Jumping hedges: An examination of movements in copper spot and futures markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Price risk is an important factor for both copper purchasers, who use the commodity as a major input in their production process, and copper refiners, who must deal with cash‐flow volatility. Information from NYMEX cash and futures prices is used to examine optimal hedging behavior for agents in copper markets. A bivariate GARCH‐jump model with autoregressive jump intensity is proposed to capture the features of the joint distribution of cash and futures returns over two subperiods with different dominant pricing regimes. It is found that during the earlier producerpricing regime this specification is not needed, whereas for the later exchange pricing era jump dynamics stemming from a common jump across cash and futures series are significant in explaining the dynamics in both daily and weekly data sets. Results from the model are used to under‐take both within‐sample and out‐of‐sample hedging exercises. These results indicate that there are important gains to be made from a time‐varying optimal hedging strategy that incorporates the information from the common jump dynamics. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:169–188, 2006
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it