Estimating Price Volatility Structure in Iran’s Meat Market: Application of General GARCH Models

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 3, Volume 30, Issue 1, April 2016, Pages 19-36   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v30i1.46427

Authors

Z. Rasouli Birami; M. Ghahremanzadeh^* ; Gh. Dashti; R. Mohammad Rezaie

University of Tabriz

Abstract

Introduction: Over the past few years, the price volatility of agricultural products and food markets has attracted attention of many researchers and policy makers. This growing attention was started from the food price crisis in 2007 and 2008 when major agricultural products faced accelerated price increases and then rapidly decreased. This paper focused on the price volatility of major commodities related to three market levels of Iran’s meat market, including hay (the input level), calf and sheep (the wholesale level) and beef and mutton (the retail level). In particular, efforts will made to find more appropriate models for explaining the behavior of volatility of the return series and to identify which return series are more volatile. The effects of good and bad news on the volatility of prices in each return series will also be studied.
Materials and Methods: Different GARCH type models have been considered the best for modeling volatility of return series. Nonlinear GARCH models were introduced to capture the effect of good and bad news separately. The paper uses some GARCH type models including GARCH, Exponential GARCH (EGARCH), GJR-GARCH, Threshold GARCH (TGARCH), Simple Asymmetric GARCH (SAGARCH), Power GARCH (PGARCH), Non-linear GARCH (NGARCH), Asymmetric Power GARCH (APGARCH) and Non-linear Power GARCH (NPGARCH) to model the volatility of hay, calf, sheep, beef and mutton return series. The data on hay, calf, sheep, and beef and mutton monthly prices are published by Iran’s livestock support firm. The paper uses monthly data over the sample period of the May 1992 to the March 2014.
Results and Discussion: Descriptive statistics of the studied return series show evidence of skewness and kurtosis. The results here show that all the series has fat tails. The significant p-values for the Ljung-Box Q-statistics mean that the auto-correlation exists in the squared residuals. The presence of unit roots in the return series is confirmed by the results of the ADF and PP unit root tests. Different GARCH type models mentioned in materials and method were fitted to the return series and then have been compared based on 7 loss functions MSE_2, MSE_1, PSE, QLIKE, R2LOG, MAD_2, MAD_1, two information criteria AIC and BIC and log likelihood. The selected models for modeling the behavior of volatility in the hay, calf, sheep, beef and mutton return series are SAGARCH (1,1) with a t distribution, NGARCH (1,1), TGARCH (1,1), SAGARCH (1,1) and EGARCH (1,1) all with Gaussian distribution. The coefficient of asymmetry (γ) in all models shows signs of asymmetric behavior in volatilities so that for all of the return series except hay returns positive shocks have more effect on volatility relative than negative shocks of the same size. This evidence is vice versa for the hay return, in which negative shocks have more effect on volatility. The (α + β) in all models are greater than 0.7 which means the high persistence of shocks to volatilities. In other words, shocks might die out very gradually. This feature is more pronounced in the case of beef and calf return series with α + β greater than 0.9. Sensitivity of the current volatility to the new shock or news, α, in calf (0.76) and beef (0.71) returns are greater than that of others. The low sensitivity to the news is related to the sheep returns (0.16). The effect of current conditional variance for the next month conditional variance, β, in sheep (0.55) and mutton (0.42) returns are relatively high. Minimal β (0.14) is related to the calf returns.
Conclusion: The paper attempts to study persist shocks to volatility as well as how positive (good) or negative (bad) shocks (news) may have an asymmetric effect on the volatility of a return series of hay, calf, sheep, beef and mutton prices in Iran. The findings show signs of asymmetry and persistence in volatilities. The sensitivities of price were also, volatility to the news in the calf and beef markets is greater than other return series. By the way, the effect of current conditional variance of the next month conditional variance in sheep and mutton returns is greater than others. This finding indicates that when new shocks occurs in the meat market calf and beef returns are more influenced by them and sheep and mutton returns highly transmit the current volatility in the future. This suggests less political tensions in the country as much as possible to calm the economic and political space.

Keywords

Asymmetric Effects; Conditional Heteroscedasticity; GARCH Type; Meat; Price Volatility Models

References

1- Alizadeh A.H., Nomikos N.K., and Pouliasis P.K. 2008. A Markov regime switching approach for hedging energy commodities. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(9): 1970-1983.

2- Allen D.E., Singh A.K., and Powell R.J. 2013. EVT and tail-risk modellilng: evidence from market indices and volatility series. North American Journal of Economics and Finance.

3- Anderson K., and Nelgen S. 2012. Trade barrier volatility and agricultural price stabilization. World Development, 40(1): 36–48.

4- Bastianin A., Manera M., Nicolini M., and Vignati I. 2012. Speculation, returns, volume and volatility in commodities futures markets. Review of Environment, Energy and Economics Re3.

5- Bohl M.T., and Stephan P.M. 2012. Does futures speculation destabilize spot prices? New evidence for commodity markets. SSRN Electronic Journal.

6- Bollerslev T. 1986. Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31: 307–327.

7- Brummer B., Korn O., Schlubler K., Jaghdani T.J., and Saucedo A. 2013. Volatility in the after crisis period: A literature review of recent empirical research. Working Paper, No.1.

8- Chen M.Y. 2013. Time series analysis: Conditional volatility models. Department of Finance, National Chung Hsing University.

9- Collier P. 2002. The macroeconomic repercussions of agricultural shocks and their implications for insurance. Discussion Paper No. 2002/46 (Helsinki: United Nations University, WIDER).

10- Davidian M., and Carroll R.J. 1987. Variance function estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82: 1079-1091.

11- Ding Z., and Engle R.F. 2001. Large scale conditional covariance matrix modeling estimation and testing. Working Paper 01029, Department of Finance, NYU Stern School of Business.

12- Engle R.F. 1982. Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50: 987–1007.

13- Engle R.F. 1990. Discussion: Stock volatility and the crash of ’87. Review of Financial Studies, 3: 103–106.

14- Engle R.F., and Ng V.K. 1993. Measuring and testing the impact of news on volatility. Journal of Finance, 48(5): 1749-1778.

15- Franses P.H., and van Dijk D. 2003. Non-linear time series models in eEmpirical finance. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

16- Ghahremanzadeh M., and Falsafian A. 2012. Volatility spillover effects in the Iran’s beef market. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 1(26): 31-40. (In Persian).

17- Gilbert C.L., and Morgan C. W. 2010. Food price volatility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365: 3023–3034.

18- Glosten L.R., Jagannathan R., and Runkle DE. 1993. On the relation between expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. Journal of Finance, 48: 1779–1801.

19- Gray S. 1996. “Modeling the conditional distribution of interest rates as a regime-switching process”, Journal o f Financial Economics, 42: 27-62.

20- Hansen P.R., and Lund A. 2001. A comparison of volatility models: Does anything beat a GARCH (1,1)? Working Paper Series, No.48.

21- Higgins M. L., and Bera A. K. 1992. A class of nonlinear ARCH models. International Economic Review, 33: 137–158.

22- Hosseini S., Salami H., and Nikookar A. 2007. The pattern of price transmission in the broiler market of Iran. Journal of Economic and Agriculture, 1(2), 1-21. (In Persian).

23- Huchet-Bourdon M. 2011. Agricultural commodity price volatility. Papers, OECD Library, Paris.

24- Iran’s Livestock support firm.Available at http://http://www.iranslal.com/index php/fa/amar/price-‌dame-toyor/d/mounts (visited 2013). (In Persian).

25- Jin H. J., and Kim T. 2012. Structural Changes in the Time Series of Food Prices and Volatility Measurement. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(4): 929–944.

26- Khaligh P., Moghaddasi R., Eskandarpur B., and Mousavi N. 2012. Spillover effects of agricultural products price volatilities in Iran (Case study: poultry market). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(8): 7906–7914.

27- Manganelli S., and Engle R.F. 2001. Value at Risk Models in Finance. ECB Working Paper No. 75.

28- Mortazavi S., Zamani A., noori M., and Naderi H. 2011. Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on Iran’s pistachio exports. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development (Agricultural Science and Technology), 3(25): 347-354. (In Persian).

29- Nelson D.B. 1991. Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: a new approach. Econometrica, 59: 349–370.

30- Pindyck R. S. 2001. The Dynamics of Commodity Spot and Futures Markets: A Primer. The Energy Journal, 22, No. 3.

31- Rezitis A., and Stavropoulos K. S. 2011. Price volatility and rational expectations in a sectoral framework commodity model: a multivariate GARCH approach. Agricultural Economics, 42(3): 419–435.

32- Subervie J. 2008. The variable response of agricultural supply to world price instability in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1): 72-92, 02.

33- Terasvirta T. 2006. An introduction to univariate GARCH models. Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 646, Stockholm School of Economics.

34- Tong H. 1990. Nonlinear time series: A dynamical system approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

35- Zakoian J. M. 1994. Threshold heteroskedastic models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18: 931–995.