COMMODITY PROBLEMS

The age of reproduction The effect of university tuition fees on enrolment in Quebec and Ontario,

FACTORS DETERMINING UNITED STATES IMPORTS OF COFFEE

Downward correction as funds respond to increasingly positive supply outlook

Analysis of Things (AoT)

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

Coffee Holding Co. Inc. Buy Price Target: $6 Key Statistics as of 4/29/2016. Thesis Points: Company Description: JVA: NYSE

Internet Appendix. For. Birds of a feather: Value implications of political alignment between top management and directors

K.C.S.E YEAR 2010 PAPER 2 SECTION A Answer all the questions in this section. 1.. (a) Name two exotic species of trees planted in Kenya.

Problem Set #15 Key. Measuring the Effects of Promotion II

and the World Market for Wine The Central Valley is a Central Part of the Competitive World of Wine What is happening in the world of wine?

Problem Set #3 Key. Forecasting

November K. J. Martijn Cremers Lubomir P. Litov Simone M. Sepe

Relation between Grape Wine Quality and Related Physicochemical Indexes

Labor Supply of Married Couples in the Formal and Informal Sectors in Thailand

Dairy Market R E P O R T

MBA 503 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Preview. Introduction (cont.) Introduction. Comparative Advantage and Opportunity Cost (cont.) Comparative Advantage and Opportunity Cost

Oenometrics VII Conference Reims, May 11-13, Predicting Italian wines quality from weather data and experts ratings (DRAFT)

Preview. Introduction. Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

Data Science and Service Research Discussion Paper

The Impact of Free Trade Agreement on Trade Flows;

Dairy Market. May 2017

Fiscal Reaction Functions of Different Euro Area Countries

Statistics & Agric.Economics Deptt., Tocklai Experimental Station, Tea Research Association, Jorhat , Assam. ABSTRACT

Coffee Price Volatility and Intra-household Labour Supply: Evidence from Vietnam

Profitable Momentum Trading Strategies for Individual Investors

F&N 453 Project Written Report. TITLE: Effect of wheat germ substituted for 10%, 20%, and 30% of all purpose flour by

IRS Enforcement and State Corporate Income Tax Revenues. Margot Howard University of North Carolina June 20, 2013

Chapter V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Dairy Market. June 2017

Economic Contributions of the Florida Citrus Industry in and for Reduced Production

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

GLOBAL DAIRY UPDATE KEY DATES MARCH 2017

Tariff vs non tariff barriers in seafood trade

MANGO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK REPORT

THE IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON GULF OIL SPILL ON GULF COAST REAL ESTATE MARKETS

GLOBUS WINES. Wine Investment & Cellar Management. India London New York Hong Kong Tokyo

ICT Use and Exports. Patricia Kotnik, Eva Hagsten. This is a working draft. Please do not cite or quote without permission of the authors.

Fonterra: GLOBAL DAIRY UPDATE JULY 2013 ISSUE ELEVEN

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

PEEL RIVER HEALTH ASSESSMENT

World Cocoa Conference Nov 2012

IFPTI Fellowship Cohort V: Research Presentation Matthew Coleman, R.S., CP-FS

ARE THERE SKILLS PAYOFFS IN LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES?

Determining the Optimum Time to Pick Gwen

The aim of the thesis is to determine the economic efficiency of production factors utilization in S.C. AGROINDUSTRIALA BUCIUM S.A.

Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model. Pearson Education Limited All rights reserved.

Valuation in the Life Settlements Market

RESTAURANT OUTLOOK SURVEY

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WINE ECONOMISTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Prices for all coffee groups increased in May

Monthly Economic Letter

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

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM BINA NUSANTARA UNIVERSITY. Major Marketing Sarjana Ekonomi Thesis Odd semester year 2007

Soft and Semi-soft Cheese made from Unpasteurized/Raw Milk in Canada Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Food Directorate, Health Canada

Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

Preview. Chapter 3. Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model

Transcription:

Liquidity and Risk Premia in Electricity Futures Markets IAEE Conference, Singapore, June 2017 Ivan Diaz-Rainey Associate Professor of Finance & Co-Director of the Otago Energy Research Centre (OERC) With Fergus Bevin-McCrimmon, & Greg Sise (Energy Link Limited)

Outline 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Methodology 4. Results 4.1. Liquidity 4.2. Risk Premia 5. Conclusions

1. Introduction NZ >50% all generation in the form of hydro NZ: electricity market (1996); textbook reform (Joskow 2006) locational marginal pricing or nodal pricing Mandatory pool (all trades must come through the market) EA concerns about large risk premia & illiquidity of hedge market Low depth of volume & Large spreads Policy interventions (suasion): Mandatory MM and maximum spread Literature on the liquidity of electricity markets Frestad (2009): Nord Pool futures liquidity Hagemann & Weber (2013): German intraday market Established lit on RP but liquidity as a risk factor? Finance lit Liquidity as a risk factor (priced) 3

Research questions: RQ and Contribution How has the liquidity of the NZ electricity futures market evolved over time, and have policy-induced interventions to increase liquidity succeeded?; What drives risk premia in the NZ electricity futures markets and is (il)liquidity a factor in these premia? Contributions Augment the literature on the determinants of risk premia incorporate measures of (il)liquidity First analysis of liquidity and risk premia in the NZ EM Have policy-induced interventions improved liquidity of the futures markets. NZ ETS 4

2. Literature Modelling Risk Premia Statistical risk factors Bessembinder & Lemmon (2002): Skewness (+ve) and variance (-ve) Bunn & Chen (2013): Mixed results due to under specification Physical market factors Douglas & Popova (2008): What causes skewness and variance to vary Physical market Botterud et al. (2010): Factors which influence hedging decisions Production costs: Bunn & Chenn (2013) & Fleten et al. (2015) Speculative investor behaviour Liquidity? liquidity risk affects asset prices (Acharya and Pedersen, 2005; Amihud and Mendelson, 1986b; Amihud and Mendelson, 1986b). 5

3. Methodology Liquidity Open Interest - Number of contracts outstanding in the market Trading volume simplicity in calculation and interpretation Amihud s Illiquidity best performer in Marshall et al. (2012) Illiquidity Ratio t = r t V t Determine the effectiveness of policy measures through structural break tests Bai and Perron (2003) Identify changes in structure using global information criteria 6

3. Methodology Risk Premia Examine the ex post risk premia: RP t = F t,t S T Determine drivers of premia using models of increasing complexity Statistical risk measures (Bessembinder and Lemmon, 2002) Physical market factors in a hydro generation context (Botterud et al., 2010) Underlying costs of production (Bunn & Chen, 2013) Speculative investor behaviour (Fleten, 2015) Liquidity 7

3. Methodology Modelling Premia Model 1: B&L RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + Model 2: Physical Model 3: Production and Speculation Model 4: Liquidity k i α 3+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 3+k+i Q i + ε t RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t +α 6 Storage t + k i α 6+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 6+k+i Q i + ε t RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t + α 6 Storage t + α 7 Carbon t + α 8 Oil t + α 9 Stock t + k 3 i α 9+i RP t i + i=1 RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t + α 6 Storage t + α 7 Liquidity + k i α 7+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 9+k+i Q i + ε t α 7+k+i Q i + ε t 8

3. Methodology Variables Variable RP t Skew t Var t S t Demand t Inflow t Storage t Carbon t Stock t Oil t Liquidity t Description Difference between futures price and settlement spot price Spot price skewness over the past 7/30 days Spot price variance over the past 7/30 days Average spot price in the current quarter/over the past 30 days Deviations from historical average demand at time t Deviations from historical average hydrological inflows at time t Deviations from historical average hydrological storage at time t Log return of NZUs Log return of NZX50 Gross Index Log return of Dubai Fateh oil spot price Volume, Open Interest & Amihuds illiquidity ratio 9

3. Data Period: 2/10/2009-31/12/2015 Sources: Energy Link Limited & Bloomberg Electricity market data & liquidity Futures trading commenced in July 2009 Future contracts traded relative to two nodes Benmore & Otahuhu Futures data volumes, OI & closing prices Three contract forms : Nearest quarter 1 year ahead 2 years ahead Physical market demand, hydrological inflows & storage Financial market data NZU, Dubai Fateh Oil & NZX50 log returns 10

Trading Volume Trading Volume Trading Volume 4. Liquidity: Volume 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Front End Volume Average 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 1 Year Ahead Volume Average 0 10/2/2009 10/2/2010 10/2/2011 10/2/2012 10/2/2013 10/2/2014 10/2/2015 0 10/2/2009 10/2/2010 10/2/2011 10/2/2012 10/2/2013 10/2/2014 10/2/2015 2 Years Ahead Volume Average 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10/2/2009 10/2/2010 10/2/2011 10/2/2012 10/2/2013 10/2/2014 10/2/2015 11

Illiquidity Ratio Illiquidity Ratio Illiquidity Ratio 4. Liquidity: Illiquidity Ratio 0.25 Average Front End Illiquidity ratio 0.25 Average One Year Ahead Illiquidity Ratio 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Average Two Years Ahead Illiquidity Ratio 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 12

10/2/2009 12/2/2009 2/2/2010 4/2/2010 6/2/2010 8/2/2010 10/2/2010 12/2/2010 2/2/2011 4/2/2011 6/2/2011 8/2/2011 10/2/2011 12/2/2011 2/2/2012 4/2/2012 6/2/2012 8/2/2012 10/2/2012 12/2/2012 2/2/2013 4/2/2013 6/2/2013 8/2/2013 10/2/2013 12/2/2013 2/2/2014 4/2/2014 6/2/2014 8/2/2014 10/2/2014 12/2/2014 2/2/2015 4/2/2015 6/2/2015 8/2/2015 10/2/2015 12/2/2015 4. Liquidity: Open Interest 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Front End 1 Year Ahead 2 Years Ahead NZ ETS 13

4. Liquidity Results Structural Breaks Expected: 5 th January 2010 EA introduces market making 3 rd October 2011 Reduction of maximum spread to 5% Results: Front End volumes increased in October 2011 and January 2012 Front End illiquidity decreased in October 2011 Other contract forms largely unaffected by change Implications: first policy did not work but second did Maturity Variable Positive Breaks Negative Breaks Variable Positive Breaks Negative Breaks Variable Positive Breaks Negative Breaks Front End Benmore Volume 17/10/2011 Illiquidity 4/10/2011 Open Int. 28/4/2011, 2/4/2012, 6/11/2013 14/10/2014 Front End Otahuhu Volume 5/01/2012 Illiquidity 21/07/2011 Open Int. 5/1/2011, 2/4/2012, 10/1/2013, 27/1/2015 1 Year Benmore Volume 20/01/2012 Illiquidity 30/07/2012 Open Int. 19/5/2011, 25/4/2012, 2/4/2013 1 Year Otahuhu Volume 7/09/2012 Illiquidity 7/09/2012 Open Int. 23/3/2011, 28/2/2012, 1/7/2013, 18/7/2014 2 Years Benmore Volume 5/09/2012 Illiquidity 4/07/2012 Open Int. 1/4/2011, 2/4/2013 6/03/2014 2 Years Otahuhu Volume 5/09/2012 Illiquidity Open Int. 24/3/2011, 2/7/2012, 1/10/2013 5/01/2015 14

Realised Risk Premia Realised Risk Premia 4. Risk Premia Results Benmore Otahuhu 60.00 40.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 0.00-10.00-20.00-30.00 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 10.00 0.00-10.00-20.00 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4-40.00-30.00 Front End 1 Year Ahead 2 Years Ahead Front End 1 Year Ahead 2 Years Ahead Evidence of significant premia Time variant nature In general, premia greater for further out curves Premia consistently higher in Q2 and Q3 Lucia & Torro (2011): Dependent on the season which the contract matures Dry months; demand is highest and hydro storage/inflows lowest May be related to balance between generators and retailers relative hedging (Fleten et al., 2015) 15

4. Risk Premia Results B&L Model RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + k i α 3+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 3+k+i Q i + ε t Contract Form Front End One Year Ahead Two Years Ahead Node Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Constant -1.906 *** -2.990 *** -2.314 *** -3.249 *** -3.843 *** -5.211 *** Skewness -0.448 *** 0.120-0.013 0.020 0.344 * -0.016 Variance 0.000 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spot Price 0.023 *** 0.035 *** 0.024 *** 0.020 ** 0.012 0.016 ** Lagged RP 0.950 *** 0.933 *** 0.957 *** 0.917 *** 0.928 *** 0.847 *** Q2 0.634 1.049 ** 2.333 *** 4.698 *** 5.299 *** 7.997 *** Q3 0.620 0.839 ** 3.076 *** 4.104 *** 7.308 *** 9.527 *** Q4 0.515 0.419 0.896 1.142 ** 2.810 *** 3.267 *** R^2 0.943 0.942 0.976 0.973 0.977 0.974 N 1590 1590 1336 1336 1081 1081 Durbin-Watson 1.800 1.853 1.938 1.867 1.861 1.737 Chi-square heteroscedasticity (pvalue) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Notes: *** represents statistical significance at the 1% level, ** represents significance at the 5% level, * represents significance at the 10% level Front end uses average spot price over the quarter, others use average over past thirty days. Skewness and variance based upon past seven days for front end, past thirty days for others. Newey-West standard error corrections made to overcome heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. Regressions run on daily data 16

4. Intertemporal correlation of prices Panel B: Correlations in Movements in Benmore Futures Prices 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0-0.1-0.2-0.3 1 qtr ahead 2 qtr ahead 3 qtr ahead 4 qtr ahead 5 qtr ahead 6 qtr ahead 7 qtr ahead 8 qtr ahead Average for all quarters Average for all quarters for Benmore spot Correlation of spot prices and futures price changes Spot price correlations dissipates beyond two quarters Futures price correlations large beyond this Market behaviour inefficient? 17

4. Risk Premia Results Physical Market RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t +α 6 Storage t + k i α 6+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 6+k+i Q i + ε t Contract Form Front End One Year Ahead Two Years Ahead Node Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Constant -12.506 *** -15.279 *** -11.653 *** -14.548 *** -12.631 *** -13.038 *** Skewness 0.382-0.124-0.485-0.165 2.341 ** 0.556 Variance 0.000 0.000 *** -0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ** Spot Price 0.173 *** 0.188 *** 0.139 *** 0.108 ** -0.001-0.009 Demand Deviations 0.000 0.015-0.091-0.015 0.027 0.080 * Inflow Deviations -0.016 *** -0.011 *** -0.004 0.000-0.009 0.003 Storage Deviations 0.007 ** 0.004 * 0.003 0.003-0.003-0.005 * Lagged RP 0.751 *** 0.711 *** 0.823 *** 0.701 *** 0.706 *** 0.494 *** Q2 2.137 4.920 ** 8.902 *** 17.523 *** 21.229 *** 26.196 *** Q3 3.087 3.925 ** 13.246 *** 15.736 *** 28.459 *** 29.935 *** Q4 3.014 2.243 3.742 4.696 ** 10.835 *** 10.490 *** R^2 0.7188 0.7607 0.8953 0.8982 0.9121 0.9234 N 325 325 273 273 221 221 Durbin-Watson 1.7371 1.6025 1.817 1.6069 1.5267 1.2493 Chi-square <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 heteroscedasticity (p-value) Notes: *** represents statistical significance at the 1% level, ** represents significance at the 5% level, * represents significance at the 10% level Front end uses average spot price over the quarter, others use average over past thirty days. Skewness and variance based upon past seven days for front end, past thirty days for others. Demand, inflow and storage deviations based upon the past week for front end, past four weeks for others Newey-West standard error corrections made to overcome heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. Regressions run on weekly data 18

4. Risk Premia Results Production Factors RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t + α 6 Storage t + α 7 Oil + α 8 Carbon t + α 9 Stock t + i i=1 Contract Form Front End One Year Ahead Two Years Ahead Node Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Constant -13.230 *** -15.516 *** -12.655 *** -15.929 *** -15.532 *** -13.510 *** Skewness 0.238-0.341-0.339-0.065 2.723 ** 0.572 Variance 0.000 0.000 *** -0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 ** Spot Price 0.179 *** 0.189 *** 0.152 *** 0.120 *** 0.017-0.002 Demand Deviations -0.002 0.017-0.094-0.017-0.012 0.073 Inflow Deviations -0.016 *** -0.011 *** -0.002 0.000-0.012 0.004 Storage Deviations 0.007 ** 0.004 * 0.003 0.003-0.002-0.005 * Oil 18.850 19.940 * 11.396 9.798 38.209 ** 14.931 Carbon 5.614 5.558-7.406 ** -7.201 *** -8.328 ** -1.503 Stock 65.834 20.917-33.269-18.703-6.648-32.936 Lagged RP 0.742 *** 0.703 *** 0.813 *** 0.691 *** 0.707 *** 0.498 *** Q2 2.751 5.342 ** 9.409 *** 18.435 *** 23.025 *** 26.402 *** Q3 3.348 4.130 ** 14.237 *** 16.675 *** 29.654 *** 29.893 *** Q4 3.362 2.490 * 4.323 5.224 ** 11.360 *** 10.425 *** k α 9+i RP t i + 3 α 9+k+i Q i + ε t R^2 0.720 0.763 0.896 0.900 0.914 0.924 N 325 325 273 273 221 221 Durbin-Watson 1.722 1.588 1.800 1.598 1.533 1.251 Chi-square heter.(p-value) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Notes: *** represents statistical significance at the 1% level, ** represents significance at the 5% level, * represents significance at the 10% level Front end uses average spot price over the quarter, others use average over past thirty days. Skewness and variance based upon past seven days for front end, past thirty days for others. Demand, inflow and storage deviations based upon the past week for front end, past four weeks for others Newey-West standard error corrections made to overcome heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. Regressions run on weekly data 19

4. Risk Premia Results Volume RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t + α 6 Storage t + α 7 Volume F t + k α 7+i RP t i + i i=1 Contract Form Front End One Year Ahead Two Years Ahead Node Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Constant -13.288 *** -15.133 *** -12.128 *** -14.489 *** -12.227 *** -12.562 *** Skewness 0.314-0.116-0.564-0.176 2.352 ** 0.474 Variance 0.000 0.000 *** -0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ** Spot Price 0.170 *** 0.187 *** 0.138 *** 0.110 *** -0.008-0.012 Demand 0.012 0.014-0.084-0.019 0.020 0.070 Inflows -0.016 *** -0.011 *** -0.005 0.000-0.008 0.004 Storage 0.007 ** 0.004 * 0.004 0.003-0.004-0.005 ** Volume 0.120-0.016 0.130-0.084-0.270-0.425 *** Lagged RP 0.747 *** 0.712 *** 0.824 *** 0.700 *** 0.703 *** 0.485 *** Q2 2.481 4.909 ** 9.145 *** 17.511 *** 21.496 *** 26.288 *** Q3 3.167 3.917 ** 13.499 *** 15.765 *** 28.857 *** 30.337 *** Q4 3.239 * 2.219 4.015 4.708 ** 11.108 *** 10.617 *** 3 α 7+k+i Q i + ε t R^2 0.721 0.768 0.895 0.898 0.912 0.925 N 325 325 273 273 221 221 Durbin-Watson 1.747 1.600 1.810 1.604 1.534 1.287 Chi-square heteroscedasticity (p-value) 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Notes *** represents statistical significance at the 1% level, ** represents significance at the 5% level, * represents significance at the 10% level Front end uses average spot price over the quarter, others use average over past thirty days. Skewness and variance based upon past seven days for front end, past thirty days for others. Demand, inflow and storage deviations based upon the past week for front end, past four weeks for others Newey-West standard error corrections made to overcome heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. Regressions run on weekly data 20

4. Risk Premia Results Open Interest RP t = α 0 + α 1 Skew t + α 2 Var t + α 3 S t + α 4 Demand t + α 5 Inflow t + α 6 Storage t + α 7 OpernInterest F t + k i α 7+i RP t i + 3 i=1 α 7+k+i Q i + ε t Contract Form Front End One Year Ahead Two Years Ahead Node Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Benmore Otahuhu Constant -11.153 *** -14.526 *** -9.214 ** -13.575 *** -13.143 *** -13.231 *** Skewness 0.465-0.097-0.828-0.299 2.154 * 0.232 Variance 0.000 0.000 *** -0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 ** Spot Price 0.165 *** 0.190 *** 0.116 *** 0.119 *** -0.004 0.014 Demand 0.001 0.016-0.054-0.031 0.084 0.003 Inflows -0.013 *** -0.010 *** -0.001 0.002-0.009 0.002 Storage 0.058 * 0.004 * 0.002 0.003 * -0.003-0.003 Open Interest -0.093-0.011 0.007-0.047 ** 0.076-0.156 *** Lagged RP 0.750 *** 0.703 *** 0.833 *** 0.700 *** 0.698 *** 0.467 *** Q2 1.973 4.914 ** 7.784 ** 16.888 *** 20.370 *** 27.020 *** Q3 2.988 3.983 ** 11.356 ** 15.818 *** 27.565 *** 32.143 *** Q4 2.615 2.260 2.304 5.024 ** 10.962 *** 12.259 *** R^2 0.721 0.762 0.903 0.911 0.912 0.928 N 323 323 271 271 219 219 Durbin-Watson 1.770 1.602 1.838 1.656 1.499 1.194 Chi-square heter. (pvalue) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 *** represents statistical significance at the 1% level, ** represents significance at the 5% level, * represents significance at the 10% level Front end uses average spot price over the quarter, others use average over past thirty days. Skewness and variance based upon past seven days for front end, past thirty days for others. Demand, inflow and storage deviations based upon the past week for front end, past four weeks for others Newey-West standard error corrections made to overcome heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. Regressions run on weekly data 21

5. Conclusions & Policy implications Liquidity Descriptive: liquidity (illiquidity) increasing (decreasing) in all maturates Structural breaks and policy: mandatory market making did not improve liquidity but spread to 5% did but only front end Risk Premia Significant positive and negative, for all maturities. Premia consistently higher in Q2 and Q3 Physical market factors play a role in driving front end premia Spot prices significant power Suggest inefficient behaviour. Liquidity determinant of RP in some cases But only in the longer dates futures Important as may discourage LT hedging 22