The Adequacy of Speculation in Agricultural Futures Markets: Too Much of a Good Thing?

The objective of this report is to re-visit the “adequacy of speculation” debate in agricultural futures markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission makes available the positions held by index funds and other large traders in their Commitment of Traders reports. The results suggest that after an initial surge from early 2004 through mid-2005, index fund positions have stabilized as a percent of total open interest. Traditional speculative measures do not show any material changes or shifts over the sample period. In most markets, the increase in long speculative positions was equaled or surpassed by an increase in short hedging. So, even after adjusting speculative indices for index fund positions, values are within the historical ranges reported in prior research. One implication is that long-only index funds may be beneficial in markets traditionally dominated by short hedging. Attempts to curb speculation through regulatory means should be weighed carefully against the potential benefits provided by this class of speculators.Commitment’s of Traders, index funds, commodity futures markets, Agricultural Finance, Financial Economics,

A Speculative Bubble in Commodity Futures Prices? Cross-Sectional Evidence

Recent accusations against speculators in general and long-only commodity index funds in particular, include: increasing market volatility, distorting historical price relationships, and fueling a rapid increase and decrease in commodity inflation. Some researchers have argued that these market participants—through their impact on market prices—may inadvertently prevented the efficient distribution of food aid to deserving groups. Certainly, this result—if substantiated— would counter the classical argument that speculators make prices more efficient and thus improve the economic efficiency of the agricultural and food marketing system. Given the very important policy implications, it is crucial to develop a more thorough understanding of long-only index funds and their potential market impact. Here, we review the criticisms (and rebuttals) levied against (and for) commodity index funds in recent U.S. Congressional testimonies. Then, additional empirical evidence is added regarding cross-sectional market returns and the relative levels of long-only index fund participation in 12 commodity futures markets. The results suggest that index fund positions across futures markets have no impact on relative price changes across those markets. The empirical results provide no evidence that long-only index funds impact commodity futures prices.Commitment’s of Traders, index funds, commodity futures markets, Agribusiness, Agricultural Finance, Farm Management, Financial Economics, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, Risk and Uncertainty,

The Adequacy of Speculation in Agricultural Futures Markets:Too Much of a Good Thing?

Long-only commodity index funds have been blamed by other futures market participants for inflating commodity prices, increasing market volatility, and distorting historical price relationships. Much of this criticism is leveled without any formal empirical support or even cursory data analyses. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission makes available the positions held by index funds and other large traders in their Commitment’s of Traders report. In this research, we make an initial assessment of the size and activity of index funds in traditional agricultural futures markets. The results suggest that after an initial surge from early 2004 through mid-2005, index fund positions have stabilized as a percent of total open interest. Speculative measures—such as Working’s T—suggest that long-only funds may provide a benefit in markets traditionally dominated by short hedging.Commitment’s of Traders, index funds, commodity futures markets, Agricultural Finance,

Muslim World in British Fictions of the Nineteenth Century

British Academ

THE VALUE ADDED TAX: A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT EFFECTS ON THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Public Economics,

OPTIMALITY CRITERIA FOR DETERMINISTIC DISCRETE-TIME INFINITE HORIZON OPTIMIZATION

We consider the problem of selecting an optimality criterion, when total costs diverge, in deterministic infinite horizon optimization over discrete time. Our formulation allows for both discrete and continuous state and action spaces, as well as time-varying, that is, nonstationary, data. The task is to choose a criterion that is neither too overselective, so that no policy is optimal, nor too underselective, so that most policies are optimal. We contrast and compare the following optimality criteria: strong, overtaking, weakly overtaking, efficient, and average. However, our focus is on the optimality criterion of efficiency. (A solution is efficient if it is optimal to each of the states through which it passes.) Under mild regularity conditions, we show that efficient solutions always exist and thus are not overselective. As to underselectivity, we provide weak state reachability conditions which assure that every efficient solution is also average optimal, thus providing a sufficient condition for average optima to exist. Our main result concerns the case where the discounted per-period costs converge to zero, while the discounted total costs diverge to infinity. Under the assumption that we can reach from any feasible state any feasible sequence of states in bounded time, we show that every efficient solution is also overtaking, thus providing a sufficient condition for overtaking optima to exist. 1