catfancier
New member
- Mar 15, 2009
- 0
- 0
I can understand why a positive correlation between interest rates and the price of the underlying will cause futures price to be > than the forward price - as the price of the underlying rises the long receives mtm cashflows from the futures contract which can be reinvested at rising interest rates, hence the futures contract is preferred. But, why does a negative correlation mean the opposite? i.e. that the forward price > than the futures price? If the underlying rises in price, the long in the futures still receives mtm cashflows - granted that now they must be reinvested at lower interest rates in the negative correlation scenario. But surely this is still preferable to having nothing to reinvest until settlement date as with the forward contract? why is it not the case in this scenario that the futures price is still greater than the forward price, only less so than when the correlation was positive?
I see the same problem from the short perspective. When the correlation between Interest Rates and the price of the Underlying is positive the shorts prefer forwards as when the underlying rises in price they don’t have to finance the mtm cashflows of a future at rising interest rates. Hence the forward is the preferred contract for the shorts, and the price falls below that of the comparable future. But why when this correlation turns negative do the shorts suddenly prefer the futures? even if their financing costs of the mtm cashflows starts to fall it is still a cost that they would not incur at all were they in a forward contract.
It would seem more logical to me, that when the price of the underlying is rising, the futures price would be greater than the forward price, regardless of the direction of interest rates. As the long can earn some return on their mtm cashflows and hence drive up the futures price, while the short doesn’t want to have to finance these cashflows whatever the interest rate, and so prefers the forward contract, which drives it’s price down. And similarly when the price of the underlying is falling the reverse relation would hold regardless of the direction of interest rates as the long prefers the forward for which it incurs no finance costs, and the short prefers the futures for which it can earn reinvestment returns on it’s mtm cashflows (irrespective of whether these returns are at rising or falling rates).
What am I missing?
I see the same problem from the short perspective. When the correlation between Interest Rates and the price of the Underlying is positive the shorts prefer forwards as when the underlying rises in price they don’t have to finance the mtm cashflows of a future at rising interest rates. Hence the forward is the preferred contract for the shorts, and the price falls below that of the comparable future. But why when this correlation turns negative do the shorts suddenly prefer the futures? even if their financing costs of the mtm cashflows starts to fall it is still a cost that they would not incur at all were they in a forward contract.
It would seem more logical to me, that when the price of the underlying is rising, the futures price would be greater than the forward price, regardless of the direction of interest rates. As the long can earn some return on their mtm cashflows and hence drive up the futures price, while the short doesn’t want to have to finance these cashflows whatever the interest rate, and so prefers the forward contract, which drives it’s price down. And similarly when the price of the underlying is falling the reverse relation would hold regardless of the direction of interest rates as the long prefers the forward for which it incurs no finance costs, and the short prefers the futures for which it can earn reinvestment returns on it’s mtm cashflows (irrespective of whether these returns are at rising or falling rates).
What am I missing?