Proceedings of the Conference on Transnational Corporations and Development in Brazil (2013)

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous

Ethanol Future Contract:
Dynamics of Biofuels Markets in Brazilian South-Center
Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy,
Julyerme Matheus Tonin and Joilson Dias

Abstract: In the world economic environment, Brazilian strategic position concerning biofuels
can be viewed as highly privileged. This position is achieved, primarily, by combination of
three physical comparative advantages: huge continental extension, fertile soils and tropical
climates, which favors sugar cane plantations. Nevertheless, to remain attractive to foreign
investments for sugar cane industry is necessary that price hedge mechanisms become truly
efficient. In this context, this studys main goal is to evaluate hydrated ethanol future prices
behavior at BM&F Bovespa, side by side with price behavior at major spot trading locations in
the Brazilian South-Center: Paul
nia-SP, Maring-PR e Ribeiro Preto-SP, through the
identification of an asymmetric transmission process between future and spot prices. This
analysis is based on nonlinear time series models of TAR and M-TAR family; the departure
approach used was cointegration with threshold, firstly developed by Enders and Siklos (2001),
for the May 8th 2010 to December 28th 2012 period. Starting results indicate that ethanol futures
contracts have an asymmetric short-term price transmission mechanism for Ribeiro Preto-SP
and Paul
nia-SP, although in a longer-term analysis the effect vanishes. For adjustment speeds,
lesser values were found for Maring-PR, suggesting that the greater the physical proximity
between spot and future markets, the greater is the integration degree among them.
Keywords: Biofuels, future markets, price asymmetry, TAR model, basis risk
JEL Classification: C53; G14, Q40

1. Introduction
The search for sustainable growth, environmentally sound and economically feasible, in a
context of growing concerns about global warming, again puts ethanol in a prominent position.
The motivation to take advantage of economies of scope arising from the byproducts of sugar
production, coupled with increasing demand with the advent of flex fuel cars have triggered the
growth of ethanol production in Brazil during the 2000s. With the enactment of Law 12.490, of
September 16, 2011, the National Agency of Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels ( ANP) has gained

229

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

control of the biofuels1 industry, thus consolidating the process of deregulation and expanding
importance of private risk management policies, especially those related to agricultural
derivatives.
Aiming to reduce exposure to price risk of the participants in the hydrous ethanol supply chain,
2
BM&F Bovespa , through the circular-office 018/2010 launched the future contract of hydrous
ethanol with daily settlement. The delivery point (only for pricing purposes) of the contract
corresponds to the city of Paul
nia So Paulo State. Thus, agents that integrate supply chain of
hydrous ethanol could from now on mitigate their price risk; this could be achieved with
replacement of price adverse oscillations in the physical markets by the sole basis risk.
Nevertheless, if there are arbitrage costs (whether tax, logistical or transaction) the postulates of
Law of One Price (LOP) cannot be applied, reducing the effectiveness of hedging strategy.
Given these conditions, this study aimed to evaluate the behavior of daily future and spot prices
time series for hydrous ethanol in Brazil, at the cities 3 of Paul
nia So Paulo State, Maring
Paran State and Ribeiro Preto So Paulo State, seeking to identify: a. the existence of
asymmetric price transmission; and b. transaction costs involved in the adjustment process
between spot and future markets. Specifically, we intended to calculate the basis between prices
of first expiration future contract open at BM&F Bovespa and the physical spot prices in
Paul
niaSP4, MaringPR5 and Ribeiro PretoSP. This has been done through an application
of nonlinear time series analysis, which addresses cointegration with threshold adjustment, a
methodology first developed by Enders and Siklos (2001). This model seeks to identify the
magnitudes of price changes during the transmission process between these locations,
contextualizing the performance of the contract vis--vis the commodity behavior related to
market structures, from May 18, 2010 to December 28, 2012.

2. Performance of ethanol contracts at BM&F bovespa

Trading of hydrous ethanol started on March 17 th, 6 2010, event that was concurrent with a
favorable scenario for the expansion of hydrous ethanol consumption on the market. According
to ANP (2012), in this period hydrous ethanol parity consumer prices stood at 55% of the sold
price of gasoline, below the threshold of 70% deemed to limit the economic viability of its use
as a gasoline substitute. From the start of hydrous ethanol futures trading, the volume of futures
contracts traded had adverse performance compared to that found in the spot market, according
to BM&F Bovespa (2012A). The volume traded increased from 7,642 contracts in the third
quarter of 2010 to 25,957 contracts in the second quarter of 2011. From this period, the traded
volume in the futures market stabilized at around 19,000 contracts per quarter. This corresponds
1

Biofuels are substances derived from renewable biomass, such as biodiesel, ethanol and other substances established
by regulation of ANP (BRAZIL, 2011).
2

Brazilian Stock, Mercantile and Futures Exchange.

These are the main Brazilian spot markets for hydrous ethanol.

Acronym for So Paulo State.

Acronym for ParanState.

The ethanol futures contract was launched on 17/05/2010 by the circular letter 018/2010-DP (BM&F Bovespa, 2010).

230

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

loosely to the size of the spot market, which showed an average consumption of 2.5 million
cubic meters quarterly.
In this context, one can infer that the growth in the volume of contracts traded in the futures
market by the second quarter of 2011 is mainly linked to the insertion of a new hedging tool.
Moreover, after an adapting period for market participants, the volume in the futures market
tends to stabilize at some average level, following the performance that occurs in the spot
market. Such results show that the physical and futures markets are cointegrated in the long run,
and that the performance of futures market is directly linked to the performance of the spot
market, and vice-versa. This greater integration between the physical (spot) market and the
futures market implies that the variations in the spot market, in the case of hydrous ethanol, are
reflected in the futures market. With the bad weather, very present in the 2011/2012 season, 7 the
volatility of daily returns was above average throughout the period, especially between March
2011 and May 2011 (around 20%), higher than the volatility found in the 2010/2011 (11.41%)
and in the 2012/2013 (11.00%). Its important to highlight that in the period of increased
volatility, the industry went through a supply shortage due to production problems.
With such increase in volatility, it is expected that the ethanol productive chain use hedging
tools in futures/options markets to mitigate risk in the spot market. These characteristics can be
noticed when its looked at the hedged percentage of ethanol sales in the domestic market. In
the 2010/2011 season (probably due to poor knowledge of operation mechanisms of the future
contracts), were hedged 9.8% of sales in the period. This amount increased to 25.3% of sales in
the 2011/2012 and 22.7% in the harvest for 2012/2013. The small decrease of
representativeness of the season 2012/2013 is possibly due to the reduction in price volatility
throughout the period.
Regarding commitment of traders in 2010/2011, in average 76.3% of contracts were traded by
non-financial companies, such as: industrial plants (usinas), wholesalers and trading companies.
The remaining share was distributed among the individual agents (21.9%), non-resident
investors (1.3%), institutional investors (1.0%) and banks (0.1%). In the season 2011/2012, we
highlight the growing share of non-financial companies, that have reached a remarkable market
share of 81.4% of the contracts, and the growth of banks' participation in operations (from 0.1%
to 4.0%), demonstrating that there was a growing demand for hedging tools.
Against this background, it is observed that the ethanol direct-related agents seek to mitigate
their risks by widening use of available hedging tools. Financial institutions have expanded
their operations Over-the-Counter (OTC) due to the growth in this market. Briefly describing,
banks offer a credit instrument with relatively-low interest rates, avoiding margin calls and
collateral deposits for the client through the period in which the contract is open. In the next
harvest (2011/2012), participation of the market agents has broadened even more. Operations
made bycorporate non-financial firms have risen to 91.3%, and financial institutions went to
4.9%, reinforcing the agents increase in propensity to use of hedging tools.
7

The sample period comprises three crops of cane sugar, but two of them have targeted periods, and the 2010/2011.
season matches 15/05/2010 to 31/10/2011, the 2011/2012 corresponds to 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 and the 2012/2013.
harvest begins on 01/04/2012 and runs through 28/12/2012.

231

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

However there are some regulatory measures, taken by the Brazilian government in periods
when the ethanol supply is restricted, that can negatively affect the liquidity and performance of
ethanol futures contracts. These measures are listed in Law 12.490/20118, and grant ANP the
power to assure that regulated agents are requested to maintain minimum stocks of biofuels,
establishing guarantees and evidence of capacity to meet minimum demand levels for biofuels
market (BRAZIL, 2011). Thus ANP, checking for problems in the productive sector that
endangered the national supply/demand equilibrium, published ANP Resolution967/2011, which
aims to ensure the fulfillment of the demand for anhydrous ethanol generated by the mandatory
blending of gasoline. In this spirit, ANP Resolution 67/2011 enforces the usinas and wholesalers
need to provide proof of anhydrous ethanol stock levels sold in the same period of the last year
(one month in advance of the commercialization month,), as well as the forecast of sanctions for
the two agents involved in the transaction (ANP, 2011).
As result, the production of anhydrous ethanol in Southern-Central Brazil has grown from 7.47
million cubic meters in 2011/2012 sugar cane crop to 8.30 million cubic meters for 2012/201310,
corresponding to a growth of approximately 11.1% over the period. In contrast, there was a
reduction in the production of hydrous ethanol, leaving 13.08 million m3 in 2011/2012 crop to
12.75 million cubic meters in 2012/2013 crop, representing a reduction of approximately 2.5%
YoY (UNICA, 2012). These changes in the business structure of ethanol favors the
strengthening of trading mechanisms based on the forward market ( OTC), mainly off-season,
because market participants concerned about meeting the requirements of the ANP, along with
the reduction of risk exposure, eventually make this kind of contracts for the supply of ethanol.
As previously mentioned in this paper, some activities tend to influence the liquidity of ethanol
futures contracts, and by consequence ethanol futures market consolidation in Brazil.
Concerning this subject, Pennings and Leuthold (1999) highlighted that the presence of price
volatility of the base asset, the level of activity, the size of the commodity spot market and the
degree of product homogeneity tend to increase liquidity for future contracts. Nevertheless,
factors such as market concentration, greater vertical integration and a high degree of
government intervention can cause economic distortions and reduce price risk for underlying
assets, harming or even impairing the consolidation of futures market for the commodity.
Shortly, the performance of ethanol futures contracts at BM&F Bovespa is directly linked to the
performance of the product on the spot market. However, changes in the macroeconomic
framework, jointly with freer markets, can interfere positively in this relation, as well as
negatively when the market has issues such as high concentration, vertical integration of
production and increased government interference in industry. This work shows some of the
most relevant aspects related to the price transmission process from spot market to the futures
market, and vice-versa. It also approaches the concept of basis risk, and how this concept is
embedded in the agricultural commodities market, highlighting key works that addressed the
8

Law No. 12,490 of November 16, 2011 (BRAZIL , 2011).

ANP Resolution 67 of 9 December 2011 (ANP, 2011).

10

Forecast of the Crop 2012/2013, Sugar Cane in Brazil SouthCenter, published on September 20, 2012 (UNICA,
2012).

232

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

issue. Finally, it shows how the TAR and M-TAR models used for the study must be inserted in
an analysis process concerning the ethanol futures and spot markets.

3. Literature review
In the economic system, transaction costs arise on situations that require resources to create,
keep and change structures of market institutions and organizations ( FURUBOTN and RICHTER,
2000). These costs are, in general, due to opportunistic behavior, uncertainty, bounded
rationality and governance structure of the market. Following these basic ideas, Fiani (2002)
points out that complex environments, subjected to bounded rationality and uncertainty, imply
in information asymmetry; i.e., different information, provided to the parties involved in a
market transaction, can possibly affect the outcome of the business. These gaps allow market
agents to pursue hedging actions, considering an environment of uncertainty, as well as
opportunist actions who seek to maximize profit.
By consequence, transaction costs in ethanol spot market can distort pricing process in the
futures market, resulting in financial losses to a potential contractor. Moreover, these operations
increase trading risk, while keeping gross expected returns on investment unchanged (what
could possibly reduce speculators incentive to participate in the futures market). A final effect
is that, with little or no participation of speculators in trading volume, the overall average
liquidity of the ethanol futures market is reduced. Part of such requirements is contained in the
framework of the Efficient Market Hypothesis ( EMH). According to Fama (1970), an efficient
market is one that incorporates instantly and perfectly all known information concerning the
process of price formation 11, and in which no market agent should be able to get abnormal
economic profits using sole publicly available information. In this sense, if market agents are
rational, their expectations about future prices are equal to optimal forecasts that use all
available information.
On this subject, Newbold et al. (1999) argue that futures prices are biased estimators of the
physical (spot) market prices, because the agents involved cannot process in a rational way all
available information, causing the arise of a risk premium that can be fixed or random over time.
However, in longer terms, futures markets tend to be more efficient than in shorter terms, due to
many disturbances of EMH in short time lapses. It is worth of mention, yet on this particular
subject, the works of Moraes, Lima and Melo (2009); Amado et al. (2005); Frees (2009); Neto,
Fraga and Marques (2010); and Perobelli (2005). All these studies pointed out for the existence
of a long-run relationship between spot and future prices of agricultural commodities traded at
BM&F Bovespa. This has demonstrated that, at BM&F Bovespa, agricultural commodity futures
prices are mostly nonbiased estimators of spot market prices.
In this paper, the use of cointegration with threshold adjustment approach, first developed by
Enders and Siklos (2001), will identify the existence of an asymmetric price transmission
mechanism between ethanol spot and futures markets, and subsequently analyze the role of
transaction costs that are involved in the adjustment process between these two markets. This
11

Nowadays this is known as the weak formulation of EMH.

233

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

method, in the current literature, is primarily used for time series of commodity prices on the
spot market, in order to verify if transaction costs can interfere with the process of price
formation of the product at different delivery points. Additionally, is highlighted the work of
Alves and Lima (2010) that, through a TAR model, analyzed the spatial integration of markets
for hydrous and anhydrous ethanol in Brazil, using daily prices time series for the cities of
Ribeiro PretoSP, MaringPR, Paul
niaSP, MaceiAL and AraatubaSP, in a period that
ranged from May 2003 to December 2008. The work of Cunha and Azevedo (2011) sought to
analyze the influence of transaction costs on the behavior of the basis risk, explaining the
difference between daily spot prices for corn at JatahyGO and closing prices of corn futures
contracts at BM&F Bovespa. Other work in the agricultural economics field related to the price
asymmetry subject was Cunha and Sousa (2010), which aimed to assess the effects of
incorporating transaction costs on the spatial integration of Northeast melon markets.
Shortly, the existence of transaction costs may cause price transmission mechanism to become
asymmetric, increasing the disparity between different markets for the same commodity. As a
result, it is found that the greater the magnitude of the asymmetry, the lower the degree of
market integration in the short and long term, influencing in a negative way the efficiency of
futures contracts. Another component of price risk, which is inserted into the basic purpose of
hedging with futures contracts by market agents, is the basis volatility and asymmetry between
spot and futures prices. Moreover, from both academic literature and practitioners experience
related to the agricultural futures markets, it is clear that prices at some specific geographical
zone may differ from those at the futures markets. These facts can lead to opportunistic
behavior, uncertainty and bounded rationality among agents in the market. To evaluate the basis
behavior for hydrous ethanol futures and spot markets, this study used an Autoregressive
Moving Averages (ARMA) Model, with its formulation as presented by Hamilton (1994).
According to Leuthold, Junkus and Cordier (1989), the difference between spot and futures
prices of a commodity in a given delivery location, for a given expiration month of the future
contract, is known simply as basis. As the futures prices normally carry some premium over
spot prices (situation known in market jargon as contango), this premium reflects the cost of
carry (in other words, the cost to keep) a physical position (e.g., in inventories) to the expiration
date of the contract; this implies that the basis takes negative values in contango markets.
However, due mainly to instability in demand for commodities, sometimes a positive-basis
situation called backwardation can occur (situation also known among practitioners as "inverted
market"). In backwardation markets, spot prices exceed futures prices.
For Purcell and Koontz (1999), basis behavior is linked to transportation costs, commodities
quality standards, unexpected changes in supply and demand of the product and of its
substitutes, inadequate storage capacity, government interference in pricing, deficiencies in
transport modals (e.g. lack of railways, waterways, even of vicinal roads) or immediate need of
resources by producers, among other factors. The work by Kahl and Curtis (1986) recognize, in
addition, that interest rates and price levels themselves are also determinants of the basis.
Changes in basis can affect expected financial results in futures markets operations, i.e., the
expected result with settling the so-called perfect hedge (theoretical) may not be reached. This

234

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

means that futures prices may not behave in same way as spot market prices, while a position
taken on the futures market gets closer to its expiration date. To Figlewski (1984), these nonmatched temporal variations of changes in future and spot prices comprise what is known as
basis risk. Thus, economic agents that trade in the futures markets exchange commodities price
risk for sole basis risk. If there exists an asymmetry between spot and future prices, plus a high
basis risk, the main objective of agricultural futures contracts to reduce or to mitigate the price
risk in commodities trading will not be achieved, and this can also reduce the efficiency of the
futures contracts market.

4. Methodology
4.1. Data description
The main data sources used for this study correspond to the daily ESALQ/BM&F Bovespa
indicator of hydrous ethanol, basis in PaulniaSP (ESALQ); the price series of the first
expiration month of the hydrous ethanol future contract at the BM&F Bovespa (venc1); the
hydrous ethanol spot prices for delivery in MaringPR (mrga) and Ribeiro PretoSP (rbro).
The data were obtained from CMA Series 4 trading platform, for the period of May 18 th, 2010
to December 28th, 2012, comprising 648 daily observations. For the basis analysis (spot and
futures prices difference), series base1, base2 and base3 were created by the authors, and
indicate the respective basis for spot markets at PaulniaSP, Ribeiro PretoSP and Maring
PR, vis--vis the hydrous ethanol future contract of first maturity at BM&F Bovespa. The price
series are measured at Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) criteria to each city, and are exempt
from the respective added value state tax rates (ICMS12).

4.2. Methodology details

4.2.1. TAR and M-TAR models
In conventional analysis of markets integration, there are two cointegration tests to determine
the long-term relationships between the prices in analysis, namely: cointegration tests of Engle
and Granger (1987) and Johansen (1995). The first consists in estimating equation cointegration
between prices by OLS (Ordinary Least Squares), whose bivariate version can be represented by
adjustment of the following equation:

(1)
where

and

indicate the prices prevailing in the markets j and i, respectively, and

is the

random error term. Following, one should check for the stationarity of , which can be
detected by means of the autocorrelation function and its resulting correlogram, as well as by
unit root tests. In general, the most used test is the Augmented DickeyFuller (ADF) test; the
latter can be expressed as:
12

Imposto Sobre Circulao de Mercadorias e Servios. This tax rate varies according to the Brazilian state.

235

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

(2)
If theres rejection of the null hypothesis (existence of a unit root), prices are cointegrated, i.e.,
there exists integration between markets i and j. However, the critical values of the ADF test
cannot, sometimes, follow the original distribution tabulated by Dickey and Fuller (1979). This
happens because is estimated. In this case, the critical values appropriate to the test can be
found in Engle and Granger (1987) and MacKinnon (1991).
To overcome this restriction on the Engle and Granger (1987) analysis method of market
integration, it should be considered that the difference between market prices j and i is smaller
than the transaction costs. The most appropriate econometric instrument that takes the presence
of nonlinearities and discontinuities in the relationship between the prices into account is
cointegration with threshold. According to Enders and Granger (1998) and Enders and Siklos
(2001), one way to consider the asymmetric adjustment of the model is to specify
as a
threshold autoregressive (TAR) process, which is the model that has been used in this work.
Thus, the number of residues characterized in equation (2) can be rewritten as:

(3)
where

is the number of residues obtained from regression (1);

will have unitary value, if

parameter;

and null if

the error term, independent of

no serial autocorrelation. The values of

is a dummy variable that

in which t is the threshold

et, assuming zero mean, constant variance and

and

capture the asymmetrical adjustment, i.e., if

is positive, the adjustment will be given by

; but, if negative, will be captured by

To the above cited authors, when the adjustment path proves to be more persistent in
one direction than in another (high or low markets), the resulting model takes the form of a
momentum-threshold autoregressive (M-TAR) process, which can be written as:

(4)
where

is a dummy variable which will have unit value if

For each one of the specified models, the null hypothesis

and zero if

0, which refers to absence

of cointegration, is tested. To conduct this test, statistics F and

values for the TAR and MTAR models are used, considering the critical values as tabulated by Enders and Siklos (2001)
and Wane et al. (2004). The critical values for these statistics depend on the sample size and the
number of variables. In this context, the hypothesis of cointegration is not rejected, is also
important to test the hypothesis
, that is related to the case of symmetric adjustment.

236

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

For the model to be identified is required that the residuals of equations (3) and (4)

) are

uncorrelated. To do this, were performed correlation tests for each one of the models. The
models that showed serial correlation in the disturbances were adjusted using lags in the
endogenous variable. Akaike Information Criteria ( AIC) and Bayesian Schwartz Criteria (BIC)
were the criteria used for identifying the number of lags suitable. The cointegration analysis of
TAR and M-TAR models, besides including transaction costs in the estimate, allows a check for
speed of the deviation from equilibrium conditions. For this purpose, according to Piggott and
Goodwin (2001), is necessary to calculate half-life. This procedure calculates the time taken for
50% of deviations from the equilibrium to be eliminated, that is, it refers to the average time
required for a given shock to return halfway back from its initial value. The calculation of the
half-life can be done as follows:

(5)
As shown, equation 5 states that if there is a price difference between markets that exceeds
transaction costs (threshold), this difference creates an opportunity for short-term gains of
arbitrage, which make fast adjustments. Nevertheless, if the price differential is less than the
transaction costs, adjustments can be slow or even not occur.
4.2.2. Basis forecast
Forecasting a stationary time series is a technique mostly based in ARMA (autoregressive
moving-average) models. An ARMA (p,q) family model comprises the sum of an autoregressive
component, AR(p), and a moving-average component, MA(q). Equation (6) describes an ARMA
model (HAMILTON, 1994):
p

~
zt i ~
zt i j at j
i 1

(6)

j 1

In which,

~
zt = ARMA (p, q) model;

i ~zt i
i 1

= AR (p) pure model;

a
j 1

j t j

= MA (q) pure model.

A necessary condition for identification of the model associated with such stochastic processes
is stationarity of the ARMA (p, q). Stationary of a time series points out that mean, variance and
autocorrelations can be approximated by long enough time-based averages, for a single set of
observations. Is common to check the stationarity of a time series through the application of a
unit root test, for example the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test? Rejecting the null
hypothesis of unit root can identify the ARMA (p, q) suitable to forecast, using the criteria of
Box and Jenkins (1984): parsimony, efficiency and predictive estimation outside the sample
(ENDERS, 2010). In this context, to select ARMA (p, q) models to describe the basis in regional

237

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

markets, were used as selection parameters Akaike Information Criteria ( AIC), Schwarz
Bayesian Criteria (SBC) and the adjusted R2.

5. Results obtained
Before performing unit root tests, was necessary to determine the number of lags by the Akaike
and Schwartz Information Criteria. The absence of unit root is required to obtain nonautocorrelated estimated residuals, with a white noise structure. For this purpose, were added
four lags in the estimation for the first and second models, and only one lag for the third model.
The next step is to determine the order of integration using a unit root test. For this purpose, the
test performed was the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) [Dickey and Fuller (1979)], according
to the procedures described by Enders (2010) and Rao (1994).
As shown in table 1, the ADF test indicates that the prices series for venc1, esalq, mrga and rbro
are stationary in first difference. These results corroborate the initial conditions for the TAR and
M-TAR model estimates, i.e., that the series are integrated of order (1). In addition, concurrently
with the analysis above, the ADF test indicated that the series base1, base2 and base3 are
stationary in level, eliminating the need to add orders of integration for the ARIMA model. To
verify the asymmetry in prices between the futures market of BM&F Bovespa and the main
spot markets for hydrous ethanol in Brazilian Central South, this work estimated three models,
which in turn aim to verify the asymmetry of the central market for the price spot of Paul
nia
SP, (model 1), Ribeiro PretoSP (model 2) and MaringPR (model 3).
Table 1. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root test.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF)

Integrao

Srie

Laga

venc1

mrga

I(0)

rbro

I(0)

esalq

I(0)

-2.850

I(0)

venc1

-22.903**

262.270**

I(1)

.mrga

-23.014**

264.830**

I(1)

rbro

-15.900**

126.410**

I(1)

esalq

-9.018***

40.660***

I(1)

base1

-6.003**

18.060**

I(0)

base2

-7.169**

25.710**

I(0)

base3

-8.424**

35.490**

I(0)

* Significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; and

not significant. Critical values for , , and
correspond respectively to -3.447, 2.885 and 1.943 at 5%, -4.068, -3.485 and -2.582 at 1% level, while the
ns

238

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

critical values for

and

correspond to 6.250, 4.680 and 4.710 at 5% and 8.270, 6.090 and 6.700

at the 1% level, as shown in Dickey and Fuller (1981). Variable level, variable in first difference. For
definition of the lag was used the smallest lag indicated by Criterion Akaike or Schwartz. Source:
Research Data.

The first step is to perform a traditional Engler and Granger (1987) cointegration test. This
procedure consists in estimating by Ordinary Least Squares ( OLS) a model between the two
markets, extract the residuals, and make the ADF unit root test upon the residuals. If the null
hypothesis that the model residuals have a unit root is rejected, then there exists a long-term
relationship between the variables. As a result, the cointegration equation will check the
response of the spot market prices when there are variations in prices of futures contracts.
Results are shown in table 2.
Table 2. Cointegration relations between the price of the first expiration of the hydrous ethanol at
BM&F Bovespa versus Paul
niaSP, Ribeiro PretoSP and MaringPR spot markets prices
Cointegration equation

Markets

F calculated

Model 1:
venc1and esalq

0.96

14748.39***

Model 2:
venc1 and rbro

0.95

11436.99***

Model 3:
venc1and mrga

0.92

7034.87***

Note: *** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10% and

Source: Research Results.

not significant.

Moreover, table 2 discloses that hydrous ethanol futures prices on BM&F Bovespa directly
influence spot prices at PaulniaSP, Ribeiro PretoSP and MaringPR. The constant
coefficient in the markets was found to be not statistically significant. Following, the ADF test
for residuals of the three estimated models was done. Results are contained in table 3.
Table 3. ADF unit-root test for estimated models residuals.

Residuals of model 1

Variable
statistics
-8.378***

1%
-3.430

Critic value
5%
-2.860

10%
-2.570

Residuals of model 2

-8.894***

-3.430

-2.860

-2.570

Residuals of model 3

-6.728***

-3.430

-2.860

-2.570

Models

Note: *** significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10% and

Source: Research Results.

not significant.

239

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

In short, the cointegration test of Engler and Granger (1987) allow us to infer that the three
analyzed markets keep a long-term relationship between them, i.e., price changes in the central
market tends to directly affect other peripheral markets. This result can be seen in Table 3,
which shows that the three estimated models have originated stationary residuals. To provide
robustness analysis, the Johansen (1995) cointegration test was also performed, seeking to
determine if there exists a cointegrating vector between the analyzed variables. Results of
Johansen test are shown in table 4.
Table 4. Cointegration test of Johansen (1995).
Model
venc1 and Esalq

venc1 and rbro

venc1 and mrga

Rank
0

Parms
6

LL
-5174.304

Egenvalue
16.080

SBIC

HQIC

16.054

16.038

-5137.648

0.107

15.996*

15.958*

-5742.357

17.838

17.813

17.797

-5696.682

0.132

17.727*

17.688*

-5719.763

17.768

17.743

17.727

-5696.182

0.070

17.725*

17.687*

AIC

15.934

17.665

17.663

* Identification of the cointegration vectors through Information Criterion Schwarz's Bayesian ( SBIC),
Akaike's (AIC) and Hannan and Quinn (HQIC).
Source: Research Results.

For the three estimated models, SBC criteria and HQIC (Hannan-Quinn Information Criteria)
indicate that there is at least one cointegration vector among the variables. With these results,
the work of analysis can move forward, checking if there is cointegration between variables
when taking the threshold existence into account. This is done by estimating the TAR and MTAR models.
As shown in table 5, all models rejected the null hypothesis that

0, indicating that

the use of the threshold cointegration model is the most adequate. Further, testing for
checks whether the pricing adjustments are equal for positive and negative in short-term
estimation by the TAR model parameters; for a longer period of time, such analysis is
performed by the model M-TAR. As a research result, there was found to exist price asymmetry,
in the short term, for the futures contract traded at BM&F Bovespa with the spot markets in
Paul
niaSP, Ribeiro PretoSP and MaringPR. Nevertheless, this price asymmetry tends to
be mitigated over a longer period of time. To the spot market in MaringPR, the presence of
asymmetry both in the short and long term was not detected.
Regarding the speed of price adjustments, as an expected work result, the distance between the
peripheral markets and the main market was a key factor in analysis, i.e., the more far away
from the exchange the spot market is located, more time is required for price adjustment to
occur. The results were estimated in days: 0.33 days (PaulniaSP), 1.00 day (Ribeiro Preto
SP) and 2.10 days (MaringPR). Notice that for best fitting of the models, the estimate was
made without autocorrelation, and followed the Bayesian ( BIC) and Akaike (AIC) selection

240

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

criteria for the necessary lags. Correspondingly, the analysis is preceded of an identification of
series behavior, i.e., if it is a pure autoregressive process ( AR (p)), a pure moving-average
process (MA (q)) or an auto-regressive and moving-average (ARMA (p, q)) process. To
determine which process better represent the series and the order of terms p and q, it is
necessary to analyze the autocorrelation function ( ACF) and the partial autocorrelation function
(PACF).
Table 5. Results of of TAR and M-TAR Model Estimates.
Model 1

Tests

Model 2

Model 3

TAR

M-TAR

TAR

M-TAR

74.282

31.593

29.677

21.700

{9.660}***
78.450

{9.930}***
0.645

{9.660}***
-0.074

M-TAR

17.476

16.265
{9.760}***

5.545

{9.660}**
*
1.618

{9.64}*** {9.770}***
9.158

TAR

4.284

{7.47}**
-0.157

-0.134

-0.109

-0.096

-0.063

(0.026)***

(0.052)***

(0.037)***

(0.024)***

(0.029)**

-0.808

-0.206

(0.032)**
*
-0.363

-0.109

-0.184

-0.148

(0,073)***

(0.028)***

(0.037)***

(0.058)***

(0.028)***

0.324

(0.063)**
*
1.001

2.103

Prob > F
(DWA)

[0.795]

[0.715]

[0.104]

[0.124]

[0.102]

[0.144]

AIC

5646

5719

5939

5929

5931

5920

BIC

5664

5737

5962

5956

5949

5942

Observations

646

646

645

644

646

645

Lags

Adjustmen
t speed
F (DWA)

*** Significant at 1%, ** significant at the 5% * significant at 10% and

not significant. The figures
in brackets refer to the standard error in brackets refer to the p-value and the brackets, the values of
statistical table and
obtained in Wane et al (2004).1 Values in days for the adjustment, calculated
by the method of Goodwin and Piggott (2001).2 Alternative Durbin-Watson test.
Source: Research results.

Settled this framework, by verifying the ACF and PACF functions, the model that presents best
fit for the first application was an ARMA (1, 3). Thus, the coefficient of the autoregressive
parameter of order 1
shows that 82% of the variations of the t-1 period are

241

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract

transmitted to the subsequent period t. The value of the moving-average estimated

coefficient
, indicates that every week there is an error in setting this variable that
is based upon the three previous days prices, with a magnitude around -7%. For the second
application, the best-fitting model was an ARMA (1, 1). The coefficient of the autoregressive
parameter of order 1
shows that approximately 86% of the variations in period t-1
are transmitted to the subsequent period t. The value of the estimated moving-average
coefficient
-0190) indicates that every week there is an error in setting this variable that is
based on the values of the previous week, with an approximate magnitude of -19%.
Regarding the third application, results were similar to the second application, only with lower
magnitudes. In this model the autoregressive parameter is
and moving-average
(table 6).
Table 6. Estimation of the parameters of the univariate ARMA model
Modelo

Srie

Parmetros

ARMA

(1;3)

base1

ARMA

(1;1)
ARMA

(1;1)

base2
base3

Estimativa

Erro Padro

AIC

BIC

Obs

5738.69

5756.58

648

0.822

(0,017)**

-0.072

(0,024)**

0.857

(0,016)**

5962.92

5980.81

648

-0.190
0.911

(0,055)**
(0,011)**

5961.37

5979.27

648

-0.177
(0,022)**
**is rejected the null hypothesis at 1% significance level, * is rejected the null hypothesis at 5%
significance level,
not significant. 1 : autoregressive parameter estimated.2
: movingaverage estimated parameter.
Source: Research results.

Therefore, as seen from market models analysis, is possible to forecast basis behavior for
hydrous ethanol. The models have as one of their characteristics an autoregressive component,
which causes most of the variations of ethanol prices to be influenced by its lagged prices in the
very short term. Asides with this fact, ethanol prices also show a moving-average behavior,
implying that economic agents tend to correct their expectations over time. This phenomenon is
well-known in the agricultural markets, because market agents involved take into account a
huge ensemble of information such as weather forecasts, production level, productivity,
inventories levels etc., as well as other factors related to supply and demand, that tend to create
a seasonal component in the price of such products during the harvest epoch.

6. Concluding remarks
Nowadays, the use of financial tools to mitigate market risk is increasingly present in the
commodities market. In Brazilian biofuels industry, because most of hydrous ethanol is to be

242

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

sold on the domestic market, the creation of BM&F Bovespa hydrous ethanol future contract has
improved the market, which became then even more dynamic. However, due to increased
government regulation and increased market concentration in the industry, the future contract
for ethanol in the BM&F Bovespa is more used to hedging-only operations, what caused the
reduction of individual and foreign investors in contract trading, thus reducing market liquidity
as a consequence.
In this work, the main goal was to analyze the efficiency of the futures contracts, in order to
verify whether there is an asymmetric price transmission process from future market prices for
the main spot markets. As noted, the markets at PaulniaSP and Ribeiro PretoSP showed a
process of asymmetric price transmission in the short term, but this was found to be dumped in
the long run. Regarding the speed of adjustment, the basis for MaringPR had the lowest
adjustment speed, approximately two days to transfer shocks from future to spot market prices.
Regarding basis risk between spot and futures markets, this risk has an autoregressive
component that allows current prices to be related to past prices, as well as a moving-average
component. The latter reflects the agents expectations realignment, based on the information
ensemble inherent to the production process, creating seasonal behavior of prices especially
during harvest periods. The analyzed models suggest that few or even no features in basis
behavior could not be forecasted to some degree, turning the basis risk into a component
possible of being mitigated.
Given this framework, one could expect that a growth in the industry output, reduction of state
intervention (nowadays unlikely to happen) and a more dynamic trading environment for
hydrous ethanol in the coming years could contribute to expand the liquidity of futures contracts
at BM&F Bovespa. In consequence, these factors could certainly allow industry agents to
perform a reduction of the price asymmetry found in this analysis, as well as a better risk
management in this commodity markets.

References
Alves, J. S. e Lima, R. C. (2010). Integrao espacial dos mercados de etanol no Brasil: uma anlise
atravs do Modelo Autoregressivo com Threshold. Frum BNB de Desenvolvimento, XV Encontro
Regional de Economia.
Amado, C. F. P., Carmona, C. U. de M., Lima, R. C. e Freire, C. M. M. (2005). Eficincia dos mercados
futuros agrcolas: Resultados do teste do modelo de correo de erro para o caso do acar e caf.
XLIII Congresso da SOBER, Ribeiro Preto.
ANP (2012). Agncia Nacional do Petrleo, Gs Natural e Biocombust
veis. Dados estatsticos mensais.
ANP (2011). Resoluo ANP 67, de 9 de dezembro de 2011.

BM and FBOVESPA. (2012). Sistema de Recuperao de Informaes. 2012. Disponvel em:

http://www.bmf.com.br/. Acesso em: 10 Out. 2012A.

243

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract
BM and FBOVESPA (2010). Of
cio Circular 018/2010-DP. Lanamento dos contratos futuros e de opes

sobre futuro de etanol hidratado com liquidao financeira.

BRASIL (2011). Lei n12.490, de 16 de setembro de 2011. Dispon
vel em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/.

Cunha, C. A.; Azevedo, P. F. (2011). Transmisso de preos do contrato futuro de milho da BM&F para
Jata/Go: Aplicao do modelo com Threshold. IN: 1 Conferncia em Gesto de Risco e
Comercializao de Commodities, BM&FBOVESPA.
Cunha, D. A., Lima, J. E. e Braga, M. J. (2010). Integrao espacial do mercado de boi gordo: uma anlise
de cointegrao com Threshold. Anlise Econmica, 28(53), UFRGS, 2010.
Cunha, D. A. e Sousa, E. P. (2010). Integrao espacial dos mercados atacadistas de melo no Nordeste
considerando a presena de custos de transao. 48Congresso SOBER, Campo Grande, MS.
Dickey, D. A. e Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit
root. Econometrica, 49(4):1057-1072.
Dickey, D. A. E fuller W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a
unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74:427431.
Enders, W. (2010). Applied Econometrics Times Series. 3rd edition, New York: Wiley, 2010.
Enders, W., Siklos, P. (2001). Cointegration and Threshold Adjustment. Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, Carolina do Norte, 19(2):166-176.
Enders, W., Granger, C. W. J. (1998). Unit-root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example using
the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 16(3):304-311.
Engle, R. F.; Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and
testing. Econometrica, 35(1):251-276.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of
Finance. 25(2). New York .
Fiani, R. (2002). Teoria dos custos de transao. In: Kupfer, D.; Hasenclever, L. Economia industrial:
fundamentos tericos e prticos no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Frey, G., Manera, M. (2007). Econometric Models of Asymetric Price Transmission. Journal of Economic
Surveys, 21(2):349415.
Furubotn, E. G e Richter, R. (2000). Intitutions as economic theory: the contribution of the new
institutional economics. The University Michigan Press, 1edio.
Griffith, G. R., Piggott, N. E. (1994). Asymmetry in beef, lamb and pork farm-retail price transmission in
Australia. Agricultural Economics, 10:307-316.
Goodwin, B. K., Piggott, N. E. (2001). Spatial market integration in the presence of threshold effects.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Milwaukee, 83:302-317.
Houck, J. P. (1977). An approach to specifyin and estimating nonreversible functions. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 59(3):570-572.
Johansen, S. (1995). Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models. Oxford
University Press.
Kinnucan, H. W., Forker, O. D. (1987). Asymmetry in farm-retail price transmission for major dairy
products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69:285292.

244

Joo Ricardo Tonin, Antonio Augusto de Jesus Godoy, et. al.

Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P. e Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of
stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a
unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54:159-178.
Libera, A. A. D. (2009). Transmisso de preos entre os mercados fsico e futuro de soja. 47Congresso
da SOBER, Porto Alegre.
Mattos, L. B., et al. (2010). Uma aplicao de modelos TAR para o mercado de carne de frango no Brasil.
Revista ANPEC, 11:537-557.
Mackinnon, J. G. (1991). Critical values for cointegration tests. In: Engle, R. F., Granger, C. W. J. (Ed.),
Long-run Economic Relationships. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J., Cramon-Taubadel, S. (2004). Asymmetric price transmission: a survey. Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 55(3):581-611.
Moraes, A. S., Lima, R. C. e Melo, A. de S. (2009). Anlise da eficincia do mercado futuro brasileiro de
boi gordo usando cointegrao. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, Piracicaba, SP, 47(3):601614, jul/set 2009.
Neto, W. A., Fraga, G. J., Marques, P. V. (2010). Eficincia de Mercado: Evidncias Empricas para os
Preos Spot e Futuro de boi. Revista de Economia (Curitiba), 36:7-24.
Newbold, P., Rayner, A., Ennew, C. e Marrocu, E. (1999). Futures markets efficiency: evidence from
unevenly spaced contracts. University of Nottingham, School of Economics Discussion Paper, 34.
Perobelli, F. S. (2005). As relaes entre os preos vista e futuro: evidncias para o mercado de boi
gordo no Brasil. XLIII Congresso da SOBER, Ribeiro Preto.
Pennings, J. M. e Leuthold, R. M. (1999). Commodity futures contract viability: a multidisciplinary
approach. Conference on applied commodity price analysis, forecasts and market risk management.
Chicago.
Phillips, P. C. B. Eperron P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75:335
346.
Rao, B. B. (1994). Cointegration for the applied economist. New York: St. Martins Press.
UNICA (2012). Sistema de informaes. 2012. Disponvel em: http://www.unica.com.br/. Acesso em 15
de nov. de 2012.
Wane, A., Gilbert, S., Dibooglu, S. (2004). Critical values of the empirical F-distribution for threshold
autoregressive and momentum threshold models. Discussion Paper 2004-13: Department of
Economics Southern Illinois University.
Ward, R. W. (1982). Asymmetry in Retail, Wholesale and Shipping Point Pricing for Fresh Vegetables.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(2):205-212.
Wolffram, R. (1971). Positivistic Measures of aggregate Supply Elasticities: Some new Approaches some critical Notes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53: 356-359.

245

Price Asymmetry and Basis Risk of BM&F Bovespa Hydrous Ethanol Future Contract
About the Authors
Joo Ricardo Tonin, M. Sc. Student in Economic Theory Economics Postgraduate Programme
(PCE) State University of Maring, Brazil (UEM), 5790 Colombo Avenue, Maring-PR, Antonio
Augusto de Jesus Godoy, M. Sc. Student in Economic Theory Economics Postgraduate
Programme (PCE) State University of Maring, Brazil (UEM). MBA in Asset Management
(EESP-FGV). 5790 Colombo Avenue, Maring-PR. Julyerme Matheus Tonin, Prof. Msc.,
Department of Economics, Universidade Estadual de Maring (UEM), 5790 Colombo Avenue,
Maring-PR. Joilson Dias, Chairholder professor Economics Department (DCO) State
University of Maring, Brazil (UEM). Ph. D. in Economics, University of South Carolina (USA),
5790 Colombo Avenue, Maring-PR.
Contact Information
Joo Ricardo Tonin, Tel: 55 (44) 3011-4905; E-mail: joaoricardo01@yahoo.com.br; Antonio
Augusto de Jesus Godoy, Tel: 55 (44) 3011-4905; E-mail: godoybr@gmail.com, Julyerme
Matheus Tonin, Tel: 55 (44) 3011-5234; E-mail: jmtonin@uem.br; Joilson Dias, Tel: 55 (44)
3011-4905; E-mail: jdias@uem.br.

246