Search results

This paper aims to examine the evidence of risk spillovers between Shanghai and London non-ferrous futures markets using a dynamic Copula-CoVaR approach.

With daily data, the marginal distributions and optimal Copula functions are determined using the kernel estimation method and squared Euclidean distance test. The conditional value-at-risk and the conditional value-at-risk spillover rate are computed from the Copula estimated parameters based on the Copula-CoVaR model. Also, the dynamic correlation coefficient between the two futures markets is investigated.

The empirical results are as follows: overall, the risk spillover effect exerted by the London Metal Exchange on the Shanghai Futures Exchange is more significant than vice versa. Moreover, the degree of risk spillovers exerted by the London Metal Exchange on the Shanghai Futures Exchange for zinc and copper are more significant when they are depressed in the London Metal Exchange. Moreover, the dynamic of the correlation between the Shanghai and London futures markets is attributed to be largely due to changes in the global economy.

The Copula-CoVaR model used in this paper is suitable for measuring the risk spillovers between two different markets, while the risk spillovers across multiple markets or the consideration of multiple risk factors cannot be accurately captured using this framework. Multiple state variables to capture time variation in the conditional moments of return series will be a topic in future research.

The results provide theoretical support for risk management and monitoring of the non-ferrous futures markets.

The ability of the Copula function to accurately describe a nonlinear relationship and tail correlation is harnessed to measure the risk spillovers, explore the degree and direction of risk spillovers and identify the source of risk spillovers. The global economy is incorporated as a macro factor to explore its inner connection with the dynamic of risk spillovers in the non-ferrous metal futures market.

The London Metal Exchange is a recognised investment exchange under s. 36 Financial Services Act 1986 and is thus exempt from any need to secure authorisation under that Act. Schedule 4 of the Financial Services Act 1986 sets out the criteria which an investment exchange must meet and fulfil on a continuing basis in order to procure recognition from HM Treasury. Included in the Sch. 4 criteria are:

By drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted amongst waste-pickers and recycling traders in the waste paper, plastic and scrap metal sectors, and engaging with literature from economic anthropology and history, as well as archival sources, this paper documents changing perceptions of just price, morality and fairness in the Turkish recycling market. The paper suggests that multiple markets imply multiple prices, which are contingent and contested. When dealing with price mechanisms largely outside their control, actors tend to associate a fair price with the going market price, rather than factors such as state regulation. Approaches to morality and assessments of fairness become more ambiguous when prices are mediated by actors’ own practices. These range from gift relations to paternalism, envy and deception.

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the effectiveness of four derivative exchanges’ enforcement efforts since 2007. These exchanges include the Commodity Exchange Inc. and ICE Futures US from the United States and ICE Futures Europe and the London Metal Exchange from the UK.

The paper examines 799 enforcement notices published by four exchanges through a behavioural science lens: HUMANS conceived by Hunt (2023) in Humanizing Rules: Bringing Behavioural Science to Ethics and Compliance.

The paper finds the effectiveness of the exchanges’ enforcement efforts to be a mixed picture as financial markets transition from the digital to artificial intelligence era. Humans remain a key cog in the wheel of market participants’ trading operations, albeit their roles have changed. Despite this, some elements of exchanges’ enforcement regimes have not kept pace with the move from floor to remote trading. However, in other respects, their efforts are or should be, effective, at least in behavioural terms.

The paper’s findings are arguably limited to exchanges based in Anglophone jurisdictions. The information published by the exchanges is variable, making “like-for-like” comparisons difficult in some areas.

The paper makes several recommendations that, if adopted, could help exchanges to increase the potency of their enforcement programmes.

A key aim of the paper is to shift the lens through which the debate concerning the efficacy of exchange-level oversight is conducted. Hitherto, a legal lens has been used, whereas this paper uses a behavioural lens.

Aluminum is an exchange commodity. But physical trading of this metal in most cases does not occur on the stock exchange, since more than 90% of aluminum sales with physical delivery occur under direct contracts between producers and buyers of the metal (over-the-counter market). Aluminum as an exchange commodity has standardized consumer properties, namely: the goods are interchangeable, easily transported and stored, and can be divided into batches. That is why upstream products are traded on commodity exchanges, not semifinished products or finished products. When commodity exchanges were first created, they served as a place for concluding physical contracts for the supply of such exchange-traded goods, but with the increase in trading volumes and the development of financial instruments, the role of exchanges has changed. Today, futures contracts for raw materials are traded on them – financial instruments that almost never entail a real physical supply (at the same time, this possibility is not excluded). As a result of the bidding, a price is set that serves as a guideline for producers and consumers around the world.

Lunching futures market for steel has been regard as one of the most urgent issues in steel industry and futures exchanges. It is followed after chairman of IISI executive committee‘s suggestion and the LME (London Metal Exchange)‘s announcement of lunching plan in May of last year. In this paper, I examine the rationale for and the feasibility of the futures contract, together with the positive and negative impacts of the contract on the steel industry. Though there exist many obstacles, LME would not stop the effort to lunch the contract. This is because the futures market for steel products is expected to provide the industry with the following benefits : ① increase of price transparency, ② weakening of price control power, ③ settling of strained trade issues, and ④ promoting industry restructuring by driving un-competitive companies out of the market.

The military operation of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine exerted additional pressure on prices on the aluminum market since aluminum supplied by Russia accounts for about 10% of the total volume of US imports. It is known that Russia has become the largest aluminum producer after China, and now there is also an increase in aluminum production. Since electricity prices remain relatively low in Russia, especially in energy-surplus Siberia, the increase in output along with the increase in metal prices is a positive factor, since 70% of the primary aluminum produced is exported and only less than a third is consumed domestically. At the same time, high aluminum prices may constrain the expansion of domestic consumption of the metal and may force manufacturers to look for a cheaper alternative. In general, the increase in aluminum prices coincides with the general “supercycle” of raw materials in the last year and a half, and there is a chance to stabilize aluminum prices at current high levels, which will be facilitated, among other things, by new metallurgical projects in Russia. At the same time, it is worth noting that limited metal supplies will haunt the industry for most of 2022, and some experts predict that it may take up to five years to solve the problems.

In his review of 30 years of research in Prospect Theory, Barberis (2013) notes that support for Prospect Theory had come mainly from the laboratory. In this paper, I write about a recurring phenomenon in real life that is consistent with Prospect Theory predictions in decision-making loss domain. The 60 cases noted in this paper are associated with specific risk seekers that had cost more than $140 billion (an average of $2.33 billion per case). Given space consider– ations, I provide synopses for 14 cases. A few of these cases have been discussed in the extant literature in connection with internal control, but were not considered from the perspective of Prospect Theory. It is striking that these cases are costly, all participants are young men, and almost all had followed the gambler’s martingale strategy – i.e., double down. While these cases are informative about risk-seeking behavior, they are not sufficiently systematic to be subjected to stylized archival research methods.