1. Weekend Reading: The Russians are coming. The Russians are coming. The Ru...Oh wait. I meant The Annual Index Rebalancing is coming. The Annual Index Rebalancing is coming. (Have to be a certain age to get the joke)
2. Now that I have your attention, going to talk about a brand new article in JCOMM about the price impact of index rebalancing in commodity futures markets. Every January this is a major topic of conversation in the markets. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
3. Background: There is still a lot of money invested in commodity futures markets that is tied to indexes, like the GSCI. Massive passives and all that. Once a year the GSCI revises the weights applied to the commodity futures included in the index.
4. Investments that track the GSCI have to "rebalance" their futures positions in order to match the new weights for the index. This rebalancing for the GSCI takes place on the 5th through the 9th business day every January. Coming soon for 2022.
5. The flows into and out of the 24 commodity futures markets included in the GSCI can be very large indeed. This chart shows our rough estimate of the size of rebalancing money flows in WTI crude oil for 2008-2015. As big as $6 billion.
6. We test a strategy that assigns an equal weight to each commodity and holds a long (short) position in commodities that experience positive (negative) index weight changes yields. Just an event study of long-short returns around rebalancing for the GSCI.
7. Money chart. Shows the cumulative abnormal return (CAR) to the long-short strategy for 10 days before rebalancing, 5 days of rebalancing, and 10 days after rebalancing. Window around rebalancing to account for front running and lags in response.
8. We find that the average price impact of rebalancing reaches a peak of 72 basis points in the middle of the week following the rebalancing period, but the impact is temporary as it declines to near zero within the last week of the event window.
9. Practical meaning: GSCI index rebalancing pushes commodity futures prices up/down an average of 72 basis points. Statistically significant too. For $80 crude this is 60 cents per bbl. Is that economically significant? Hard to tell since the impact is so fleeting.
10. My personal take is that the rebalancing price impact is the sort of thing that matters to traders in commodity futures markets in the short-term but is too small and fleeting to be of any policy concern. Lots more detail in the article sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1. I always enjoy being interviewed by my old friend Stu Ellis. He asked a great question here and I had a chance to revisit one my big themes on twitter for 2021: what is the tolerance of the voting public for costly carbon mitigation policies?
2. To recap, my main point is that the climate change lobby has been doing their movement a disservice by not playing it straight with the broad public about the cost of carbon mitigation polices to address climate warming.
3. You can dismiss me because I am certainly not an expert on climate change in general nor on all the different policy options to address it. But what I do know as an economist I think is important: there ain't no free lunches.
1. Weekend Reading (Special Holiday Edition): "When Does USDA Information Have the Most Impact on Crop and Livestock Markets?" Article published in the Journal of Commodity Markets in 2021. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
2. Back story on this article centers on the argument by some that the rise of "big data" private sector companies made USDA reports redundant. Putting aside the obvious private incentives of people in big data firms making this argument, it is worth taking seriously.
3. Then Chief Economist of the USDA Rob Johansson asked a group of us to undertake a rigorous investigation of the idea that USDA crop and livestock reports had become redundant in the new "big data" era. We decided to do three different types of tests.
1. Recommended Reading for the Day: “Containergeddon” and California Agriculture by my old friend Colin Carter of UC-Davis and co-authors. One of the more interesting COVID-related studies I have seen to date. CA ag really took it on the chin here. s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/20…
2. Don't want to spoil the fun of reading the entire article, so will just re-post one chart. Notice the huge wedge between container freight rates to and from China to CA. Incredible. More profitable to ship empty containers back to China and return quickly to US.
3. Here is your statistic for the day from the article: "Recently, for every ten containers inbound from Asia with freight, approximately eight were sent back empty."
1. Weekend Reading: Continuing theme of the value of USDA reports. Fast forwarding to recent research rather than my older stuff. Up next is, "Are USDA reports still news to changing crop markets?" 2019 Food Policy paper. Several great co-authors. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
2. Background: old question with a new twist. People have been questioning the value of USDA crop reports forever. Been examining that question pretty much my entire academic career. In the last decade or so a new twist on that line of attack emerged.
3. Last decade has seen the rise of "big data" companies that use satellite remote sensing data, lots and lots and lots of other weather data, and super sophisticated statistical modeling in order to forecast acreage and crop production. Some see this as making the USDA obsolete
1. Yesterday had some fun commenting on the SECOND FINAL RVO for 2020 from the Biden EPA. Today I'm going to look at the broader question of the volume and value of the RIN relief provided to refiners in the latest rulemaking for 2020 and 2021.
2. Here is my recap of 2020. EPA rolled back the total renewable RVO by 1.4BG more than would have happened with the automatic downward adjustment due to COVID pandemic under the FIRST FINAL RVO for 2020. That is a good estimate of the gallons given to refiners for that year.
3. Now what about 2021? The Biden EPA did not have to adopt the cockamamie logic of COVID, the little reset, and lateness to crush the 2021 RVOs. It is important to be clear that the Biden EPA did not have to do this. It was a simply a choice.
1. My last thread walked through the numbers on the SECOND FINAL RVO for 2020. Now lets think about what happened more from a regulatory standpoint. EPA had a FIRST FINAL RVO for 2020 and then proposed going back and retroactively changing it to a SECOND FINAL RVO.
2. Here is a way to think about it. A parent says to a child. Here is a family rule, break it and there will be this consequence. The child breaks the rule and the parent says at first the consequence is still in play but I am going to wait to enforce it for awhile.
3. After awhile, the parent goes back and changes the rule so that there is no consequence whatsoever for the misbehaving child. Now what kind of behavior do you think that will lead to in the future for the child?