Determinants of Trader Profits in Commodity Futures Markets

Michael Dewally, Louis H. Ederington and Chitru S. Fernando

The Review of Financial Studies, 2013, vol. 26, issue 10, 2648-2683

Abstract: Using proprietary energy futures position data, we provide evidence that mean hedger profits are negative whereas speculator (especially hedge fund) profits are positive, that traders (whether speculators or hedgers) who hold net positions opposite in sign to likely hedgers in aggregate have higher profits than traders whose net positions align with likely hedgers, and that profits on long positions vary inversely with inventories and directly with price volatility. These findings are consistent with the risk premium, hedging pressure, and modern theory of storage hypotheses, respectively. Further, our findings suggest that commodity futures momentum may be due largely to hedging pressure. The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com., Oxford University Press.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (41)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hht048 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:26:y:2013:i:10:p:2648-2683

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Financial Studies is currently edited by Itay Goldstein

More articles in The Review of Financial Studies from Society for Financial Studies Oxford University Press, Journals Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513 USA.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().