Empirical Analysis of Copper Co-movement, Volatility and Hedge Ratios with Top Producing Countries

  • Corlise L. Le RouxEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


An empirical analysis of copper and a selection of currencies and indices of the countries that produce the largest amount of copper is done in the study to evaluate co-movement, volatility effects and static hedge ratios. The countries that are included are Chile, Peru, China, Australia, Congo, Zambia, Mexico, Indonesia, Canada, Russia, Poland, Kazakhstan, Brazil, South Africa and India. An index for Congo was not available, but the currency was included. To evaluate the overall effect on copper to emerging markets, the MSCI Emerging Market 50 Index was also included as part of the variables. The data will be evaluated by means of number of financial econometric models. The methodology includes correlation, VAR, Johansen Cointegration, Granger Causality, the generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic (GARCH) model, Glosten-Jagannathan-Runkle generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic (GJR-GARCH) model, and the exponential GARCH (EGARCH) model. The final part of the analysis includes the graphical representation of dynamic conditional correlations and four static hedge ratios which are the OLS methodology, ECM methodology, VECM methodology and finally the ECM-GARCH methodology. The models will be based on daily data from 1 August 2011 to 9 April 2018. The Granger Causality results suggest that relationships exist between all the variables except for seven currencies and one index, namely, the currencies for Australia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan, Peru, Poland and Congo. The Index that does not show any relationship is the Zambian Lusaka All share Index. Volatility is present in the data and therefore the models mentioned will be compared in order to identify which model is the best fitting model for the selected commodities, currencies and index. Overall, GJR-GARCH was the best fitting model for copper spot and future, in addition, leverage effects exist which imply that negative shocks have a greater effect than positive shocks. The static hedge ratio analysis showed that Russian RPS Index and copper future provided the largest value, followed by the Brazilian Bovespa Index and the Peruvian S&P/BVL General Index. On the negative values, the largest negative value was obtained for the South African FTSE/JSE All Share Index.


Co-movement Copper Hedge ratio Volatility 


  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control Ac, 19, 716–723.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (1999). Optimal hedging using co-integration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 357(1758), 2039–2058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asteriou, D., & Hall, S. G. (2011). Applied econometrics (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 3, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollerslev, T., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1992). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and inference in dynamic models with time-varying covariances. Econometric Reviews, 11(2), 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, C. (2014). Introductory econometrics for finance (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, S. S., Lee, C. F., & Shrestha, K. (2004). An empirical analysis of the relationship between the hedge ratio and hedging horizon: A simultaneous estimation of the short-and long-run hedge ratios. Journal of Futures Markets, 24(4), 359–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coakley, J., Dollery, J., & Kellard, N. (2008). The role of long memory in hedging effectiveness. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52(6), 3075–3082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi, K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2010). Volatility behavior of oil, industrial commodity and stock markets in a regime-switching environment. Energy Policy, 38, 4388–4399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chou, W. L., Denis, K. F., & Lee, C. F. (1996). Hedging with the Nikkei index futures: The conventional model versus the error correction model. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 36(4), 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Copper Development Association Inc. (2017). Copper—The World’s most reusable resource.
  12. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle, R., & Granger, C. (1987). Co-integration and error-correction: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle, R., & Yoo, B. (1987). Forecasting and testing in co-integrated systems. Journal of Econometrics, 35(1), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. Journal of Finance, 48, 1779–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, W. H. (2008). The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth, 1, 92–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo, J. (2018). Co-movement of international copper prices, China’s economic activity, and stock returns: Structural breaks and volatility dynamics. Global Finance Journal, 36, 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard, C., & D’Antonio, L. (1984). A risk-return measure of hedging effectiveness. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 19(1), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59(6), 1551–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, L. (1960). The theory of hedging and speculation in commodity futures. Review of Economic Studies, 27(3), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar, B., Singh, P., & Pandey, A. (2008). Hedging effectiveness of constant and time varying hedge ratio in Indian stock and commodity futures markets. Working Paper no. 2008-06-01. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.Google Scholar
  22. Luetkepohl, H. (2011). Vector autoregressive models. European University Institute Working Papers ECO 2011/30.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional Heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica, 59, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pesaran, M. H. (1997). The role of economic theory in modelling the long run. The Economic Journal, 107(440), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Puhle, M. (2013). Time series analysis. In G. Daróczi, M. Puhle, E. Berlinger, P. Csóka, D. Havran, M. Michaletzky, Z. Tulassay, K. Váradi, & A. Vidovics-Dancs (Eds.), Introduction to R for quantitative finance (pp. 15–18). Birmingham: Packt Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Sadorsky, P. (2014). Modeling volatility and correlations between emerging market stock prices and the prices of copper, oil and wheat. Energy Economics, 43, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scutaru, C. (2011). Possible evolutions of investment rate–error correction models scenarios. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 14(4), 141–162.Google Scholar
  30. Watson, M. W. (1994). Vector autoregressions and cointegration. Handbook of Econometrics, 4, 2844–2910 (Amsterdam).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations