EZ

Eduzan

Learning Hub

Eduzan
Eduzan / 03 Financial Markets and Products

FMP 11: Commodity Forwards and Futures

Worked examples are fully visible. Check-yourself items are study aids you can reveal one at a time.

On paper a forward contract on a barrel of oil and a forward contract on a share of stock look like the same animal. The pricing logic behind them is not the same, and the gap opens up because the two underlying assets are owned for entirely different reasons. Daily settlement is set aside throughout, so futures contracts and forward contracts are treated as interchangeable, which is a reasonable simplification for a commodity just as it is for a financial asset.

Most commodities are consumption assets. They are rarely bought as a pure investment, metals such as gold and silver being the standing exception, and the buyer normally means to burn, feed, refine or mill the thing, after which it leaves the market. The no-arbitrage machinery built for financial assets assumes an owner indifferent between the asset and a claim on it, and a consumption asset owner is not indifferent at all.

Four practical differences

Storage costs on stocks and bonds round to nothing. Storage costs on physical goods can be large, they include insurance whose price moves around, and several commodities degrade unless they are looked after expensively. Corn and natural gas are laid down deliberately for use at one season of the year, while oil and copper are drawn on all year round.

Transport is the second difference, since moving a cargo of ore or grain costs enough that the price is partly a fact about where the goods sit, whereas a bond travels between accounts electronically. Borrowing is the third: a commodity held for investment can be borrowed by a short seller, who pays a lease rate that can run above the fee on a borrowed financial asset.

Expected return is the fourth. A financial asset offers investors a return matched to its risk, while most commodities offer nothing of the kind, and a good case can be made that their prices are mean reverting instead: volatile in the short run, yet tugged back toward a central value. A high price makes production attractive and sends buyers hunting for substitutes, which presses the price down again, and a low price does the reverse.

Add these together and commodity futures prices behave quite unlike financial futures prices, in that the no-arbitrage argument yields only a ceiling rather than a single value, and an unobservable extra parameter, the convenience yield, is needed to explain the traded price.

Check yourself
Why does the standard no-arbitrage argument for a financial asset fail to pin down the futures price of a consumption asset such as copper?
The argument needs both halves of the trade. The upper half survives, because anyone can borrow money, buy copper and sell it forward. The lower half does not, because companies hold copper in order to run a production process and will not swap inventory for a futures contract, so the trade that would push the futures price back up is never done.
End of lesson.