Minimum‐variance futures hedging under alternative return specifications

Eric Terry

Journal of Futures Markets, 2005, vol. 25, issue 6, 537-552

Abstract: It is widely believed that the conventional futures hedge ratio, is variance‐minimizing when it is computed using percentage returns or log returns. It is shown that the conventional hedge ratio is variance‐minimizing when computed from returns measured in dollar terms but not from returns measured in percentage or log terms. Formulas for the minimum‐variance hedge ratio under percentage and log returns are derived. The difference between the conventional hedge ratio computed from percentage and log returns and the minimum‐variance hedge ratio is found to be relatively small when directly hedging, especially when using near‐maturity futures. However, the minimum‐variance hedge ratio can vary significantly from the conventional hedge ratio computed from percentage or log returns when used in cross‐hedging situations. Simulation analysis shows that the incorrect application of the conventional hedge ratio in crosshedging situations can substantially reduce hedging performance. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 25:537–552, 2005

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/

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:wly:jfutmk:v:25:y:2005:i:6:p:537-552

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0270-7314

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Futures Markets is currently edited by Robert I. Webb

More articles in Journal of Futures Markets from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().