The (de)merits of minimum-variance hedging: application to the crack spread

We study the empirical performance of the classical minimum-variance hedging strategy, comparing several econometric models for estimating hedge ratios of crude oil, gasoline and heating oil crack spreads. Given the great variability and large jumps in both spot and futures prices, considerable care is required when processing the relevant data and accounting for the costs of maintaining and re-balancing the hedge position. We find that the variance reduction produced by all models is statistically and economically indistinguishable from the one-for-one “naïve” hedge. However, minimum-variance hedging models, especially those based on GARCH, generate much greater margin and transaction costs than the naïve hedge. Therefore we encourage hedgers to use a naïve hedging strategy on the crack spread bundles now offered by the exchange; this strategy is the cheapest and easiest to implement. Our conclusion contradicts the majority of the existing literature, which favours the implementation of GARCH-based hedging strategies.

An empirical model comparison for valuing crack spread options

In this paper, we investigate the pricing of crack spread options. Particular emphasis is placed on the question of whether univariate modeling of the crack spread or explicit modeling of the two underlyings is preferable. Therefore, we contrast a bivariate GARCH volatility model for cointegrated underlyings with the alternative of modeling the crack spread directly. Conducting an empirical analysis of crude oil/heating oil and crude oil/gasoline crack spread options traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the more simplistic univariate approach is found to be superior with respect to option pricing performance.