Volatility Modelling of Agricultural Commodities: Application of Selected GARCH Models

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


This paper does an empirical analysis of a selection of agricultural commodities, cocoa, coffee and sugar, as well as the currencies of the countries that produce the largest amount of the selected commodities, the Brazilian Real and the CFA Franc. In addition, the S&P GSCI Agriculture Index is included as an indication of overall agriculture prices as a comparison variable. The empirical analysis models the volatility of the variables included in the paper. The data will be evaluated by means of number of financial econometric models. The financial econometric models of the GARCH family models that will be used are the generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic (GARCH) model, the Glosten-Jagannathan-Runkle generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic (GJR-GARCH) model and the exponential GARCH (EGARCH) model. The models will be based on daily data from 1 January 2007 to 23 March 2017, split between the 2007–2009 financial crisis period and the period after the 2007–2009 financial crisis. The results suggest that 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, GARCH was the best fitting model for the S&P GSCI Agriculture Index during and after the financial crisis and EGARCH for the Brazilian Real. The remainder of the variables had different model results. Only the GJR-GARCH results for cocoa indicated that leverage effects exist which imply that negative shocks have a greater effect than positive shocks.


Cocoa Coffee Sugar Brazilian Real CFA Franc GSCI Agriculture Index GARCH EGARCH GJR-GARCH 


  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control Ac-19:716-723.Google Scholar
  2. Asteriou, D., & Hall, S. G. (2011). Applied econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, (3), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, C. (2014). Introductory econometrics for finance (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creti, A., Joëts, M., & Mignon, V. (2013). On the links between stock and commodity markets' volatility. Energy Economics, 37, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59(6), 1551–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lama, A., Jha, G. K., Paul, R. K., & Gurung, B. (2015). Modelling and forecasting of price volatility: An application of GARCH and EGARCH models. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 28(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luetkepohl, H. (2011). Vector autoregressive models. European University Institute Working Papers ECO 2011/30.Google Scholar
  11. Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica, 59, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Senhil, R., Kar, A., Mathur, V. C., & Jha, G. K. (2014). Price volatility in agricultural commodity futures – An application of GARCH model. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 68(3), 365–375.Google Scholar
  15. Watson, M. W. (1994). Vector autoregressions and cointegration, Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 4, pp. 2844–2910). Amsterdam: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations