ABSTRACT
This study examines the Fish Pool salmon futures contract with respect to how well the market performs in terms of the futures price being an unbiased estimator of the spot price and whether the market provides a price discovery function. Using data for 2006–2014 and with futures prices with maturities up to 6 months we find that spot and lagged futures prices are cointegrated and that the futures price provides an unbiased estimate of the spot price. We also find that, with the exception of the front month, that the causality is one-directional. The spot prices lead futures prices between 1–6 months maturity. Hence, while the spot and lagged futures prices are unbiased estimates, we do not find support for the hypothesis that futures prices provide a price discovery function. Rather, it seems that innovations in the spot price influence futures prices. This finding is not uncommon in new and immature futures contracts markets. Hence, the salmon futures market is still immature and has not yet reached the stage where futures prices are able to predict future spot prices.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the reviewers for helpful comments. Any opinions and remaining mistakes are of course the authors’ responsibility.
Notes
Inelastic supply (Andersen, Roll, & Tveterås, Citation2008; Aasheim et al., Citation2011) and demand that is becoming less elastic (Asche, Citation1996; Xie & Myrland, Citation2011; Dey, Rabbani, & Singh, Citation2014) do of course contribute to increased price volatility, as do supply shocks (Asche, Oglend, & Zhang, Citation2015b) and demand shocks (Asche et al., Citation2015c; Sha et al., Citation2015). A particular feature of aquaculture species is that also supply shocks from wild fisheries can influence price volatility (Anderson, Citation1985; Anderson et al., Citation2015; Jensen et al., Citation2014).
Salmon prices are size dependent (Asche & Guttormsen, Citation2001).
This is because there is no market integration between salmon and any commodity for which there exist a futures contract. The only analysis of cross-hedges related to seafood we are aware of is Vukina and Anderson (Citation1993), who show that fishmeal prices can be hedged with soybean meal futures contracts.
Salmon aquaculture is exposed to several types of production shocks that can lead to unexpected changes in produced quantity such as biophysical factors (Asche, Oglend, & Zhang, Citation2015b; Torrissen et al., Citation2011) and diseases (Torrissen et al., Citation2011).
Andersen, T.B., K.H. Roll, & S. Tveterås (2008) The price responsiveness of salmon supply in the short and long run. Marine Resource Economics, 23, 425–438. Aasheim, L.J., R.E. Dahl, S.C. Kumbhakar, A. Oglend, & R. Tveterås (2011) Are prices or biology driving the short-term supply of farmed salmon? Marine Resource Economics, 26, 343–357. Asche, F. (1996) A system approach to the demand for salmon in the European Union. Applied Economics, 28, 97–101. Xie, J., & Ø. Myrland (2011) Consistent aggregation in fish demand: a study of French salmon demand. Marine Resource Economics, 26, 267–280. Dey, M.M., A.G. Rabbani, & K. Singh (2014) Determinants of retail price and sales volume of catfish products in the United States: An application of retail scanner data. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 18(2), 120–148. Asche, F., R E. Dahl, & M. Steen (2015a) Price volatility in seafood markets: Farmed vs. wild fish. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 19, 316–335. Asche, F., R E. Dahl, & M. Steen (2015a) Price volatility in seafood markets: Farmed vs. wild fish. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 19, 316–335. Asche, F., T.A. Larsen, M.D. Smith, G. Sogn-Grundvåg, & J.A. Young (2015c) Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity. Food Policy, 67, 82–93. Anderson, J.L. (1985) Market interaction between aquaculture and the common-property commercial fishery. Marine Resource Economics, 2, 1–24. Anderson, J.L., C.M. Anderson, J. Chu, J. Meredith, F. Asche, G. Sylvia, M.D. Smith, D. Anggraeni, R. Arthur, A. Guttormsen, J.K. McCluney, T. Ward, W. Akpalu, H. Eggert, J. Flores, M.A. Freeman, D.S. Holland, G. Knapp, M. Kobayashi, S. Larkin, K. MacLauchlin, K. Schnier, M. Soboil, S. Tveterås, H. Uchida, & D. Valderrama (2015) The fishery performance indicators: a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0122809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122809 Jensen, F., M. Nielsen, & R. Nielsen (2014) Increased competition for aquaculture from fisheries: Does improved fisheries management limit aquaculture growth? Fisheries Research, 159, 25–33. Asche, F., & A.G. Guttormsen (2001) Patterns in the Relative Price for Different Sizes of Farmed Fish. Marine Resource Economics, 16, 235–247. Vukina, T., & J.L. Anderson (1993) A state-space forecasting approach to optimal intertemporal cross-hedging. American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 75, 416–424. Asche, F., A. Oglend, & D. Zhang. (2015b) Hoarding the herd: The convenience of productive stocks. Journal of Futures Markets, 35(7), 679–694. Torrissen, O., R.E. Olsen, R. Toresen, G.I. Hemre, A.G.J. Tacon, F. Asche, R.W. Hardy, S.P. Lall (2011) Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – The Super-Chicken of the Sea? Reviews in Fisheries Science, 19(3), 257–278. Torrissen, O., R.E. Olsen, R. Toresen, G.I. Hemre, A.G.J. Tacon, F. Asche, R.W. Hardy, S.P. Lall (2011) Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) – The Super-Chicken of the Sea? Reviews in Fisheries Science, 19(3), 257–278.