淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2805200603154200
中文論文名稱 實物商品便利殖利率之估計與動態路徑的配適
英文論文名稱 Estimation and Dynamic Path on the Convenience Yields for Commodities
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 財務金融學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Banking and Finance
學年度 94
學期 2
出版年 95
研究生中文姓名 古必寬
研究生英文姓名 Pi-Kuan Ku
電子信箱 693490095@s93.tku.edu.tw
學號 693490095
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2006-05-12
論文頁數 82頁
口試委員 指導教授-林蒼祥
共同指導教授-段昌文
委員-薛琦
委員-鍾惠民
委員-聶建中
中文關鍵字 實物商品  便利殖利率  持有成本模型  一般化自我迴歸條件異質變異數模型 
英文關鍵字 Commodities  Convenience Yield  Cost-of-Carry Model  GARCH 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 本文沿用Lin and Duan (2005)所採用之便利殖利率持有成本與買權模型來估算實物商品之便利殖利率,研究對象包含貴重金屬、能源商品與金融債券等三類,分別包含黃金、白銀、天然氣、無鉛汽油、10年期美國國庫券與30年期美國國庫券等6種商品。本文除了估算便利殖利率外,更藉由現貨價格與期貨價格的波動與便利殖利率之關係,以驗證Samuelson (1965)假說。最後本文運用了GARCH(1,1)、GARCH(1,1)-M及EGARCH(1,1)等三種模型來配適便利殖利率的走勢,並比較模型之配適程度。

實證結果發現,以買權模型所估算之實物商品便利殖利率皆大於持有成本模型所估得;實證結果亦發現,便利殖利率之期間結構多呈上升型態,與理論是一致的。在驗證Samuelson (1965)假說上,大部分貴重金屬與能源類商品皆符合其假說,即當便利殖利率處於低檔時,表示存貨位於高水準,此時現貨價格變動幅度與期貨價格波動幅度一致;當便利殖利率處於高檔時,表示存貨位於低水準,此時現貨價格波動幅度將大於期貨價格波動幅度。最後我們發現,貴重金屬與能源類之便利殖利率,以GARCH(1,1)與GARCH(1,1)-M模型配適效果較佳,且以GARCH(1,1)-M的配適結果相對最佳。
英文摘要 In this study, we use the cost-of-carry model and call options model to estimate convenience yields, which advanced by Lin and Duan (2005). The sample of the study includes three kind’s markets which are precious metal, energy and finance markets, and includes gold, silver, natural gas, gasoline, 10 year U.S. treasury notes and 30 year U.S. treasury bonds etc. Besides estimating the convenience yields, we also observe the relationship between the volatility of spot prices and future prices to test the hypothesis of Samuelson (1965). Finally, we use GARCH (1, 1), GARCH (1, 1)-M and EAGRCH (1, 1) models to fit the path of estimated convenience yields and compare which one is better.

The results show that the value of convenience yields estimated from call options model are higher than the cost-of-carry model. The term structure of convenience yields presents an upward sloping which is consistent with the storage theory. In testing the hypothesis of Samuelson (1965), the results show that at high inventory level, spot and futures prices have roughly the same variability, resulting in lower convenience yield; at low inventory level, spot prices of crude oil vary more than futures price, resulting in higher convenience yield. These results are consistent with Samuelson (1965) hypothesis. Finally, we find that both GARCH (1, 1) and GARCH (1, 1)-M can fit the path of convenience yields, and GARCH (1, 1)-M is the best.
論文目次 目 錄

中文提要 I
英文提要 II
謝 詞 III
目 錄 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII

第一章 緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 2
1-3 研究架構 4
1-4 研究流程 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2-1 便利殖利率 6
2-2 便利殖利率之估計 8
2-3 配適便利殖利率之相關文獻 16
第三章 理論模型 17
3-1 便利殖利率之持有成本模型 17
3-2 便利殖利率之買權模型 19
第四章 研究方法 23
4-1 便利殖利率之估算原則 23
4-2 Samuelson(1960)假說 23
4-3 變異數異質性檢定 24
4-4 便利殖利率之配適模型 25
第五章 實證結果 29
5-1 資料來源與處理 29
5-2 商品現貨與期貨契約介紹 32
5-3 商品之觀察月、事件月與最後月 43
5-4 持有成本與買權模型下之便利殖利率 48
5-5 Samuelson (1965)假說驗證結果 54
5-6 便利殖利率之配適結果 59
第六章 結論與建議 74
6-1 結論 74
6-2 研究建議 75
參考文獻 76
附錄 79
附錄1 79
附錄2 81
附錄3 82


表目錄

表5-1、商品現貨價格與報酬之基本統計量 30
表5-2、紐約商業交易所之黃金及白銀期貨契約規格 35
表5-3、紐約商業交易所之天然氣及無鉛汽油期貨契約規格 39
表5-4、芝加哥期貨交易所之10年期美國債券與30年期美國債券期貨規格 42
表5-5、本研究設計之觀察月、事件月及最後月 44
表5-6、衝擊發生之觀察月、事件月與最後月設計 47
表5-7、持有成本與買權模型下之貴重金屬商品便利殖利率 48
表5-8、持有成本與買權模型下之能源商品便利殖利率 51
表5-9、持有成本與買權模型下之金融商品便利殖利率 53
表5-10、貴重金屬商品於持有成本模型下之Samuelson (1965)假說驗證 55
表5-11、能源商品於持有成本模型下之Samuelson (1965) 假說驗證 56
表5-12、貴重金屬商品於買權模型下之Samuelson (1965) 假說驗證 57
表5-13、能源商品於買權模型下之Samuelson (1965) 假說驗證 58
表5-14、商品便利殖利率之異質性檢定結果 60
表5-15、持有成本模型下,貴重金屬便利殖利率之GARCH (1,1) 模型(I)與GARCH-M模型 (II)配適 63
表5-16、持有成本模型下,能源便利殖利率之GARCH (1,1)模型(I)與GARCH(1,1) -M模型(II)配適 65
表5-17、買權模型下,貴重金屬便利殖利率之GARCH (1,1)模型(I)與GARCH(1, 1)-M模型(II)配適 69
表5-18、買權模型下,能源便利殖利率之GARCH (1,1)模型(I)與GARCH (1,1)-M模型(II)配適 71


圖目錄

圖1-1、研究架構圖 5
圖4-1、觀察月、事件月與最後月之設置圖 23
圖5-2、貴重金屬類現貨之月平均價 46
圖5-3、能源類商品現貨之月平均價 46
圖5-4、金融類商品現貨之月平均價 47
圖5-5、持有成本與買權模型下之黃金便利殖利率期間結構 49
圖5-6、持有成本與買權模型下之白銀便利殖利率期間結構 49
圖5-7、買權模型下,貴重金屬便利殖利率(連續)期限結構圖 50
圖5-8、持有成本模型下之能源商品便利殖利率期間結構圖 52
圖5-9、買權模型下之能源商品便利殖利率期間結構圖 52
圖5-10、買權模型下,能源便利殖利率(連續)期間結構圖 53


參考文獻 參考文獻:

1. Ahmet, E., 2004, ”Optionality and Daily Dynamics of Convenience Yield Behavior : An Empirical Analysis.” Journal Of Financial Research 1, 143-158.

2. Bollerslev, T., 1987, “A Conditional Heteroskedastic Time Series Model for Seculative Prices and Rates of Return.” Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 542- 547.

3. Brennan, M., 1958, “The Supply of Storage.” American Economic Review 48, 50-72.

4. Brennan, M., 1991, “The Price of Convenience and the Valuation of Commodity Contingent Claims.” in D. Lund and B. Oksendal, Eds.: Stochastic Models and Options Values, North Holland.

5. Carmona, R. and M. Ludkovski, 2004, “Spot Convenience Yield Models for the Energy Markets.” In Mathematics of finance 351, 65–79.

6. Casassus, J. and P. Collin-Dufresne, 2005, “Stochastic Convenience Yield Implied from Commodity Futures and Interest Rates.” Journal of Finance 60, 2283-2332

7. Caumon, F. and B. John, 2004, “Redefining the Convenience Yield in the North Sea Crude Oil Market.” Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, ISBN 1901795314

8. Fama, E. and K. French, 1988, “Business Cycles and the Behavior of Metals Prices.”Journal of Finance 43, 1075-1093.

9. Fama, E. and R. French, 1987, “Commodity Futures Pices: Some Evidence on Forecast Power, Premiums, and the Theory of Storage.” Journal of Business 60, 55-73.

10. Gibson, R. and E. Schwartz, 1990, “Stochastic Convenience Yield and the Pricing of Oil Contingent Claims.” Journal of Finance 45, 959-976.

11. Heaney, R., 2002, “Approximation for Convenience Yield in Commodity Futures Pricing.” Journal of Futures Markets 22, 1005-1017.

12. Heinkel, R., M., Howe, and J. Hughes, 1990, “Commodity Convenience Yields as an Option Profit.” Journal of Futures Markets 10, 519-533.

13. Kaldor, N., 1939, “Speculation and Economic Stability” Review of Economic Studies 7, 1-27.

14. Lee, S.B., and K.Y. Ohk, 1992, “Stock Index Futures Listing and Structural Change in Time Varying Volatility.” Journal of Futures Markets 12, 493-509.

15. Lin, W. T., and C.W. Duan, 2005, “Estimated Oil Convenience Yield and Demand and Supply Shocks.” TMI Conference on Management Theory and Application.

16. Litzenberger, R. and N. Rabinowitz, 1995,“Backwardation in Oil Futures Markets: Theory and Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Finance 50, 1517-1545.

17. Mazaheri, A., 1999, “Convenience Yield, Mean Reverting Prices, and Long Memory in the Petroleum Market.” Applied Financial Economics 9, 31-50.

18. Mccrdy, T. and I. Morgan, 1988, “Testing the Martingale Hypothesis in Deutschemark Futures with Models Specifying the Form of Heteroskedasticity.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 3, 187-202.

19. Milonas, N. and S. Thomadakis, 1997, “Convenience Yields as Call Options: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Futures Markets 17, 1-15.

20. Milonas, N. and T. Henker, 2001, “Price Spread and Convenience Yield Behaviour in The International Oil Market.” Applied Financial Economics 11, 23-36.

21. Samuelson, P., 1965, “Proof that Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly.”Industrial Management Review 6, 41- 49.

22. Schwartz, E., 1997, “The Stochastic Behavior of Commodity Prices: Implication for Valuation and Hedging.” Journal of Finance 52, 923-973.

23. Sorensen, C., 2002, “Modeling Seasonality in Agricultural Commodity Futures.” Journal Of Futures Markets 22, 393- 426.

24. Telser, L., 1958, “Futures Trading and the Storage of Cotton and Wheat.” Journal of Political Economy 66, 233- 255.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2006-06-05公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2007-06-05起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信