The relationship between the Nasdaq Composite Index and energy futures markets

  • Received May 9, 2018;
    Accepted October 8, 2018;
    Published October 12, 2018
  • Author(s)
    Ikhlaas Gurrib
    ORCID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.01
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2018, Issue #4, pp. 1-16
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    2 articles
  • 1218 Views
  • 148 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

This paper sheds light on the relationship between the Nasdaq Composite Index and a newly proposed Energy Futures Conditions Index (EFCI). While various financial conditions indices provide information about the financial stability of a country, the existence of an energy condition index, using futures markets, is scarce. Using weekly data over the period 1992–2017, this paper introduces an energy futures index using principal component analysis and test its predictability over the Nasdaq Composite Index. The EFCI captures 95% of the variability inherent in crude oil, heating oil and natural gas futures’ total reportable positions. Stability in forecast errors over different lags suggests a one week lag is sufficient to forecast weekly Nasdaq Composite Index. 95% prediction levels support that the estimated model captures actual equity market index values, except for the 2000 technology bubble. Distributions of level data were non-normal, not serially correlated and homoscedastic under the whole sample period, with diagnostics on pre and post technology bubble crisis showing mixed results. While differencing ensured homoscedastic errors in the forecasting model, Granger causality supported non-causality from both energy futures and equity markets, suggesting no evidence of cross market information flows.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Net positions, total reportable positions
    • Figure 2. Principal component analysis
    • Figure 3. Energy Futures Conditions Index model (EFCI)
    • Figure 4. Actual and estimated market index (1992–2017)
    • Figure 5. Dickey-fuller autoregressive coefficients
    • Figure 6. Actual and forecasted Nasdaq Composite Index and EFCI values (2007–2017)
    • Table 1. Contract specifications
    • Table 2. Correlation among heating oil, natural gas and crude oil net positions
    • Table 3. Forecast errors
    • Table 4. Regression statistics
    • Table 5. Regression statistics and diagnostic tests
    • Table 6. Pre and post crisis robustness test
    • Table 7. Stationarity test
    • Table 8. Heteroskedasticity test
    • Table 9. Forecast evaluation
Related Articles

  • Choosing the right options trading strategy: Risk-return trade-off and performance in different market conditions

    Shivaprasad S. P.ORCID , Geetha E.ORCID , RaghavendraORCID , Kishore L.ORCID , Rajeev MathaORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.19(2).2022.04
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 19, 2022         Issue #2         pp. 37-50 Views: 1155 Downloads: 448 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The investment decisions are subjected to risk and return of the financial asset. Options strategies help employ a suitable strategy to balance the risk-return trade-off. The study analyzes the risk-return trade-off of the long straddle, long strangle, long call butterfly (LCB), short straddle, short strangle, and short call butterfly (SCB) strategies. Moreover, it measures the impact of strategy risk and options premiums on strategy return using panel data analysis. Additionally, the study evaluates the performance of options strategies using the excess returns to risk approach under neutral and volatile market conditions. This paper considered companies of top-six sector indices of the National Stock Exchange from 2009 to 2020 and collected data of 18,720 option contracts and 3,744 observations for each strategy (22,464 observations). The study revealed that risks of long straddle and long strangle strategies have a positive impact, and options premiums negatively influence their payoff. ATM call premiums positively affect LCB payoff, while OTM and ITM call premiums positively influence SCB payoff. However, the risks of butterfly strategy did not influence its payoff. The risk of short straddle and short strangle strategies negatively influenced the payoff and were considered riskier strategies. Moreover, short straddle and short strangle strategies enhanced excess returns under both market conditions. The results would help the investors in choosing the appropriate strategy by analyzing the impact of risk on the payoff and the ability to enhance excess returns to the risk of various options strategies to incorporate in their investment.

  • Do daily price extremes influence short-term investment decisions? Evidence from the Indian equity market

    Sarveshwar Kumar InaniORCID , Harsh PradhanORCID , R. Prasanth KumarORCID , Ajay Kumar SingalORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.19(4).2022.10
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 19, 2022         Issue #4         pp. 122-131 Views: 469 Downloads: 83 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    For short-term investments in equity markets, investors use price points, candlestick patterns, moving averages, support and resistance levels, trendlines, price patterns, relative strength index, and moving average convergence-divergence as reference(s) for making decisions. This study investigates whether investors use daily price extremes (highest and lowest prices for the day) for making short-term investments or trading decisions in the context of the Indian equity market. Using 6,902 observations of daily data of the NIFTY 50 index since its launch, it is observed that daily price extremes (high or low) have no impact on opening returns of the next trading day. Based on the dummy regression analysis, next-day opening returns were found to be statistically significant, which implies the presence of momentum behavior. However, insignificant coefficients for high or low-price extremes of the day mean that investors do not use them as an anchor or reference point for decisions. Results are consistent over time and robust to the rising or falling markets. Further, opening returns were seen to be more volatile than closing returns in the first half of the sample, and they are less volatile in the second half, implying that markets have become more efficient in the last few years.

Download Preview
Close
Investment Management and Financial Innovations
Investment Management and Financial Innovations