Estimating the connectedness of commodity futures using a network … › seminar_files ›...
Transcript of Estimating the connectedness of commodity futures using a network … › seminar_files ›...
1
Estimating the connectedness of commodity futures
using a network approach☆
Binqing Xiaoa, Libing Fanga, Sifan Dinga, Honghai Yua,
a School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
Abstract:
Using a network approach of variance decompositions, we measure the
connectedness of 18 key commodity futures and characterize both static (full-sample
estimation) and dynamic (rolling-window estimation) connectedness. Statically, we
show that, in general, metal futures are net transmitters of shocks to other futures and
energy futures, and agricultural futures are vulnerable to shocks from other futures.
Furthermore, almost two-thirds of volatility uncertainty for commodity futures is due
to the connectedness of shocks across the futures market. In terms of market dynamics,
we find connectedness always increases during times of turmoil, with clear peaks
shown during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the 2011 European debt crisis and the
2013 to 2017 Brexit tumult. An analysis of connectedness networks, especially net
connectedness, suggests that investors could be forewarned that the connectedness of
various classes of futures could threaten their portfolios.
Keywords: Connectedness; Variance decompositions; Commodity futures
☆ The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71472085,
71401071 and 71672081). Corresponding Author: #22 Hankou Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, China, 210093. Tel: +86-25-83597501, Fax:
+86-25-83685630, Email Address: [email protected] (Honghai Yu).
2
1. Introduction
The commodities futures market plays an important role in the global economy.
Due to low correlations with traditional financial assets and positive co-movements of
commodity prices with inflation, commodity futures, as a profitable hedging and
speculation asset, can help investors optimize asset allocation and diversify portfolio
risks (Chong and Miffre, 2010; Silvennoinen and Thorp, 2013; Kang et al., 2017). There
are three main types of commodity futures—metal futures, energy futures and
agriculture futures. The financialization of commodity markets is likely to increase the
degree of integration across different commodity markets, which is a significant
development for investors and policymakers (Tang and Xiong, 2012; Mensi et al., 2014;
Kang et al., 2017).
The global financial crisis of 2007-2009 has promoted increased interest in
systemic risk, which is now broadly applied to study shocks to other parts of the
financial system (Billio et al., 2012; Kang et al., 2017). Connectedness, a similar
concept, has also been investigated. The connectedness concept is crucial to modern
financial risk measurement and management (Diebold and Yılmaz, 2014; Diebold et
al., 2017; Demirer et al., 2018). However, while volatility spillovers between stock and
commodity markets have been studied extensively, there is little empirical research on
the interrelationships among different types of commodity futures, and this new area of
research may provide interesting insights.
In this paper, we use the network approach developed in Diebold and Yılmaz
(2009, 2012, 2014) to measure the connectedness of 18 key commodity futures markets.
This method captures the direction of shock transmissions based on forecast error
variance decompositions (FEVDs), which are estimated by vector autoregressions
(VARs). There are some important advantages to the network approach. First, this
approach builds a directed volatility spillover network and provides important
information for analyzing dynamic directional spillovers of futures markets into each
other (Shahzad et al., 2018). Second, it allows measurement of the returns or volatility
spillovers across a variety of assets and markets (Zhang and Wang, 2014; Batten et al.,
3
2015). Third, Diebold and Yılmaz (2014) stress that estimates of variance
decomposition are not impacted by the ordering of the variables due to invariant
forecast error variance decompositions (FEVD), which are independent of the Cholesky
factor identification of VAR. Due to these significant advantages, we make use of the
network approach to study the systemic risk within commodity futures markets and
seek to find the connectedness evolution for 18 important commodity futures.
Both static (full-sample) and dynamic (rolling-sample) connectedness have unique
characteristics. A static analysis shows that, in general, the net total connectedness of
metal futures is positive; the connectedness of lead futures is 34.6%, and zinc futures
have a connectedness of 30.2%, indicating that these futures are net transmitters of
shocks to other futures. However, energy futures and agricultural futures are relatively
vulnerable to shocks from other futures markets. Furthermore, the connectedness index
for the 18 commodity futures equals 69.6%; that is, almost two-thirds of the volatility
uncertainty for the commodity futures is traceable to the connectedness of shocks across
all futures. We find, according to dynamic analysis, that there is always a high degree
of connectedness during times of turmoil. For dynamic directional connectedness, the
“from” connectedness is much smoother than the “to” connectedness; therefore, the
trend of net total connectedness is similar to the pattern in the plots for connectedness
“to” others.
The contribution of our study is empirical rather than methodological. First, using
the variance decompositions from approximating models, we apply a unified
framework for the connectedness of global commodities futures at different levels, from
pairwise connectedness to system-wide connectedness. Second, based on a dataset that
includes the majority of the global commodities futures, our results show the overall
connectedness network during the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011 European debt crisis
and the 2013 to 2017 Brexit tumult. Our study complements existing research about the
interrelationships between commodity futures.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews the
relevant literature. Section 3 describes our methodology, and Section 4 introduces the
data. In Section 5, we provide an empirical analysis. Finally, this paper summarizes its
4
conclusions in Section 6.
2. Literature Review
There is a growing library of research literature with regard to spillover effects and
systemic risk among commodity markets. Some research focuses on the relationships
between stock, bond and commodity markets. For example, Diebold and Yilmaz (2012)
found that cross-market volatility spillovers increased as the 2007-2008 financial crisis
became progressively serious. Other researchers studied the interrelationships among
different types of commodity futures. Wu et al. (2011) applied a volatility spillover
model and provided evidence of time-varying spillovers from the price of crude oil to
the spot prices of corn and futures prices. Nazlioglu et al. (2013) examined volatility
transmissions between oil and four agriculture futures including wheat, corn, soybeans
and sugar, showing that, with the exception of sugar, there was a risk transmission from
the oil market to the agricultural futures market in the post-crisis period. Kang et al.
(2017) employed a multivariate DECO-GARCH model and the spillover index to
analyze spillover effects between six commodity futures. The empirical results clarified
that the correlation with commodity futures is indeed positive and strengthened during
the crisis.
Our paper is also related to several strands of the research literature concerning
systemic risk contributions within the frameworks of financial network models. Billio
et al. (2012) examined the connectedness between banks, dealers, insurance companies
and hedge funds using a Granger-causality network and suggested that banks contribute
more to shock transmissions than do other financial institutions. Bluhm et al. (2014)
employed a network model of interconnected bank balance sheets to explore the
emergence of systemic risk and proposed a new macro-prudential risk management
approach. Based on the measure of the realized systemic risk beta, Hautsch et al. (2014)
ranked a firm’s share of the systemic risk in the U.S. financial system. Huang et al.
(2016) focused on the relationships between systemic risk contributions and
institutional local topology structure. From a systems perspective, in our research, we
5
apply the network approach proposed by Diebold and Yılmaz (2014) to measure the
connectedness in 18 key commodity futures and reveal a weighted and directed
volatility spillover network based on variance decompositions.
3. Methodology
In this section, we introduce the connectedness measurement framework. This
method was originally proposed in Diebold and Yilmaz (2009) to explicitly account for
interdependence in financial markets and then was expanded to study systems in the
finance and the economic fields. It is based on the vector autoregressive approximating
(VAR) models and the variance decomposition procedure, which we briefly describe
below.
3.1. Vector autoregressive model
We build our variance decomposition on a vector autoregressive approximating
model. Consider a K-dimensional VAR(p) process, assuming and a K × K positive
definite matrix:
1
, ~ 0,p
t i t i t t
i
where
y y (1)
where is a (K×1) vector which contains endogenous variables at t, and p is a lag
order. is the (K×K) dimensional coefficient matrix to be estimated. In our
setting, we use the restricted VAR.
The moving average process of the model, which is the key to understanding the
dynamics, is given by:
0
t i t i
i
y A (2)
Matrix satisfies the recursion process:
1 1 2 2 , 1,2,i i i p i p i A Φ A Φ A Φ A
where 0A is an K × K identity matrix and 0 0i for i A .
ty
1, p
iA
6
After estimating the VAR model, we depend on variance decomposition to split
the H-step-ahead forecast error variances of each variable into separate parts
attributable to the various system shocks.
3.2. Variance decomposition
Variance decomposition is often used to measure the contribution of different
structural shocks to the endogenous variable variation. However, since the shocks in a
reduced form are rarely orthogonal, we cannot simply calculate the variance
decompositions by the appropriately weighted sum of the variances.
The early literature proposed the Cholesky factor and the structural VAR to solve
this problem. The Cholesky factor orthogonalization generates orthogonalized
innovations and derives an order-dependent variance decomposition; thus, it is sensitive
to the ordering of the variables. Similarly, the structural VAR model maintains
assumptions from one or another theory, which makes it unattractive.
Hence, we apply the generalized variance decomposition (GVD) approach of
Koop et al. (1996) and Pesaran and Shin (1998), which allows for correlated (instead
of orthogonalized) shocks and constructs an order-independent variance decomposition;
that is, the generalized variance decomposition can analyze the directions of spillovers
and relies on a largely data-based identification system, but it keeps the same ordering.
The contribution of variable j to variable i’s H-step-ahead generalized forecast
error variance is given by:
11 2
0
1
0
( ' )
(H)
( ' ' )
H
ij i h jg h
ij H
i h h i
h
e e
e e
(3)
where is a selection vector with th element unity and zeros elsewhere, is the
coefficient matrix multiplying the h-lagged shock vector in the infinite moving-average
representation of the nonorthogonalized VAR, and is the standard deviation of .
Since, in the GVD scenario, shocks are not necessarily orthogonal, the variance shares
je j h
jj j
7
do not always add up to 1; thus, in general, .
Hence, we normalize each entry of the generalized variance decomposition matrix
by constructing
1
(H)(H)
(H)
g
ijg
ij Ng
ij
j
(4)
We then have and . Using , we can
immediately calculate the generalized connectedness measures.
3.3. Connectedness table
As a matter of notation, we now convert from to a measure of directional
connectedness in pairs, which is natural and immediate and represents the
connectedness from to at horizon H. Sometimes ‘‘the net’’ is necessary, as
opposed to ‘‘the gross’’, for directional connectedness in a pair. We thus derive the net
pairwise directional connectedness: .
We can then advance to total directional connectedness measures. The total
directional connectedness from others to is defined as:
1 , 1 1
1/
N N NH H H
i ij ij ij
j i j jj i j i
INN
≠ ≠
(5)
Similarly, the total directional connectedness to others from j is:
1 , 1 1
1/
N N NH H H
j ij ij ij
i i j ii j j i
OTN
≠
(6)
As mentioned before, in a pairwise directional connectedness situation, “the net”
is sometimes important. We define the net total directional connectedness as
.
Finally, we obtain the system-wide connectedness measure. We measure the total
directional connectedness using the generalized variance decomposition matrix:
1(H) 1
N g
ijj
1(H) 1
N g
ijj
, 1
(H)N g
iji jN
(H)g
(H)g
ij
H
i jC
j i
H H H
ij j i i jC C C
i
i i iNT OT IN
8
(7)
This total connectedness is simply the sum of total directional connectedness
regardless of “to” or “from”. Thus, following Diebold and Yilmaz (2009, 2012, 2014),
we can construct a connectedness table with the notations above to comprehend the
different connectedness measures and their relationships, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Connectedness Table Schematic
1x 2x
Nx From others
1x 11
H 12
H 1
H
N 11, 1
N H
jjj
2x 21
H 22
H 2
H
N 21, 2
N H
jjj
Nx 1
H
N 2
H
N H
NN 1
,N H
Njjj N
To others 11
1
N H
ii
i
21
2
N H
ii
i
1
N H
iNi
i N
, 1
1 N H
iji jN
i j
We can learn from the connectedness table how one can aggregate the most
disaggregated connectedness measures in different ways to obtain overall
macroeconomic directional and total connectedness measures. Various agents may be
more or less interested in one measure than in others. For instance, firm may be
concerned with how different others connect to it ( , for different ) most, or how
all others connect to it, . From another perspective, regulators might be more
interested in finding systemically important firms by measuring total directional
connectedness from to others, , and they might also be more interested in
identifying total connectedness, .
, 1 , 1 , 1
1/ =
N N NH H H
ij ij ij
i j i j i ji j i j
TotalN
i
H
i jC j
iIN
j
j jOT
Total
9
4. Data
We focus on 18 major commodity futures, downloaded from the Bloomberg
Database: eight metal futures (copper, aluminum, lead, zinc, nickel, tin, gold and silver),
three energy futures (gasoline, crude oil and natural gas), five agricultural futures
(soybeans, soybean oil, wheat, oats and corn) and two so-called “softs” (cotton and
sugar). The returns of different commodity futures are calculated as the log differences
of the daily price multiplied by 100. Due to data availability, the sample period spans
from October 3, 2005, to December 31, 2018.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for daily returns of 18 commodity futures
Variable Obs Mean Max Min SD Skew Kurt ADF AC(1)
Copper 3345 0.01 11.36 -14.97 1.78 -0.29 7.95 -62.51*** -0.08***
Aluminum 3344 0.00 7.54 -9.90 1.40 -0.16 5.33 -60.58*** -0.05***
Lead 3345 0.02 11.43 -14.28 2.09 -0.27 6.41 -55.88*** 0.03**
Zinc 3345 0.02 9.78 -11.74 1.96 -0.23 5.40 -59.03*** -0.02
Nickel 3344 -0.01 15.63 -19.20 2.24 -0.20 6.96 -58.22*** -0.01
Tin 3342 0.03 12.63 -12.36 1.75 -0.42 9.55 -55.93*** 0.03*
Gold 3271 0.03 8.62 -9.47 1.18 -0.29 8.16 -56.33*** 0.02
Silver 3126 0.02 12.42 -14.91 2.14 -0.73 8.52 -57.03*** -0.02
Gasoline 3295 -0.01 22.11 -20.77 2.44 -0.12 10.31 -58.99*** -0.03
Crude oil 3335 -0.01 16.26 -17.05 2.57 -0.01 8.50 -69.05*** -0.18***
Natural
gas 3318 -0.05 26.77 -18.44 3.16 0.55 8.21 -60.61*** -0.05***
Soybeans 3330 0.01 20.32 -23.41 1.68 -1.12 26.08 -59.51*** -0.03*
Soybean
oil 3317 0.00 7.50 -7.77 1.45 0.08 5.71 -57.06*** 0.01
Wheat 3322 0.01 12.40 -13.43 2.11 0.07 5.41 -57.19*** 0.01
Oats 3229 0.02 14.44 -26.68 2.45 -0.93 14.09 -55.57*** 0.02
Corn 3334 0.02 10.88 -39.86 1.99 -2.58 54.01 -58.47*** -0.01
Cotton 3212 0.01 10.53 -17.29 1.87 -0.27 7.84 -53.10*** 0.07***
Sugar 3322 0.00 17.12 -12.43 2.20 0.02 6.49 -58.30*** -0.01
Note: The reported statistics include the number of observations (Obs), the mean (Mean), the minimum (Min) and
maximum (Max), standard deviation (SD), Skewness (Skew), Kurtosis (Kurt) Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) and
10
Autocorrelation (AC(1)). The sample period covers October 2005 to December 2018. ***, **, and * indicate
significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Table 2 provides the summary statistics for daily returns of 18 commodity futures.
The mean of all returns is close to 0, and the unconditional standard deviation is more
than 1, which shows the high volatility in the commodity futures markets. According
to a unit root test such as the Augment Dickey-Fuller Test (ADF), the daily returns of
all futures are stationary.
5. Empirical Results
The return volatility of futures not only reflects the fear of investors but is also
particularly sensitive to crisis and uncertainty (Diebold and Yilmaz, 2014). Therefore,
we apply monthly realized volatility to conduct variance decompositions and measure
connectedness among commodity futures. We first discuss the static connectedness for
the full-sample data and then extend our discussions to include a dynamic analysis.
5.1 Full-sample network connectedness analysis
Under the framework of Diebold and Yilmaz (2014), we estimate the VAR model
for the full sample period and compute variance decompositions and corresponding
connectedness measures at horizon . The empirical results are reported in Table
3, which includes the connectedness index and the directional connectedness.
The main research finding is that the diagonal elements, which reflect the influence
they create themselves, are often the largest. The lower right element is the
connectedness index, and the value is 69.6%. In addition, there is strong clustering
within the same type of futures. For example, the pairwise directional connectedness
between gold and silver is high; the same is true between soybeans and soybean oil.
Moreover, the degree distribution of the ‘‘from’’ is noticeably less than that of the ‘‘to’’.
We conducted a detailed analysis of connectedness between 18 commodity futures and
made some interesting discoveries. We observe that the highest pairwise directional
connectedness is from the gold futures to the corn futures, at 21.9%. In contrast, the
=10H
11
pairwise connectedness from the corn futures to the gold futures is 0.7%. The second
highest pairwise connectedness is 18.8%, which is from the wheat futures to the
soybean oil futures. Meanwhile, the connectedness from the soybean oil futures to the
wheat futures is 4.4%, so the directional connectedness is more pronounced from the
wheat futures to soybean oil futures in net terms.
12
Table 3 Full-Sample Connectedness Table
Copper Aluminum Lead Zinc Nickel Tin Gold Silver Gasoline Crude oil Natural
gas Soybeans
Soybean
oil Wheat Oats Corn Cotton Sugar FROM
Copper 11.6***
(5.6)
4.1***
(4.1)
10.0***
(5.9)
8.7***
(7.7)
5.8***
(5.9)
6.6***
(6.0)
5.4***
(4.8)
6.9***
(6.4)
3.6***
(3.8)
4.3***
(4.5)
1.5**
(2.3)
10.0***
(3.8)
4.2***
(4.4)
8.3***
(3.8)
0.9***
(3.2)
1.5***
(2.7)
1.3**
(2.4)
5.2***
(3.9)
88.4***
(45.1)
Aluminum 8.3***
(5.9)
32.2***
(6.6)
10.8***
(6.0)
13.1***
(6.3)
6.6***
(4.0)
3.4***
(3.5)
1.3**
(2.5)
4.7***
(3.6)
1.6***
(3.0)
1.8***
(3.4)
0.8**
(2.0)
2.1**
(2.4)
2.8***
(3.2)
3.0**
(2.5)
0.8**
(2.5)
2.0**
(2.0)
1.0**
(2.3)
3.8***
(2.7)
67.8***
(15.2)
Lead 5.2***
(4.0)
4.5***
(3.1)
29.1***
(8.8)
11.9***
(4.9)
7.3***
(3.8)
2.9***
(3.1)
1.5***
(2.7)
2.5**
(2.4)
4.0**
(2.3)
1.4***
(2.6)
3.8**
(2.5)
5.7***
(3.1)
2.9***
(2.7)
9.4***
(3.3)
1.1**
(2.4)
1.3*
(1.9)
1.1**
(2.1)
4.5***
(2.6)
70.9***
(23.8)
Zinc 10.6***
(8.9)
8.1***
(4.2)
12.6***
(6.4)
23.5***
(15.5)
5.9***
(3.9)
5.6***
(4.9)
2.1***
(3.1)
5.0***
(3.9)
2.0***
(3.3)
4.9***
(4.2)
1.0*
(1.9)
5.8***
(3.4)
2.2***
(2.8)
4.0***
(3.0)
0.6**
(2.2)
2.0**
(2.1)
0.5**
(2.2)
3.4***
(2.8)
76.5***
(54.5)
Nickel 9.9***
(5.6)
3.4***
(4.7)
9.8***
(5.7)
7.0***
(5.9)
16.8***
(11.2)
6.4***
(5.2)
3.3***
(3.6)
6.1***
(5.3)
3.0***
(3.7)
3.1***
(3.3)
1.5**
(2.1)
11.2***
(3.6)
4.1***
(3.8)
6.1***
(3.6)
0.7**
(2.5)
1.2**
(2.1)
1.7***
(4.0)
4.4***
(3.5)
83.2***
(59.7)
Tin 8.5***
(4.1)
2.2***
(3.0)
7.8***
(4.1)
6.3***
(4.9)
4.1***
(3.8)
15.7***
(8.9)
3.5***
(4.2)
6.4***
(5.3)
5.4***
(4.3)
3.3***
(3.8)
2.2**
(2.1)
8.9***
(3.7)
5.2***
(4.2)
11.1***
(4.0)
1.0***
(3.1)
1.2**
(2.3)
2.0***
(2.7)
5.3***
(3.3)
84.3***
(51.5)
Gold 7.9***
(3.1)
2.3***
(3.3)
3.0*
(2.0)
3.5***
(2.9)
2.2**
(2.3)
4.6***
(4.1)
30.0***
(4.7)
12.6***
(3.9)
5.6***
(3.3)
4.0***
(4.1)
2.7
(1.6)
4.5**
(2.5)
2.4***
(2.9)
9.8***
(3.0)
1.1**
(2.4)
0.7**
(2.4)
1.9*
(1.8)
1.2
(1.6)
70.0***
(12.9)
Silver 8.8***
(4.6)
3.5***
(5.1)
3.6***
(3.2)
4.5***
(5.6)
5.8***
(4.3)
6.8***
(5.4)
7.8***
(3.9)
24.3***
(5.7)
4.6***
(3.9)
2.3***
(3.5)
1.4
(1.6)
5.5***
(2.9)
2.6***
(3.1)
8.0***
(3.6)
1.1***
(2.9)
1.3***
(2.8)
3.8***
(2.9)
4.2***
(3.3)
75.7***
(19.6)
Gasoline 2.7*
(1.7)
2.4*
(1.9)
1.0*
(1.9)
1.1*
(1.9)
1.2*
(1.8)
5.5***
(3.3)
1.6*
(1.8)
1.1**
(2.1)
42.1***
(10.1)
6.6***
(3.6)
4.3*
(1.9)
8.6***
(3.8)
6.9***
(4.0)
6.8***
(3.3)
2.7***
(2.9)
1.8**
(2.4)
2.0**
(2.4)
1.5**
(2.1)
57.9***
(16.2)
Crude oil 4.0***
(4.9)
3.4**
(2.6)
1.9**
(2.1)
11.3***
(5.7)
2.4***
(3.4)
6.8***
(4.1)
5.8***
(4.4)
8.1***
(3.9)
6.4***
(4.4)
28.1***
(6.9)
2.4***
(2.6)
6.6***
(3.5)
1.9***
(2.9)
2.5**
(2.3)
1.5**
(2.3)
2.3**
(2.0)
1.1**
(2.1)
3.6***
(4.4)
71.9***
(19.7)
Natural gas 4.9***
(4.6)
6.5***
(4.0)
8.1***
(3.6)
7.1***
(5.1)
3.0***
(4.1)
3.6***
(4.1)
1.3**
(2.2)
3.7***
(2.7)
1.7**
(2.3)
2.9***
(3.4)
46.9***
(7.6)
2.0**
(2.3)
1.1**
(2.1)
1.7**
(2.4)
0.6
(1.4)
2.7**
(2.3)
0.4*
(1.6)
2.0***
(3.7)
53.1***
(10.2)
13
Table 3 (Continued) Full-Sample Connectedness Table
Copper Aluminum Lead Zinc Nickel Tin Gold Silver Gasoline Crude oil Natural
gas Soybeans
Soybean
oil Wheat Oats Corn Cotton Sugar FROM
Soybeans 3.4**
(2.4)
2.4***
(2.9)
7.7***
(4.5)
5.1***
(3.5)
2.5***
(2.8)
2.2***
(2.8)
4.0**
(2.5)
1.4***
(2.7)
5.7***
(3.7)
1.6***
(3.0)
3.6**
(2.3)
30.9***
(6.8)
6.9***
(3.8)
11.5***
(4.4)
1.3**
(2.0)
1.2**
(2.5)
1.7***
(2.9)
7.0***
(4.8)
69.1***
(17.5)
Soybean oil 5.5**
(2.5)
1.4***
(2.6)
6.6**
(2.4)
3.7**
(2.5)
2.9***
(3.0)
3.3***
(3.3)
3.5***
(3.1)
1.3**
(2.3)
6.7***
(3.4)
1.3**
(2.3)
4.5*
(1.9)
15.4***
(4.8)
17.5***
(6.1)
18.8***
(4.6)
0.6
(1.6)
1.8*
(1.8)
1.6**
(2.5)
3.7***
(2.8)
82.5***
(31.8)
Wheat 2.7***
(3.1)
1.7*
(1.9)
9.8***
(4.4)
5.9***
(3.9)
3.0***
(3.4)
1.6**
(2.5)
1.8***
(2.6)
1.7**
(2.3)
4.0***
(3.0)
1.9*
(1.8)
2.2**
(2.3)
6.6***
(3.8)
4.4**
(2.4)
39.9***
(7.5)
2.5**
(2.0)
1.8**
(2.0)
3.2***
(2.9)
5.4***
(4.0)
60.1***
(12.9)
Oats 1.4**
(2.5)
1.8***
(2.7)
1.5***
(2.8)
2.1**
(2.2)
0.9**
(2.4)
1.8***
(2.8)
10.6**
(2.4)
3.0**
(2.5)
3.2**
(2.4)
2.9***
(3.1)
4.2***
(3.1)
2.3***
(2.9)
1.2**
(2.5)
2.3***
(2.7)
52.5***
(5.1)
4.3**
(2.5)
2.4**
(2.4)
1.6**
(2.2)
47.5***
(5.9)
Corn 3.8***
(3.8)
2.4***
(3.2)
1.6***
(2.8)
2.8***
(3.1)
2.9***
(3.5)
2.3***
(2.8)
21.9**
(2.4)
5.5**
(2.5)
2.9***
(3.4)
0.7**
(2.0)
1.2*
(1.9)
3.0***
(3.1)
2.3***
(3.0)
1.1**
(2.5)
0.6*
(1.8)
41.1***
(3.8)
1.8***
(2.8)
2.0***
(2.6)
58.9***
(6.4)
Cotton 3.0***
(3.5)
3.0***
(3.7)
2.9***
(3.5)
2.3***
(4.1)
4.4***
(3.6)
4.5***
(4.8)
3.0***
(3.6)
6.3***
(2.7)
5.7***
(4.3)
3.9***
(4.0)
0.7**
(2.3)
7.5***
(4.1)
2.0***
(2.9)
13.3***
(5.0)
2.3**
(2.3)
1.1**
(2.0)
26.7***
(6.9)
7.5***
(4.9)
73.3***
(20.9)
Sugar 4.0***
(4.5)
5.8***
(2.7)
6.5***
(3.6)
10.3***
(3.9)
3.4***
(3.2)
1.4***
(3.0)
0.6**
(2.0)
0.7**
(2.4)
3.3***
(3.0)
1.9***
(3.4)
1.8***
(2.7)
9.2***
(4.0)
2.8**
(2.3)
4.2***
(2.7)
1.0
(1.6)
3.0**
(2.2)
2.7***
(3.1)
37.5***
(6.5)
62.5***
(12.1)
TO 94.5***
(6.1)
59.0***
(5.6)
105.6***
(5.7)
106.7***
(6.6)
64.2***
(6.6)
69.0***
(7.3)
79.1***
(4.3)
77.1***
(6.3)
69.7***
(5.1)
48.6***
(5.6)
39.6***
(2.6)
114.8***
(4.2)
55.7***
(4.7)
121.8***
(4.4)
20.3***
(3.3)
31.2***
(2.8)
30.2***
(4.6)
66.3***
(4.6)
69.6***
(57.8)
NET 6.2
(0.4)
-8.8
(-0.4)
34.6*
(1.7)
30.2*
(1.7)
-19.0
(-1.5)
-15.3
(-1.3)
9.1
(0.3)
1.4
(0.2)
11.8
(0.6)
-23.2
(-1.8)
-13.5
(-0.7)
45.7
(1.3)
-26.8
(-1.6)
61.7*
(1.8)
-27.2
(-2.0)
-27.7
(-1.3)
-43.1
(-4.6)
3.7
(0.3)
Note: The sample is Oct 3, 2005, through Dec 31, 2018, and the predictive horizon is 10 months. The ij-th entry of the upper-left 18 × 18 firm submatrix gives the ij-th pairwise directional
connectedness; i.e., the percent of 10-month-ahead forecast error variance of future i due to shocks from future j. The rightmost (FROM) column gives total directional connectedness (from); i.e.,
14
row sums (from all others to i). The bottom (TO) row gives total directional connectedness (to); i.e., column sums (to all others from j). The bottommost (NET) row gives the difference in total
directional connectedness (to–from). The bottom-right element (in boldface) is total connectedness (mean ‘‘from’’ connectedness, or equivalently, mean ‘‘to’’ connectedness).
15
We are particularly interested in the individual degrees for the commodity futures
that convey information on which sectors are sending the most uncertainty to others.
The “from” column, calculated as 100% minus one’s own share of the total forecast
error variance, reflects the directional connectedness received from the other 17
commodity futures. The copper futures, that has a from-degree of 88.4%, may be the
commodity futures that received the highest percentage of shocks from others. The next
two futures are the tin and nickel futures, which have from-degrees of 84.3% and 83.2%
respectively. The oats futures received the lowest impact (47.5%) of shocks from other
commodity futures, followed by natural gas futures (53.1%) and gasoline futures
(57.9%).
Similarly, the “to” column measures the total directional connectedness to other
commodity futures, and the effect on others’ forecast error variance is not limited to a
cumulative sum of 100%. The futures that contribute the top three impacts to others is
the wheat futures (121.8%), the soybean futures (114.8%) and the zinc futures (106.7%),
while the oats futures, the cotton futures and the corn futures contribute at similar rates
(20.3%, 30.2% and 31.2%, respectively). In summary, metal futures easily spread
shocks within their own ranks, and they are also easily affected by others. The energy
futures are robust, and their shocks to others and the influence from others are relatively
small. The agricultural futures are vulnerable and often receive shocks from others.
16
Fig. 1. Full-sample Total Connectedness
Note: The thickness of the line of an arrow reflects the size of the connectedness. The sample is from Oct 3, 2005,
to Dec 31, 2018, and the predictive horizon is 10 months.
Figure 1 presents the full sample of total connectedness. We observe that each
variety of metal futures is vulnerable to systemic risk and can receive shocks in a
financial crisis. Compared to metal futures, energy futures are relatively less affected.
They are transmitters, rather than receivers, of their own shocks. Agricultural futures
are more susceptible to systemic risk, especially soybeans, soybean oil, corn and other
farm commodities with large market shares.
17
Fig. 2. Full-sample Total Directional Connectedness: Empirical Survivor Functions.
Note: The empirical survivor functions for total directional connectedness ‘‘to’’ others and ‘‘from’’ others. The
predictive horizon for the underlying variance decomposition is 10 months.
Next, the net total connectedness is obtained by calculating the difference between
the contribution to others and from others. For some of the 18 commodity futures, the
total net directional connectedness is positive, such as the wheat futures (61.7%) and
the soybean futures (45.7%), implying that these futures are net transmitters of shocks
to other futures. Among the futures where the difference of to-degree and from-degree
is negative, the smallest three differences are from the cotton futures (-43.1%), the corn
futures (-27.7%) and the oats futures (-27.2%). In Figure 1, we show the differences
between full-sample “to” and “from” degree distributions based on the respective
empirical survivor functions.
Finally, we discuss the connectedness index in the lower right corner. The value is
69.6%, indicating that almost two-thirds of the volatility uncertainty for the
commodities futures is due to the connectedness of shocks across futures, while the
remaining 30.4% can be explained by idiosyncratic fluctuations. Some futures are more
vulnerable to outside shocks, and they are also likely to transmit these shocks to others,
causing a high degree of connectedness.
18
5.2. Rolling-sample network connectedness analysis
The above analysis is for the full sample and displays the unconditional
connectedness of commodity futures over a fourteen-year period. In contrast to bonds
or stocks, the price of commodity futures is more likely to be affected by traditional
supply and demand considerations. The supply of different futures may be affected by
very different factors. For example, the trade policies of an exporting country’s
government can play a significant role in the metals and oil supply, while the supply for
agricultural futures is partly determined by weather conditions. However, commodity
demand may be more closely linked to global events, such as the financial crisis in 2008
or Brexit from 2013 to 2017. Therefore, to better understand the evolution of the total
connectedness index and directional connectedness, we will take our lead from Diebold
and Yilmaz (2014) and focus on the dynamic connectedness of the commodity futures
in this subsection.
We show the total dynamic connectedness index in Figure 3 using 36-month
rolling windows. The total connectedness index fluctuates in a range from 73.3% to
94.4%, where the minimum appears in the window ending in May 2015 and the
maximum in the window ending in July 2013.
Fig. 3. Rolling window plots of total connectedness
19
Note. The rolling estimation window width is 36 months, and the predictive horizon for the underlying variance
decomposition is 10 months.
From a birds-eye perspective, there are some revealing patterns in Figure 3. In the
beginning, the total connectedness reaches a peak (93.2%), and after a brief respite, it
goes up to 90.8% in September 2009. This trend is a reaction to the global financial
crisis caused by the U.S. recession in the first half of 2008. As a result, some developed
economies, such as the US, launched a new quantitative easing monetary policy. The
total connectedness changes gradually to 89.5% by May 2011 and broadly drops to 78.6%
by the end of August 2011. The total connectedness starts a short-lived upward journey
and reaches 86.7% in August 2012. In addition, it jumps from 79.0% to 94.4% in July
2013, rising by almost 20%. This spike may be associated with the debt crisis in Europe.
However, due to the positive action taken by the Eurozone and Great Britain exiting
from the European Union, the total connectedness experienced some severe bumps
from August 2013 to December 2015 and went as low as 73.3% in May 2015 during
this tumultuous period. Between January 2016 and December 2018, the total
connectedness fluctuated in a narrow band of 75.4%-81.1%, except for a peak of 87.9%
in April 2018.
20
Fig. 4. Rolling Window Total Connectedness During the 2008 Financial Crisis
Note: The thickness of the line of an arrow reflects the size of the connectedness. The first plot is for September
2008, the bottom left October 2008, and the bottom right November 2008.
Next, we focus on the evolution of total connectedness during three notable
periods. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, which further
worsened the subprime mortgage crisis. Figure 4 displays the rolling window total
connectedness during the 2008 financial crisis. In that period, we intuitively know that
systemic risks were severe and commodity futures markets suffered dramatically. Over
the next two months, with the systemic risk decreasing, the situation gradually
improved but remained serious.
21
Fig. 5. Rolling Window Total Connectedness During the European Debt Crisis
Note: The thickness of the line of an arrow reflects the size of the connectedness. The first plot is for December
2009, the bottom left January 2010, and the bottom right February 2010.
The Greek debt crisis broke out in December 2009, which was the beginning of
the European debt crisis. We observe that metal futures and energy futures have thick
lines in Figure 5, showing that, during the debt crisis, metal futures and energy futures
are the main transmitters of severe systemic risk. For the next two months, the systemic
risk remained serious as the European debt crisis continued to fester.
Fig. 6. Rolling Window Total Connectedness During the Brexit
22
Note: The thickness of the line of an arrow reflects the size of the connectedness. The first plot is for June 2016, the
bottom left July 2016, and the bottom right August 2016.
A referendum on Brexit began on June 23, 2016, leading to Britain’s withdrawal
from the European Union and serious systemic risk in futures markets. Figure 6 shows
that systemic risk in the commodity futures markets was more severe in the next two
months than in June due to the result of the Brexit vote. The energy futures markets
were the most affected, followed by the metal futures markets, especially gold and
silver futures.
In the previous section, we analyzed the dynamics of total connectedness and
explained the factors affecting it. Following the analysis of the total connectedness, we
now focus, in this subsection, on the directional connectedness from the years 2005 to
2018. The reason why directional connectedness is important is that it can help us better
understand the role each commodity future plays in spreading shocks to others and
being influenced from others. Figure 7 presents a time series of three types of
directional connectedness (“connectedness to others”, “connectedness from others” and
“net connectedness”) based on a 36 month rolling window. The upper panel is the plot
of the to-degree, the middle panel displays the from-degree and the lower panel shows
the net total directional connectedness.
23
Fig. 7. Rolling window plots of total directional connectedness
24
Note. The rolling estimation window width is 36 months, and the predictive horizon for the underlying variance
decomposition is 10 months.
First, we briefly discuss the characteristics of the to-degree and from-degree panel.
Consistent with Diebold and Yılmaz (2014), the “from” connectedness plots are much
smoother than the “to” connectedness plots for the majority of the 18 commodity
futures. That is, when the commodities futures system faces volatility shocks, the effect,
in general, from one future to others is larger than that from other futures. This result
provides the evidence for spillover effects among commodity futures. The size of
shocks and the type of futures may contribute to the difference between the to-degree
and the from-degree. Though the shock of a commodity futures can be transmitted to
others, the shocks that other futures receive are likely to be very small or very large.
Moreover, the same event will have different impacts on different types of futures. For
example, the political upheavals in the Middle East, especially the civil war in Libya,
led to more fluctuations in energy futures rather than agriculture futures.
Next, we conduct a detailed analysis of the net-degree plot. Overall, since the
change of from-degree is relatively flat, the trend for net total connectedness is similar
to the pattern in the plots for connectedness “to” others.
Copper futures play an important role among the metal futures. We observe the net
connectedness of copper futures was negative during the global financial crisis in the
years 2008 through 2009 and has fluctuated around zero since the end of the year 2010
as a result of the dramatic 50% and more reduction in the copper price. For the lead and
zinc futures, their net connectedness includes both positive and negative episodes. The
only subperiod during which the net connectedness is negative is from the mid 2013 to
early 2015. The two precious metal futures, gold and silver, also display a similar trend,
and their total connectedness is high for the majority of the rolling sample windows.
For energy futures, we focus on the crude oil futures. During the earlier part of the
period, oil futures showed a negative net total connectedness. After 2014, the net
connectedness experienced two cycles and reached a peak of more than 100%. However,
the net connectedness of gasoline and natural gas futures shows completely different
25
plots.
Unlike crude oil futures, soybean futures had a high net connectedness during most
of the period, which can be attributed to its underlying asset, soybeans, which is not
only an important consumption item for households all over the world but also an input
for biofuel production.
6. Conclusion
Given the role of the commodities futures market in the global economy and the
fact that the properties of commodity futures are different from traditional assets,
commodity futures are an essential asset class for investors. The financialization of the
commodity markets and the potential for financial crises have caused researchers to
empirically scrutinize the connectedness between the volatility of different commodity
futures.
Using the framework of Diebold and Yılmaz (2014), we characterize the
connectedness of global commodity futures statically and dynamically. In respect of the
static net total connectedness, we find, in general, that metal futures are net shock
transmitters, while energy futures and agricultural futures are relatively vulnerable to
shocks from others. Furthermore, the connectedness of shocks across futures causes
almost two-thirds of the uncertain volatility. For the dynamic connectedness, there is
always a high degree of connectedness during times of turmoil, such as the 2008
financial crisis, the 2011 European debt crisis and the 2013 to 2017 Brexit tumult.
Our study is essential for portfolio and risk management. From the view of
investors whose portfolio concentration risk is directly related to connectedness, our
results construct a risk network and the potential to protect these positions from the
distress of other assets. Because connectedness tends to increase during commodity-
market crises, which may then spill over into the broader macroeconomy, the results in
our paper contribute to showing the importance of monitoring risk across commodity
futures and the need to manage overall risk more effectively.
26
References:
1. Batten, J. A., Ciner, C., & Lucey, B. M. (2015). Which precious metals spill over
on which, when and why? Some evidence. Applied Economics Letters, 22(6), 466-473.
2. Billio, M., Getmansky, M., Lo, A. W., & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Econometric
measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors.
Journal of financial economics, 104(3), 535-559.
3. Bluhm, M., & Krahnen, J. P. (2014). Systemic risk in an interconnected banking
system with endogenous asset markets. Journal of Financial Stability, 13, 75-94.
4. Chong, J., & Miffre, J. (2010). Conditional Correlation and Volatility in
Commodity Futures and Traditional Asset Markets. The Journal of Alternative
Investments, 12(3), 061-075.
5. Demirer, M., Diebold, F. X., Liu, L., & Yilmaz, K. (2018). Estimating global bank
network connectedness. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 33(1), 1-15.
6. Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2009). Measuring financial asset return and volatility
spillovers, with application to global equity markets. The Economic Journal, 119(534),
158-171.
7. Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2012). Better to give than to receive: Predictive
directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting,
28(1), 57-66.
8. Diebold, F. X., & Yılmaz, K. (2014). On the network topology of variance
decompositions: Measuring the connectedness of financial firms. Journal of
Econometrics, 182(1), 119-134.
9. Diebold, F. X., Liu, L., & Yilmaz, K. (2017). Commodity connectedness (No.
w23685). National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Hautsch, N., Schaumburg, J., & Schienle, M. (2014). Financial network systemic
risk contributions. Review of Finance, 19(2), 685-738.
11. Huang, W. Q., Zhuang, X. T., Yao, S., & Uryasev, S. (2016). A financial network
perspective of financial institutions’ systemic risk contributions. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 456, 183-196.
27
12. Kang, S. H., McIver, R., & Yoon, S. M. (2017). Dynamic spillover effects among
crude oil, precious metal, and agricultural commodity futures markets. Energy
Economics, 62, 19-32.
13. Koop, G., Pesaran, M. H., & Potter, S. M. (1996). IMPULSE RESPONSE
ANALYSIS IN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIATE MODELS. Journal of Econometrics,
74(1), 119-147.
14. Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Nguyen, D. K., & Yoon, S. M. (2014). Dynamic
spillovers among major energy and cereal commodity prices. Energy Economics, 43,
225-243.
15. Nazlioglu, S., Erdem, C., & Soytas, U. (2013). Volatility spillover between oil and
agricultural commodity markets. Energy Economics, 36, 658-665.
16. Pesaran, H. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear
multivariate models. Economics letters, 58(1), 17-29.
17. Shahzad, S. J. H., Kayani, G. M., Raza, S. A., Shah, N., & Al-Yahyaee, K. H.
(2018). Connectedness between US industry level credit markets and determinants.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 491, 874-886.
18. Silvennoinen, A., & Thorp, S. (2013). Financialization, crisis and commodity
correlation dynamics. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and
Money, 24, 42-65.
19. Tang, K., & Xiong, W. (2012). Index investment and the financialization of
commodities. Financial Analysts Journal, 68(5), 54-74.
20. Wu, F., Guan, Z., & Myers, R. J. (2011). Volatility spillover effects and cross
hedging in corn and crude oil futures. Journal of Futures Markets, 31(11), 1052-1075.
21. Zhang, B., & Wang, P. (2014). Return and volatility spillovers between china and
world oil markets. Economic Modelling, 42, 413-420.