4.6 Article

Forecasting commodity futures returns with stepwise regressions: Do commodity-specific factors help?

Journal

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
Volume 299, Issue 1-2, Pages 1317-1356

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-020-03515-w

Keywords

Stepwise regression; Commodity returns; Predictability; Portfolio back-testing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper evaluates the impact of three commodity-specific variables on the predictive power of commodity futures returns, finding that their inclusion does not improve forecasting power. Additionally, the risk-adjusted performance of a mean-variance investment strategy does not show a clear outperformance by any forecasting method.
The aim of this paper is to assess whether three well-known commodity-specific variables (basis, hedging pressure, and momentum) may improve the predictive power for commodity futures returns of models otherwise based on macroeconomic factors. We compute recursive, out-of-sample forecasts for the monthly returns of fifteen commodity futures, when estimation is based on a stepwise model selection approach under a probability-weighted regime-switching regression that identifies different volatility regimes. We systematically compare these forecasts with those produced by a simple AR(1) model that we use as a benchmark and we find that the inclusion of commodity-specific factors does not improve the forecasting power. We perform a back-testing exercise of a mean-variance investment strategy that exploits any predictability of the conditional risk premium of commodities, stocks, and bond returns, also consider transaction costs caused by portfolio rebalancing. The risk-adjusted performance of this strategy does not allow us to conclude that any forecasting approach outperforms the others. However, there is evidence that investment strategies based on commodity-specific predictors outperform the remaining strategies in the high-volatility state.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available