Forecasting Accuracy Of Crude Oil Futures Prices

This paper undertakes an investigation into the efficiency of the crude oil futures market and the forecasting accuracy of futures prices. Efficiency of the market is analysed in terms of the expected excess returns to speculation in the futures market. Accuracy of futures prices is compared with that of forecasts using alternative techniques, including time series and econometric models, as well as judgemental forecasts. The paper also explores the predictive power of futures prices by comparing the forecasting accuracy of end-of-month prices with weekly and monthly averages, using a variety of different weighting schemes. Finally, the paper investigates whether the forecasts from using futures prices can be improved by incorporating information from other forecasting techniques.

This paper undertakes an investigation into the efficiency of the crude oil futures market and the forecasting accuracy of futures prices. Efficiency of the market is analysed in terms of the expected excess returns to speculation in the futures market. Accuracy of futures prices is compared with that of forecasts using alternative techniques, including time series and econometric models, as well as judgemental forecasts. The paper also explores the predictive power of futures prices by comparing the forecasting accuracy of end-of-month prices with weekly and monthly averages, using a variety of different weighting schemes. Finally, the paper investigates whether the forecasts from using futures prices can be improved by incorporating information from other forecasting techniques.

The paper develops an oil price forecasting technique which is based on the present value model of rational commodity pricing. The approach suggests shifting the forecasting problem to the marginal convenience yield which can be derived from the cost-of-carry relationship. In a recursive out-of-sample analysis, forecast accuracy at horizons within one year is checked by the root mean squared error as well as the mean error and the frequency of a correct direction-of-change prediction. For all criteria employed, the proposed forecasting tool outperforms the approach of using futures prices as direct predictors of future spot prices. Vis-à-vis the random-walk model, it does not significantly improve forecast accuracy but provides valuable statements on the direction of change.

We carry out an ex post assessment of popular models used to forecast oil prices and propose a host of alternative VAR models based on traditional global macroeconomic and oil market aggregates. While the exact specification of VAR models for nominal oil price prediction is still open to debate, the bias and underprediction in futures and random walk forecasts are larger across all horizons in relation to a large set of VAR specifications. The VAR forecasts generally have the smallest average forecast errors and the highest accuracy, with most specifications outperforming futures and random walk forecasts for horizons up to two years. This calls for caution in reliance on futures or the random walk for forecasting, particularly for near term predictions. Despite the overall strength of VAR models, we highlight some performance instability, with small alterations in specifications, subsamples or lag lengths providing widely different forecasts at times. Combining futures, random walk and VAR models for forecasting have merit for medium term horizons.

We assess the spot price forecasting performance of 10 commodity futures at various horizons up to two years and test whether this performance is affected by market conditions. We reject efficient markets based on in-sample tests but, out-of-sample, we find that the forecast from the futures market is hard to beat. We find that the forecasting performance of futures does not depend on the slope of the futures curve, in contrast to the predictions of well-known models of commodity markets. We also find futures' forecasting performance to be invariant to whether prices are in an upswing or downswing, casting doubt on aspersions that uninformed investors participating during bull markets impede the price discovery process.

How much does speculation contribute to oil price volatility? We revisit this contentious question by estimating a sign-restricted structural vector autoregression (SVAR). First, using a simple storage model, we show that revisions to expectations regarding oil market fundamentals and the effect of mispricing in oil derivative markets can be observationally equivalent in a SVAR model of the world oil market à la Kilian and Murphy (2013), since both imply a positive co-movement of oil prices and inventories. Second, we impose additional restrictions on the set of admissible models embodying the assumption that the impact from noise trading shocks in oil derivative markets is temporary. Our additional restrictions effectively put a bound on the contribution of speculation to short-term oil price volatility (lying between 3 and 22 percent). This estimated short-run impact is smaller than that of flow demand shocks but possibly larger than that of flow supply shocks.