MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406773413 · doi:10.1017/age.2024.15

The effect of commodity index trading in agricultural futures markets: a Factor-Augmented Vector Autoregressive (FAVAR) approach

2025· article· en· W4406773413 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Braeuel, Paul J. Thomassin

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Resource Economics Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsFutures contractIndex (typography)Autoregressive modelEconomicsEconometricsVector autoregressionCommodityFinancial economicsFutures marketAgricultureComputer scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Commodity index trading in futures markets is a relatively new investment strategy whose consequences are not fully understood. This paper tests the hypothesis that long-only, passive index trading in agricultural futures markets influences futures prices. Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models are a common empirical research approach for analyzing index trading. Factor-Augmented Vector Autoregression (FAVAR) models are a new approach to analyzing index trading. FAVAR models can incorporate a large data set into the traditional VAR framework. Using a FAVAR model improves the analysis by including additional market factors relevant to futures price formation. Models were estimated for 13 agricultural commodities (corn, soybean, soybean oil, soybean meal, soft red winter wheat, hard red winter wheat, cotton, cocoa, sugar, coffee, live cattle, feeder cattle, and lean hog) from January 2006 to December 2022. The results demonstrate the added value of FAVAR models in explaining the dynamics between prices and index trading. The conclusions are similar to other findings that prices lead index positions; however, adding demand-related data through a FAVAR model allows for a better understanding of market dynamics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Resource Economics ReviewSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207