4.7 Article

Dependence and risk management of portfolios of metals and agricultural commodity futures

期刊

RESOURCES POLICY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103567

关键词

Commodity futures markets; Tail dependence; Portfolio optimization; Vine copula; CVaR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the dependence structure and portfolio allocation characteristics of a main industrial portfolio of metals and an agricultural commodities portfolio. The results show that the dependence dynamics of the main metals portfolio are characterized by symmetric features, while the agricultural commodities portfolio exhibits both symmetric and asymmetric features, with symmetric dynamics being dominant. Additionally, the metal commodities portfolio is found to be less risky during the global financial crisis, making it suitable for financial resource allocation.
This paper examines the dependence structure and the portfolio allocation characteristics of a main industrial portfolio metals (gold, platinum, palladium, aluminum, silver, copper, zinc, lead, and nickel), and of an agricultural commodities portfolio (wheat, corn, soybeans, coffee, sugar cane, sugar beets, cocoa, cotton, and lumber). Our methodology is based on regular vine copulas and the conditional Value-at-Risk. The motivation to investigate the dependence structure and connectedness between agricultural, and metal commodities is to identify ways in which agricultural and metal commodities can hedge each other and to explore the possibilities of parallel investments. The results indicate that the dependence dynamics of the main metals portfolio are characterized by symmetric features. However, the dependence dynamics of the agricultural commodities portfolio are characterized by symmetric and asymmetric features; symmetric dynamics are predominant. Finally, the metal commodities portfolio is observed to be less risky for financial resource allocation during the global financial crisis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据