Interactions between Exchange Traded Derivatives and OTC Derivatives: Evidence for the Canadian Dollar Futures vs. OTC Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OTC market, which is dominated by commercial banks, has been alleged to pose a considerable barrier to the growth of exchange traded derivatives. If banks substitute OTC products to their captive clients, transactions costs for hedging could be excessive relative to those of exchange traded products. The dominant position of OTC currency derivatives products relative to exchange traded derivatives could be troublesome for a number of other reasons including lack of transparency, with insufficient disclosure at the entity level. Lower transactions costs and trader anonymity provide relative advantages to futures markets for conveying information of informed traders/speculators. This paper tests the informational advantage hypothesis for foreign exchange futures contracts relative to OTC contracts using actual OTC foreign exchange derivative trading data. In addition, we test for substitutability vs. complementarity of OTC products against foreign exchange futures products. We examine monthly trading volume and volatility estimates of the OTC market and the futures market for the Canadian Dollar over the period January 1998 to September 2005. Futures trading activity is shown to provide leading information to the OTC markets, suggesting that there are informational advantages to futures markets. Trading volume in the OTC (exchange traded) market shows uni-(bi-) directional Granger causality to the volatility to both spot and futures markets, consistent with greater responsiveness of the exchange traded (OTC) market to changes in market-wide (idiosyncratic)risk. Regression tests support substitutability between the foreign exchange futures market and the OTC derivatives market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".