Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1435042

The Role of Speculators in the Crude Oil Futures Market

Abstract: The coincident rise in crude oil prices and increased numbers of financial participants in 

the crude oil futures market from 2000-2008 has led to allegations that ―speculators‖ drive crude oil 

prices. As crude oil futures peaked at $147/bbl in July 2008, the role of speculators came under 

heated debate. In this paper, we employ unique data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC) to test the relation between crude oil prices and the trading positions of various 

types of traders in the crude oil futures market. We employ Granger Causality tests to analyze lead 

and lag relations between price and position data at daily and multiple day intervals. We find little 

evidence that hedge funds and other non-commercial (speculator) position changes Granger-cause 

price changes;–the results instead suggest that price changes do precede their position changes.

Keywords: Crude Oil, Futures Markets, Speculators, Granger Causality, Hedge Funds, Commodity 

Index Traders

JEL Classification: G12, G14, G23

* Buyuksahin: Economist, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), 1155 21st Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20485. Email: bbuyuksahin@cftc.gov. Harris: Chief Economist, CFTC and 

Professor of Finance, Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, 

320 Purnell Hall, Newark, DE 19716. Email: jharris@cftc.gov. Many thanks to Kirsten Anderson, 

Celso Brunetti, James Moser, David Reiffen and Michel Robe for helpful comments. This paper 

reflects the opinions of its authors only, and not those of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, the Commissioners, or other staff of the Commission. All remaining errors and 

omissions, if any, are the authors’ sole responsibility.

Bahattin

Büyükşahin

Jeffrey H.

Harris
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1435042

The summer 2008 spike in crude oil prices to $147/bbl jolted the U.S. economy and severely pinched 

consumers at the gas pump. In reaction to oil prices, U.S. total oil consumption fell by 6.7 percent 

from 20.8 million barrels per day in 2005 to 19.4 million barrels a day in 2008. Given the 

predominance of crude oil in the U.S. economy, the price spike also generated substantial attention 

from regulators, legislators and market critics who decried the existence of excessive speculation in 

the crude oil futures markets. Indeed, the rise in participation by non-commercial traders during the 

preceding eight years (Buyuksahin et al. (2009)) provided great fodder for casual connections with 

recent price increases. In this paper we apply rigorous econometric techniques to the question as to 

whether position changes of any particular group of traders was responsible for crude oil futures 

price changes from 2000-2009.

For perspective, we first calculate Working’s (1960) speculative index in the crude oil futures 

market from 2000 through 2008. Working’s index is predicated on the fact that long and short 

hedgers do not always trade simultaneously or in the same quantity, so that speculators fill the role of 

satisfying unmet hedging demand in the marketplace. We find that the speculation index has also 

risen steadily from 2001 through mid-2008 (concurrent with the rise in non-commercial 

participation), but has been relatively stable in the nearby contract since early 2006.

Utilizing more disaggregated data on daily trader positions, we implement Granger causality 

tests to determine lead and lag relations between price changes and net position changes of various 

traders in the crude oil futures markets. We execute Granger causality tests in two sub-periods--

from July 2000 through June 2004, a period marked by relatively stable participation and prices, and 

from July 2004 through March 2009, the period marked by extreme price movements and increased 

participation in the crude oil futures markets. We find that the changing net positions of no specific 

trader groups lead to price changes in either sub-period or over the entire sample period. We also 

examine net position changes of various combinations of non-commercial and commercial traders 
2

and find similar results. No single group, or combination of groups (even those commonly 

considered speculators) systematically Granger-cause prices in nearby contracts. 

Instead, the causality runs from price changes to position changes, suggesting that various 

groups of traders are generally trend followers. Commercial traders (in total), manufacturers, 

commercial dealers, producers, swap dealers and managed money traders (hedge funds) are each 

shown to be trend followers. Notably, non-commercial traders (in total) and the combined group of 

swap dealers and non-commercial traders also exhibit trend following behavior over the full sample

period as well as sub-periods. These results also hold for daily net position changes in futures alone 

and in the combined position changes from futures and futures-equivalent options positions. These 

results are also robust for two-, three-, four- and five day measurement intervals for net position and 

price changes. Although open interest (including non-commercial participation) is greatest in the 

nearby contract, we also examine price changes and position changes in the first, second, and third 

deferred contracts, finding similar results.

Our analysis updates and enhances similar findings in the Interagency Task Force Interim 

Report on Crude Oil (ITF (2008)), which concludes that the sharp increase in crude oil prices through 

July 2008 can be explained by the fundamentals of the crude oil market. Notably, our update 

includes an analysis of the significant price collapse (from $147/bbl to below $40/bbl) from July 

2008 through March 2009. We show that the price collapse has not been accompanied by a 

significant drop in the speculation index, casting further doubt on claims that speculator position 

changes have systematic effects on futures market prices during this period.

Two of the most important functions of futures markets are the transfer of risk and price 

discovery. In a well-functioning futures market, hedgers interested in reducing their exposure to price 

risk find counterparties. In a market without speculative interest, long hedgers must find short 

hedgers with an equal and opposite hedging need. In fact, many traditional hedgers have dual 

liquidity needs, intending to offset their futures positions before physical delivery of crude oil. 
3

Speculators enhance liquidity and reduce search costs by taking the opposing positions when long 

hedgers do not perfectly match short hedgers. In this regard, speculators provide immediacy and 

facilitate the needs of hedgers by mitigating price risk, while adding to overall trading volume, which

contributes to more liquid and well-functioning markets. 

Of course, excessive speculation has the potential to disrupt markets as well. Shleifer and 

Summers (1990) note that herding can result from investors reacting to common signals or 

overreacting to recent news. As de Long et al. (1990) show, rational speculators trading via positive 

feedback strategies can increase volatility and destabilize prices. Our results, however, complement 

findings by Boyd et al. (2009) and Brunetti and Buyuksahin (2009) who find that herding among 

hedge funds is countercyclical and does not destabilize the crude oil futures markets, respectively, 

during recent years.

In this paper, we identify groups of traders based on self-reported lines of business collected 

and audited by the CFTC. Commercial traders consist of dealers, producers, manufacturers, and 

other entities typically involved with crude oil as a commodity. Non-commercial traders include 

floor brokers and traders and managed money traders (hedge funds). Although non-commercial 

traders are typically considered speculators, commercial swap dealers who use futures markets to 

hedge over-the-counter positions are considered speculators by some, since they lack direct exposure 

to the underlying crude oil commodity. In fact, swap dealers commonly take positions for 

commodity index funds that view commodities as a distinct asset class, raising concerns that these 

funds convey the herding mentality from unsophisticated traders into futures markets. Overall, the 

growth in hedge fund and swap dealer positions in crude oil futures markets (Buyuksahin et al. 

(2009)) has led to claims that these traders destabilize markets and drive prices inexplicably high. 

Despite these claims, there is surprisingly limited empirical evidence that this trading activity affects 

prices or volatility. Notably, however, the CFTC’s Staff Report on Swap Dealers and Index Traders 
4

(CFTC (2008)) shows that total swap dealer positions declined over the first six months of 2008 

while crude oil futures prices rose from $100 to $140.

One limitation of our analysis is that the distinction between hedging and speculation in 

futures markets is less clear than it may appear. Traditionally, traders with a commercial interest in 

or an exposure to a physical commodity have been called hedgers, while those without a physical 

position to offset have been called speculators. In practice, however, commercial traders may ―take a 

view‖ on the price of a commodity or may not hedge in the futures market despite having an 

exposure to the commodity, positions that could be considered speculative.

Traditional speculators can be differentiated based upon the time horizons at which they 

operate. Scalpers or market makers, operate at the shortest time horizon – sometimes trading within 

a single second. These traders typically do not trade with a view as to where prices are going, but 

rather ―make markets‖ by standing ready to buy or sell at a moment’s notice. The goal of a market 

maker is to buy contracts at a slightly lower price than the current market price and sell them at a 

slightly higher price, perhaps at only a fraction of a cent profit on each contract. Skilled market 

makers can profit by trading hundreds or even thousands of contracts a day. Market makers provide 

immediacy to the market. Absent a market maker, a market participant would have to wait until the 

arrival of a counterparty with an opposite trading interest.

Other types of speculators take longer-term positions based on their view of where prices 

may be headed. ―Day traders‖ establish positions based on their views of where prices might be 

moving in the next minutes or hours, while ―trend followers‖ take positions based on price 

expectations over a period of days, weeks or months. These speculators can also provide liquidity to 

hedgers in futures markets. Through their efforts to gather information on underlying commodities, 

the activity of these traders serves to bring information to the markets and aid in price discovery. 

While hedging and speculating are often considered opposing activities and are generally 

identified with commercial and non-commercial traders, in practice both groups can contribute to 
5

price discovery in futures markets. Futures prices reflect the opinions of all traders in the market. 

Moreover, the actions of those who can but choose not to enter the futures market can also contribute 

to price discovery. For example, a commercial trader holding physical inventory, but choosing not to 

hedge using futures markets (by taking a short position) not only withholds downward pressure on 

the futures price, but may also signal that prices are expected to rise in the future. 

Activities that occur in other markets and other instruments can also impact futures markets. 

There are three potential activities that might impact futures trading on U.S. exchanges: (i) the 

trading of OTC derivatives contracts; (ii) the trading on exempt commercial markets (ECMs); and 

(iii) the trading on foreign boards of trade. Futures markets comprise only one venue for hedging 

price risk. In the context of risk management, market participants may be involved concurrently in 

over-the-counter (OTC) transactions, trades on ECMs, and transactions in foreign markets. Crude oil 

traders, for example, can hedge cash market positions using a combination of futures, swaps, bilateral 

forward contracts, and cleared broker and ECM transactions.

The traditional speculative stabilizing theory of Friedman (1953), that profitable speculation 

must involve buying when the price is low and selling when the price is high, has come under strong 

criticism. Some argue that there is a possibility that speculative trading might lead to higher prices if 

speculators increase their accumulation of inventories (Pirrong (2008)). However, as suggested by 

Hamilton (2009b), crude oil inventories have been significantly lower than historical levels in late

2007 and early 2008 when crude oil price changes were most dramatic. 

On the other hand, Davidson (2008) argues that the absence of higher inventories does not 

necessarily indicate the absence of excess speculation in the market. Using the Marshallian idea the 

―user cost‖, Davidson argues if oil prices are expected to rise in the future more rapidly than current 

interest rates, then commercial producers can enhance total profits by leaving more oil underground 
6

today for future production.1If oil producers do take the user costs of foregone profits into account in 

their profit maximizing production decisions, then producers may limit current production and above 

ground inventories may not rise. In this regard, Davidson (2008) points out that traditional hedgers, 

such as oil producers, might be involved in speculation.

Hamilton (2009a, 2009b) and Kilian (2008) suggest that the cause of the 2007-08 oil price 

increase is the result of stagnant production and strong demand of crude oil, which lowered the shortrun price elasticity of oil to historically low levels. Hamilton further suggests that both factors--

stagnant production and low short-run price elasticity--are needed for speculation to drive prices too 

high, but that financial speculation (by non-commercial entities) would cause inventories to rise. He 

concludes that supply and demand fundamentals provide a more plausible explanation for the 2008 

price spike.

2

Our paper contributes to a rich empirical literature evaluating trader positions and prices in 

futures markets. Using aggregated public Commitments of Traders (COT) data disseminated by the 

CFTC, Brorsen and Irwin (1987) and Irwin and Yoshimaru (1999) fail to find a link between hedge 

fund positions and price volatility and prices, respectively. Brown et al. (2000) find no link between 

fund positions and falling currency values around the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Although these 

findings are suggestive, researchers generally acknowledge that since public COT data is highly 

aggregated, these results should be interpreted with caution. More recent research using 

disaggregated data from the CFTC Large Trading Reporting System provides further evidence on the 

relations between trader positions and price movements. Irwin and Holt (2004), for example, find a 

small but positive relation between hedge fund trading volume and volatility for 13 different futures 

 

1 User cost can be defined as the present value of future net benefit that is lost due to the use of the resource at 

present. Of course, user costs relate only to exhaustible resources.

2 The Interagency Task Force Interim Report on Crude Oil (ITF (2008)) makes similar conclusions.
7

markets during 1994.

3 Haigh, Hranaiova and Overdahl (2007), using directed graph analysis, show 

that hedge funds enhance the price discovery function of the crude oil and natural gas futures 

markets.4 Brunetti and Buyuksahin (2009) also find that speculative activity in five different futures 

markets (including crude oil) does not cause price movements, but reduces risk by enhancing market 

liquidity. 

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. In section I, we describe our data and 

methodology. In section II, we analyze Granger causality tests between trader positions and rate of 

return as well as positions and volatility. We conclude in section III.

I. Data and Methodology

We analyze daily position and pricing data for NYMEX light sweet crude oil (West Texas 

Intermediate grade, henceforth WTI) futures and options on futures contracts over the time period of 

July 5, 2000 through March 18, 2009. Figure 1 portrays open interest and the prices for both the

nearby contract and the average of prices from all contract maturities. Open interest in crude oil 

futures peaked in July 2007 and has since declined slightly. However, open interest futuresequivalent options continued to rise until July 2008. Though visually interesting, this inspection of 

open interest and price data provides little evidence on the relation between these two variables.

The position data utilized in this study comes from the CFTC’s Large Trader Reporting 

System (LTRS) which is a collection of position-level information on the composition of open 

interest across all futures and options-on-futures contracts for each market. It is collected by the 

CFTC’s market surveillance staff to help the Commission fulfill its mission of detecting and 

deterring futures market manipulation. These data must be filed daily by traders whose positions 

 

3 This study suffers from an aggregation problem since they used total hedge fund positions as a proxy for nearby 

positions.

4 Boyd et al. (2009) employ the same data set to analyze the existence of herding among hedge funds. They find that 

the degree of herding in futures markets is similar to equity markets and that the moderate level of herding among 

hedge funds serves to stabilize prices.
8

meet or exceed the CFTC’s reporting levels. For the WTI oil futures and options market used in this 

study, this threshold has been 350 contracts since May 16, 2000 and was 300 contracts prior to that 

date. Many similar positions are voluntarily reported which are included in the database. We find 

that more than 90% of all WTI futures positions are reported to the CFTC during our sample period

(See Tables 1a and 1b). 

The CFTC publishes a weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) report in which traders are 

pooled into two broad categories: ―Commercial‖ and ―Non-commercial.‖5 A trading entity is 

generally classified as ―Commercial‖ when it files a statement with the CFTC that indicates it is

commercially ―engaged in business activities hedged by the use of the futures or option markets.‖ 

Additionally, in order to ensure that traders are classified accurately and consistently, CFTC staff can

exercise judgment in re-classifying a trader based on additional information about the trader’s use of 

the markets (CFTC (2004)). ―Non-commercials‖ are mostly financial traders, such as hedge funds, 

mutual funds, and floor brokers and traders whose positions are reported even though they are not 

registered with the CFTC under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). 

Using the information contained in the publicly-available weekly COT reports for the WTI 

crude oil futures market, Tables 1a and 1b clearly reveal the overall growth of this market since 

2000. The tables show the average open interest in WTI crude oil futures and sum of futuresequivalent (delta-adjusted) options positions for the aggregated commercial, non-commercial and 

non-reportable trader categories. For each category and year, long and short positions are reported as 

fractions of the total open interest. In 2008, on the short (long) side of the 1,279,534 contracts, 

52.7% (51.0%) of all positions were held by commercial traders and 14.3% (16.8%) were held by 

reporting non-commercial traders, with the remaining split between 26.8% non-commercial spread 

positions (i.e., calendar spread positions constructed with long and short futures positions) and 6.2% 

 

5 COT reports also provide data on the positions of non-reporting traders, which include speculators, proprietary 

traders and smaller traders. This category comprises the difference between total open interest and the aggregate 

positions of reporting traders. 
9

(5.4%) in outright short (long) non-commercial futures positions. Table 1a shows that open interest 

more than doubled during the entire sample period, from fewer than 500,000 contracts in 2000 to 

more than 1.2 million contracts in 2007.6 

One significant finding revealed in Table 1a is that the share of non-commercials in crude oil 

futures has more than doubled from 15.5% to 41% of the long open interest during our sample 

period. However, it is also important to note that increased participation of non-commercials 

(traditional speculators) does not imply excessive speculation. As suggested by Working (1960), the 

level of speculation is meaningful only in comparison with the level of hedging in the market. 

Increased speculative positions naturally arise with increased hedging pressure in the market. In 

order to assess the adequacy of speculative activity in the crude oil market relative to hedging 

activity, we calculate Working’s (1960) speculative index in the nearby contract and for all maturities

in the crude oil futures market.7

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on the Working’s speculative index for nearby 

contracts and all maturities from 2004 to 2008. In general, the speculative index displays a higher 

value in nearby contracts relative to all contracts. For instance, the 1.20 speculative index in the 

nearby contract during 2000 indicates 20% speculation in excess of what is minimally necessary to 

meet short hedging needs. The speculative index value has risen over time to average 1.41 in 2008, 

implying that speculation in excess of minimal short and long hedging needs increased to 41%. This 

increase in the speculative index can result from speculators either increasing spread trades or short 

 

6 Using average price of all contracts, the notional value of outstanding contracts was about $12 billion in 2000 and 

$75 billion in 2009. At the peak of crude oil prices in 2008 (average price is around $101.5), notional value of 

futures-only contract stood at around $130 billion.

7 Working’s speculative index is calculated as follows:

T =

1 +

SS

HL + HS

if HS ≥ HL

1 +

SL

HL + HS

if HL ≥ HS

where SS is short speculator (non-commercial) positions, SL is long speculator positions, HS is short hedge 

(commercials) positions and HL is long hedge positions (Sanders et al (2008)). 
10

hedging demand by commercials, especially merchant/dealers, in the sample period has increased. 

Although potentially alarming, a speculative index of 1.41 is rather comparable to historical index 

numbers in other markets (see Irwin et al. (2008)). For example, Peck (1981, 1982) reports the 

speculative index ranging from 1.15 to 1.68 for agricultural products, depending on time period and 

commodity. As Working (1960) also notes, the speculative index measures excess speculation in 

technical terms, not in economic terms. Since the speculative index does not necessarily indicate 

excessive speculation, we apply additional analyses to speculator positions the crude oil futures 

market.

Figure 2a and 2b present the dynamics of Working’s speculative index for nearby and all 

contracts over our sample period. Although prices and the speculative index appear to generally rise 

and fall together, the correlation between daily price changes and changes in the speculative index is 

-0.007 (-0.018) for nearby (all) contracts.

8

 The figure shows that even though price has declined 

from $147 dollar to $35 between July of 2008 and January of 2009, the speculative index has been 

relatively constant during the same period.

Whereas the public data only identify ―Commercial‖ vs. ―Non-commercial‖ categories of 

crude oil traders, the data provided for this study decompose these two very broad categories into 

their respective components. In the crude oil futures market, the main commercial sub-categories are 

―dealer/merchants‖, which includes wholesalers, exporter/importers, and crude oil marketers; 

―manufacturers‖, which includes refiners and fabricators; ―producers‖; and ―commodity swap 

dealers‖, including all reporting swap dealers as well as arbitrageurs/broker dealers (financial swap 

dealers and arbitrageurs/broker dealer sub-categories were merged with commodity swap dealers 

partway through our sample data).

Traders in the dealer/merchant, manufacturer and producer sub-categories are sometimes 

referred to as traditional hedgers. The commodity swap dealer sub-category, whose activity has 

 

8 Both index and price level are non-stationary so we present the correlation between changes in these variables.
11

grown significantly since 2000, incorporates the positions of non-traditional hedgers, including 

―entities whose trading predominantly reflects hedging of over-the-counter (OTC) transactions 

involving commodity indices—for example, swap dealers holding long futures positions to hedge 

short OTC commodity index exposure opposite institutional traders such as pension funds‖ (CFTC, 

2006).9

The most active non-commercial sub-categories in crude oil futures market are floor brokers 

and traders, a group including all reporting floor brokers and floor traders; and hedge funds, which 

comprise all reporting commodity pool operators (CPOs), commodity trading advisors (CTAs), 

associated persons controlling customer accounts, as well as other managed money traders.10 Many 

hedge fund complexes are either advised or operated by CFTC-registered CPOs and/or CTAs and 

associated persons who may also control customer accounts. Through its LTRS, the CFTC therefore 

obtains positions of the operators and advisors to hedge funds, even though it is not a requirement 

that these entities provide the CFTC with the name of the hedge fund (or another trader) they are 

representing.11 It is clear that many of the large CTAs, CPOs, and associated persons are considered 

to be hedge funds and hedge fund operators. Accordingly, we conform to the academic literature and 

to common financial parlance by referring to the three types of institutions collectively as hedge 

funds. In addition, for the purposes of this paper, market surveillance staff at the CFTC identified 

other participants who were not registered in any of these three categories but were known to be 

 

9

See Figure 3a.

10 Despite these clear distinctions in groups that comprise hedge funds, a point of terminology is in order. Although 

hedge fund activity has been a subject of intense scrutiny in recent years by academic researchers, market 

participants, policy makers and the media, there is no broadly accepted definition of a hedge fund. Nor are hedge 

funds defined in the statutes governing futures trading.

11 A commodity pool is defined as an investment trust, syndicate or a similar form of enterprise engaged in trading 

pooled funds in futures and options on futures contracts. A commodity pool is similar to a mutual fund company, 

except that it invests pooled money in the futures and options markets. Like securities counterparts, a commodity 

pool operator (CPO) might invest in financial markets or commodity markets. Unlike mutual funds, however, 

commodity pools may be either long or short derivative contracts. A CPO’s principle objective is to provide smaller 

investors the opportunity to invest in futures and options markets with greater diversification with professional trade 

management. The CPO solicits funds from others for investing in futures and options on futures. The commoditytrading advisor (CTA) manages the accounts and is the equivalent of an advisor in the securities world.
12

managing money – and so we also included these in the hedge fund category (see bottom of Table 2). 

Lastly, non-registered participants are traders that have not yet been categorized or do not fit any 

other category and who are not registered under the CEA.

Figures 3a and 3b present the growth of commercial and non-commercial traders, 

respectively. During the sample period, commodity swap dealers have increased their open interest 

more than threefold while dealer merchant increased by twofold. On the non-commercial side, the 

biggest increase in open interest was recorded for hedge funds and non-registered participants.

For each group of traders, we use two measures of the group’s daily positions to assess 

changes in the market. We use the net position of each group’s daily net position in futures-only and 

futures plus adjusted options, which may be net short (-) or long (+). Over time, the net positions of 

different trader categories display dynamic change. From Table 3a and 3b, we see that the net 

positions (long – short) of commercial and non-commercial traders fluctuate from year to year in 

nearby contracts.12 In general, however, we observe that commodity swap dealers have net futures 

positions which have steadily increased during the sample period. Non-registered participants also 

take net long positions over time. These two groups of traders on average take positions in the 

opposite-direction of the other traders. Contrary to common belief, hedge funds as a group were net 

short in the nearby contract during the recent run-up of crude oil prices.. In addition, we observe that 

most trader subcategories’ net position in terms of magnitude in the nearby contracts has increased 

during the sample period, most notably that of commodity swap dealers, which has more than 

doubled in the nearby futures and more than tripled in all maturities since 2004.

Looking at the time series properties of the price and net positions data, we find that the price 

variable is non-stationary while net positions of different trader categories in nearby contracts are 

stationary in both level and first differences (See Table 4). In addition to our different trader types, 

 

12 The roll-over strategy adopted in this paper is to switch to the new contract when the open interest of the nearby contract 

(March 2005) is lower than the open interest of the next-to-nearby contract (June 2005). That is to say, when the open 

interest in first deferred contract is higher than nearby contract, the first deferred contract becomes our nearby contract.
13

we also construct three aggregate net position variables: Net position of all commercials (COM), 

non-commercials (NON) and non-commercial plus commodity swap dealers (ANC). Since 

commodity swap dealers also include commodity index traders, these are also analyzed as part of 

non-commercial traders. Although CFTC (2008) calculations suggest that in crude oil market not 

more than 50 percent of swap dealer can be considered as commodity index trader, we will assume 

that all the swap dealer activities are linked to commodity index trading. Since both net position 

levels and changes are stationary, we provide our analysis along both dimensions for different trader 

types.

Our preliminary analysis of the relation between price changes and net positions taken by the 

different trader types in nearby contracts starts by considering the correlation coefficients. Table 5a 

and 5b report correlation coefficients between price changes and the positions of different types of 

traders analyzed in this paper. The reported contemporaneous correlation suggests a positive and 

significant relation between net positions of managed money traders (hedge funds) and price change

in nearby futures contracts. This positive and statistically significant correlation also holds in the case 

of net position change. The relation between hedge funds positions and price changes displays 

similar patterns in futures and futures equivalent options contract.

In the case of commodity swap dealers, we do not observe a statistically significant 

correlation between prices and net position or net position change in nearby contracts. The

insignificant correlation between the level of net positions of swap dealers and the price change 

persists when we include futures equivalent options in our analysis. On the other hand, there is a 

statistically significant positive correlation between change in net futures plus futures equivalent 

options positions of swap dealers and the change in the nearby price. 

As expected, the correlation between net positions of traditional hedgers and price changes is 

negative and statistically significant. This implies that traditional hedgers move in the opposite 

direction of prices. This result holds not only for futures positions but also for combined positions 
14

(futures plus delta adjusted options). The simple correlation analysis provides three main results.

First, hedge fund net position is moving in the same direction as market prices. Second, traditional 

commercial hedger net positions are negatively correlated with price changes. Finally, correlation 

between commodity swap dealer net positions in nearby contracts and price changes is zero as 

expected, since these traders generally do not change their long positions in nearby contracts.

However, correlations between price changes and net position changes of various groups of 

market participants do not, and cannot, indicate causation from the position changes of one group of 

traders to market price changes. A more formal way to analyze the interaction between daily price 

changes and position changes is to directly examine whether various groups of traders change 

positions in advance of price changes.

Intuitively, in order to realize gains from price changes, positions must be established prior to 

those price changes. Prices then may respond to those positions, or more precisely, the signal 

conveyed on establishing those positions. If specific trader categories were systematically 

establishing positions in advance of profitable price movements, then a pattern of position changes 

preceding price changes would emerge. Conversely, evidence of price changes leading position 

changes would suggest that some market participants adjust their positions to reflect new 

information. Price changes that systematically precede position changes indicate a trend following 

behavior by a particular trading group.

A formal way to statistically test for whether one variable leads another are generally known 

as Granger causality tests. However, Granger causality tests do not prove a causal relation between 

variables, only a statistical probability of one variable leading another. Nonetheless, Granger

causality provides useful information as to whether a trader activity prompts, in a forecasting sense, 

price movements and/or vice versa. In the next subsection, we provide brief description of 

implementation of Granger causality test in our paper.
15

Testing Causality

The Granger causality test is based on a bivariate VAR representation of two weakly stationary and 

ergodic time series {Xt} and {Yt}:

Xt = A L Xt + B L Yt + εX,t

Yt = C L Xt + D L Yt + εY,t

where A(L), B(L), C(L), D(L) are one sided lag polynomials of order a, b, c, and d, in the lag operator 

L. The regression errors, {εX,t } and {εY,t}, are assumed to be independent and normally distributed 

with mean zero and constant variance. Testing the non--causality from Y to X hypothesis; i.e. the 

null hypothesis of “Y does not Granger-cause X” , requires testing whether the past values of Y are 

useful in the prediction of the current value of X, after controlling for the contribution of past values 

of X. The null hypothesis of non-causality from Y to X will be rejected if the coefficients on the past 

values of Y (elements in B(L)) are jointly significantly different from zero. However, this implies 

unidirectional causality from Y to X. Bidirectional causality requires Granger causality in both 

directions; in which case, the coefficients on elements in both B(L) and C(L) are jointly different 

from zero.

Since the test results are sensitive to the lag selection, it is important to choose the 

appropriate lag length to ensure that the residuals have no serial correlation, no conditional 

heteroskedasticity and do not deviate too much from Gaussian white noise. To find the optimal lag 

used in the estimation, we employ the Schwarz criterion, which suggests one lag in each case.

II. Estimation Results

The impact of commodity index traders and hedge funds in the recent oil price run-up

between 2006 and 2008 followed by the late 2008 sharp decline can be studied with price and 

position data. Our sample period covers both rise and drop in the price of crude oil. In our Granger 
16

causality analysis, we analyze the daily price change and position changes by various trader groups 

and combination of trader groups between July 2000 and March 2009. In addition to daily change, 

we consider two-, three-, four- and five day price and position changes to see whether the relation

displays differences in the dynamics of price.

In the first part of the study, we analyze the relation between the price and net position

changes as well as net position changes of different trader types for our full sample. Analyzing price 

and net position for eleven trader types (eight trader types plus three aggregate types (COM, NON,

ANC)) implies (10!*2*2) one-way relations for futures and futures plus futures-equivalent options 

positions. However, our interest is in the relation between prices and positions rather than relations

among positions of various traders. Therefore, we present 44 one-way relations for net position 

changes and price changes for futures and futures plus delta-adjusted options positions.

Table 6a, 6b and 6c present our results for causality between price changes and net positions

as well as net position changes for the nearby futures and futures plus options during our sample 

period between July 5, 2000 and March 18, 2009. We estimate causality results for individual trader 

groups as well as for aggregate non-commercial traders, commercial traders, and the combined 

positions of non-commercial and swap dealer groups (to some, these represent aggregate speculative 

positions in the crude oil futures market). As shown in Table 6, there are unidirectional causalities 

from price changes to net position changes as well as to the net positions of most trader types. 

Results from the nearby contract show no unidirectional or bi-directional causality running from 

positions or position changes to price changes for any trader type, or any measurement interval (from 

one to five days).

Specifically, Granger causality results in Table 6a suggest that we reject the null hypothesis 

of Granger non-causality from price changes to net position changes and price changes to net 

positions for aggregate trader groups as well. However, the reverse non-causality test cannot be 

rejected. This result holds for futures as well as futures plus futures-equivalent options contracts. 
17

Except for the positions of non-commercial traders combined with swap dealers, we observe that 

unidirectional causality from price changes to position is weakening as we increase the number of 

days in the measurement interval.

A similar pattern of causality is observed for individual trader group in the nearby futures 

contracts. The non-causality from price changes to net positions and price changes to positions is 

rejected at least in the daily price change for futures-only and futures plus delta adjusted options 

position for the biggest two categories of non-commercials: managed money traders (hedge funds) 

and floor brokers and traders. However, we fail to reject non-causality from position change to price

changes for these groups at 5 percent level of significance in both futures and futures plus options 

contracts. There is a very weak evidence of causality from the level of net futures plus options 

positions of floor brokers and traders to in price changes at the 5 percent level of significance, but the 

rejection of non-causality only holds at the margin, that is to say when we increase the significance 

level to 1 percent, we fail to reject the null of non-causality (See Table 6b). 

For commercials, on the other hand, price changes leads net position changes (and level of 

net positions) of dealer/ merchant (AD), manufacturers (AM) and producers (AP) in nearby futures 

contracts. When we extend our analysis to include futures equivalent options positions, swap dealer 

position changes is also preceded by price changes. We do not observe any causality from net 

position change (or level of net position) of commercial traders to price changes in any of our 

specification.

In summary, we observe uni-directional causality from the level and net position changes of 

some types of traders to change price. However, the reverse causality is rejected for all different 

types of traders.13 This result holds for non-commercial traders in total, for managed money traders 

and swap dealers individually, and for the positions of non-commercial traders combined with swap 

 

13 We also analyze the relation between price and positions of different types of trader in the first, second and third 

deferred futures as well as futures plus futures equivalent options positions. Our results for these contracts are in line with 

the nearby contracts. The results are available from authors upon request.
18

dealers. Notably, we find no statistical evidence over the past eight and a half years that position 

changes by any group of traders systematically precedes price changes. This result holds both for all 

net position changes of all net commercial participants and for net positions held by traders in 

commercial sub-categories: commercial manufacturers, commercial dealers, commercial producers, 

and other commercial entities. 

In fact, many trader groups are shown to be trend followers over the full sample period, 

including commercial traders in total and manufacturers, commercial dealers, producers, swap 

dealers and managed money traders individually. Notably, swap dealers and managed money traders 

as well as the positions of non-commercial traders combined with swap dealers also exhibit trend 

following behavior over the full sample period. 

In the second part of the study, we divided our sample into two sub-periods. The first subperiod is spans the beginning of July 2000 to June 2004; the second sub-period covers the period 

from July 2004 to March 2009.14 The first sub-period can be characterized as a relatively stable 

period in terms of crude oil prices; the crude oil prices fluctuated between 20 and 40 dollars per 

barrel. The second sub-period is, on the other hand, represented by the continuous rise in the price of 

oil until July 2008 and a rather rapid decline afterwards. It also coincides with the increased 

participation of commodity swap dealers in crude oil futures markets.

Tables 7a, 7b and 7c show our Granger- causality results for the first sub- period for 

aggregate, non-commercial and commercial traders, respectively. The results are in line with those 

reported for the full sample. The findings suggest a uni-directional causality from position change to 

price changes for all our aggregate categories, especially in the futures and options combined 

positions. Individual traders’ category results also confirm our full sample results. In this period, the 

 

14 Our analysis of the period from July 2004 to July 2008 also provided similar results. The significance of this 

period is the fact that crude oil prices have risen continuously and have reached their peak in July 2008.
19

net position changes of managed money traders and commodity swap dealers is Granger caused by

the price change.

Tables 8a, 8b and 8c provide our causality results for the second sub-period. There is strong 

evidence of uni-directional causality from price change to net position changes of different trader 

types. However, we again fail to observe bidirectional causality between price change and net

position change of different trader groups. Specifically, the net position changes of non-commercials, 

commercials as well as non-commercials combined with swap dealers is preceded by price change. 

Although we observe some weak evidence of causality from the level of net positions of noncommercials combined with swap dealers, we fail to see this causality in the individual groups of this 

aggregate group.

III. Conclusions

The increased participation of traditional speculators as well as commodity index traders in crude oil 

futures market raise the question of whether these traders have an impact on market prices. The 

recent increase and eventually fast decline in crude oil prices has been linked to speculators. Based 

on our linear Granger causality tests, we fail to find the causality from these traders position to 

prices. Our results suggest that price changes leads the net position and net position changes of 

speculators and commodity swap dealers, with little or no feedback in the reverse direction. This unidirectional causality suggests that traditional speculators as well as commodity swap dealers are 

generally trend followers. However, Granger- causality results should not be interpreted as ―cause‖ 

and ―effect‖ relation but should be interpreted as lead and lag relation between variables. Therefore,

our results should not also be interpreted as price changes causing position changes. It might be 

possible that both variables could be reacting to the same common factors.
20

References

Boyd, Naomi, Bahattin Buyuksahin, Michael S. Haigh, and Jeffrey H. Harris, 2009, The impact 

herding in futures markets, CFTC Working Paper.

Brorsen, B.W. and Irwin, S.H., 1987. Futures funds and price volatility. The Review of Futures 

Markets 6, 118–135.

Brown, Stephen J., Goetzmann, William N. and Park, James M. 2000, Hedge funds and the Asian 

currency crisis of 1997, Journal of Portfolio Management 26, 95-101.

Brunetti, Celso and Bahattin Buyuksahin, 2009, Is speculation destabilizing?, CFTC Working Paper.

Buyuksahin, Bahattin, Michael S. Haigh, Jeffrey H. Harris, James A. Overdahl and Michel A. Robe, 

2009, Fundamentals, trader activity and derivative pricing, CFTC Working Paper.

CFTC, 2008, Staff Report on Swap Dealers and Index Traders.

Davidson, Paul, 2008 Crude oil prices: market fundamentals or speculation?, Challenge 51, 1110-

118.

De Long, J. Bradford, Andrei Shleifer, Lawrence H. Summers and Robert J. Waldmann, 1990, 

Positive feedback investment strategies and destabilizing rational speculation, Journal of 

Finance 45, 379-395.

Friedman, Milton, 1953, The case for flexible exchange rates, in Essays in Positive Economics, 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 157-203.

Fung, William, and David A. Hsieh, 2000, Measuring the market impact of hedge funds, Journal of 

Empirical Finance 7, 1-36.
21

Haigh, Michael S., Jana Hranaiova, and James A. Overdahl, 2007, Price volatility, liquidity 

provision, and the role of hedge funds in energy futures markets, Journal of Alternative 

Investments, 4, 10-38.

Hamilton, James D., 2005, Oil and the macroeconomy, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 

Second Edition. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume, Eds. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 

Hamilton, James D., 2009, Understanding crude oil prices, Energy Journal, 30, 179-206.

Hamilton, James D., 2009b, Causes and consequences of the oil shock of 2007-08, University of 

California—San Diego Working Paper. 

Irwin, Scott H., and Bryce R. Holt, 2004, The effect of large hedge fund and CTA trading on futures 

market volatility, Commodity Trading Advisors: Risk, Performance, Analysis and Selection, 

Gregoriou, G.N., Karavas, V.N., L'Habitant, F-S. and Rouah, F. eds., John Wiley and Sons.

Irwin Scott H., Merrin, Robert P. and Dwight R. Sanders, 2008, The Adequacy of Speculation in 

Agricultural Futures Markets: Too Much of a Good Thing? Marketing and Outlook Research 

Reports #2, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Irwin, Scott H., and S. Yoshimaru, 1999, Managed futures, positive feedback trading, and futures 

price volatility, The Journal of Futures Markets 19, 759-776.

Kilian, Lutz, 2008a, The economic effects of energy price shocks, Journal of Economic Literature, 

forthcoming. 

Kilian, Lutz. 2008b, Not all oil price shocks are alike: disentangling demand and supply shocks in the 

crude oil market, American Economic Review, forthcoming.
22

Kilian, Lutz and Cheolbeom Park, 2007, The impact of oil price shocks on the U.S. stock market, 

CEPR Working Paper 6166, March. Revised, June 2008. 

Nofsinger, John R. and Richard W. Sias, 1999, Herding and Feedback Trading by Institutional and 

Individual Investors, Journal of Finance 54, 2263-2295. 

Peck, A.E., 1981, The adequacy of speculation on the wheat, corn, and soybean futures markets, 

Research in Domestic and International Agribusiness Management, 17-29.

Peck, A.E., 1982, Estimation of hedging and speculative positions in futures markets revisited, Food 

Reseach Institute Studies 18, 181-195.

Pirrong, Craig, 2008, Stochastic fundamental Volatility, Speculation, and Commodity Storage, 

University of Houston Working Paper. 

Shleifer, Andrei and Lawrence H. Summers, 1990, The noise trader approach to finance, The Journal 

of Economic Perspectives 4, 19-33.

US Interagency Task Force on Markets, 2008, Interim Report on Crude Oil.

Working, Holbrook, 1960, Speculation on hedging markets, Stanford University Food Research 

Institute Studies 1, 185-220.
23

Table 1a: Open Interest in Crude Oil Futures, 2000-2009

Non-commercials (%) Commercials (%) Non-Reportables

YEAR Long Short Spread Long Short Long Short Total Open 

Interest

2000 8.9 7.9 6.6 75.0 76.1 9.4 9.3 448754

2001 4.9 11.5 7.7 78.8 70.5 8.6 10.3 438955

2002 10.5 8.2 13.7 64.7 68.9 11.1 9.2 486083

2003 13.3 12.8 9.3 68.0 67.7 9.4 10.2 542454

2004 17.5 12.0 9.6 64.2 69.3 8.8 9.1 689326

2005 14.5 13.2 15.4 62.7 62.2 7.3 9.1 817174

2006 15.6 13.1 19.6 58.9 60.5 6.0 6.8 1063986

2007 14.9 11.6 21.7 58.2 61.0 5.3 5.7 1393664

2008 16.8 14.3 26.8 51.0 52.7 5.4 6.2 1279534

2009 17.5 15.7 23.4 52.9 54.7 6.2 6.2 1200124

Table 1b: Open Interest in Crude Oil Futures and Futures-Equivalent Options, 2000-2009

Non-commercials (%) Commercials (%) Non-Reportables

YEAR Long Short Spread Long Short Long Short Total Open 

Interest

2000 6.5 3.1 14.1 71.6 74.6 7.8 8.2 618590

2001 3.8 4.8 15.1 74.1 72.1 7.0 8.0 626904

2002 6.4 2.9 21.3 64.3 69.2 8.0 6.6 779618

2003 8.9 4.1 20.5 63.4 67.6 7.2 7.8 830327

2004 12.5 4.2 21.4 59.3 67.4 6.8 7.0 1033835

2005 9.4 5.1 27.2 58.2 61.3 5.2 6.3 1344618

2006 10.1 6.3 30.3 55.4 58.7 4.2 4.6 1740532

2007 9.3 5.3 30.8 56.4 60.1 3.5 3.7 2409755

2008 8.2 4.7 41.4 47.6 50.8 2.8 3.1 2887494

2009 7.6 4.1 36.9 52.6 56.1 2.9 2.9 2888548

Notes: Table 1a and 1b provides average open interest in futures and futures plus futures equivalent 

options, respectively, since 2000. Open interest data are from the weekly Commitment of Traders 

Reports from July 5, 2000 through April 28, 2009. We report open interest figures for the total 

positions (i.e., futures and the sum of futures and futures-equivalent options positions, respectively) 

of commercial and non-commercial traders. When the CFTC publishes its weekly Commitment of 

Traders Report, reporting traders are categorized into two broad groups: ―Commercials‖ (right 

panel), who have declared an underlying hedging purpose, and ―Non-commercials‖ (left panel), who 

have not. For each category, the long and short positions are reported as fractions of the overall open 

interest. For example, on the short [long] side of the 1,279,534 open interest in 2008, 52.7% [51.0%] 

of all positions were held by commercial traders and 14.3% [16.8%] were held by reporting noncommercial traders, with the rest split between 26.8% in spread positions (i.e., calendar spread 

positions constructed with long and short futures positions) held by reporting non-commercial traders 

and 6.2% [5.4%] in outright short [long] futures positions held by non-reporting traders. 

Table 1c: Working’s Speculations Index, 2004-2008
24

Table 2: Working’s (1960) Speculative Index in Crude Oil Futures Market, 2004-2008

YEAR Mean Median Max Min. Std. Dev.

Speculative Index, 2004-2008 (Nearby Contract)

2004 1.20 1.20 1.35 1.11 0.04

2005 1.21 1.22 1.39 1.10 0.05

2006 1.37 1.37 1.56 1.19 0.08

2007 1.39 1.39 1.57 1.27 0.07

2008 1.41 1.40 1.56 1.31 0.05

Average 1.32 1.33 1.57 1.10 0.11

Speculative Index, 2004-2008 (All Contracts)

2004 1.17 1.17 1.21 1.15 0.01

2005 1.23 1.23 1.28 1.15 0.03

2006 1.28 1.28 1.32 1.23 0.02

2007 1.30 1.27 1.42 1.22 0.07

2008 1.39 1.39 1.44 1.33 0.02

Average 1.27 1.26 1.44 1.15 0.08

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for Working’s (1960) Speculative Index for nearby and all 

contracts between 2004-2008. This index is calculated as follows:

T =

1 +

SS

HL + HS

if HS ≥ HL

1 +

SL

HL + HS

if HL ≥ HS

where SS is short speculator (non-commercial) positions, SL is long speculator positions, HS is short 

hedge (commercials) positions and HL is long hedge positions (Sanders et al (2008)).
Table 3a: Average Daily Net Futures Positions of the Major WTI Traders (Nearby Contract)

Dealers/

Merchants Manufacturers Producers Swap Dealers Other Hedge Funds Floor Brokers& Traders

Non-Registered

Participants Price

2000 -12103.4 -11065.2 193.5 44574.2 485.4 13282.4 -2849.7 -7263.8 31.4

2001 -242.0 -8023.9 -56.6 36617.0 -21.6 -8572.2 -5621.6 -3094.6 25.9

2002 -25157.3 -17017.6 -5065.7 42677.9 343.3 15317.3 -5340.4 1224.5 26.1

2003 -27127.7 -23783.3 -6468.4 39030.0 390.6 29331.6 -11990.6 1784.7 30.8

2004 -47185.0 -29237.9 -10743.9 53885.8 290.3 44992.9 -9660.6 1259.6 41.4

2005 -59738.0 -30733.3 -9663.2 85620.3 281.1 25491.0 -7285.3 3357.7 57.0

2006 -55527.7 -25246.4 -9550.7 90792.0 -269.3 1645.5 -9455.5 12728.4 66.8

2007 -66087.7 -27365.2 -8073.3 117983.2 -1209.3 -18643.1 -4633.2 19320.7 72.5

2008 -55788.9 -16530.7 -4955.6 100288.8 -638.6 -11052.5 -6791.5 5350.2 99.8

2009 -107037.5 -18750.0 -9221.4 96796.2 3827.6 16804.8 -9918.9 34299.3 43.4

Table 3b: Average Daily Net Futures plus Futures Equivalent Options Positions of the Major WTI Traders (Nearby Contract)

Dealers/

Merchants Manufacturers Producers Swap Dealers Other Hedge Funds Floor Brokers& Traders

Non-Registered

Participants Price

2000 -14800.1 -13516.8 411.4 47243.0 31.6 12987.3 -209.5 -4995.2 31.4

2001 -1370.5 -10210.9 -79.4 32901.5 199.7 -8424.9 -266.1 -458.9 25.9

2002 -27997.5 -17971.0 322.5 40356.6 -4814.4 14721.8 -802.6 2940.9 26.1

2003 -33038.4 -26372.3 332.8 34121.2 -7110.4 30542.7 -1104.1 4284.5 30.8

2004 -51427.4 -31373.2 -41.7 49384.9 -11116.7 45123.8 -67.3 3955.4 41.4

2005 -60036.7 -30286.9 -736.2 81930.1 -10036.7 23014.8 -1793.9 5991.6 57.0

2006 -57039.8 -26691.2 -1825.8 89927.4 -10049.6 1865.0 -5685.6 15020.4 66.8

2007 -67627.1 -26511.1 -1379.5 122404.5 -8662.4 -20401.7 -2859.9 15367.0 72.5

2008 -54854.1 -16093.7 -937.5 93219.6 -5043.0 -11758.4 -2729.8 7805.0 99.8

2009 -108569.4 -18174.8 3776.6 88249.5 -9226.0 19963.6 -6241.2 38260.3 43.4

Table 2a and 2b present the annual average net position of eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 in the WTI nearby 

futures and futures plus futures equivalent options, respectively. Prior to August 2003, the ―NC‖ category sums the positions of 

presently inactive commercial traders. However we ignore NC category in our discussions.
26

Table 4: Augmented Dickey Fuller Test for Prices and Positions Data in Futures-Only and Futures plus Futures Equivalent 

Options in Crude Oil Market (2000-2009)

Futures-Only Futures and Futures Equivalent Options

Nearby Contract Nearby Contract

Level First Difference Level First Difference.

Price -0.98 -23.36 -0.98 -23.37

Dealers/

Merchants -9.36 -11.75 -9.57 -9.16

Manufacturers -12.46 -4.89 -13.14 -5.48

Producers -8.20 -7.73 -7.99 -7.64

Commodity Swaps/

Derivative Traders -9.21 -7.22 -9.85 -9.38

Other -1.71 -3.73 -2.53 -3.40

Managed Money Traders -5.51 -5.95 -5.64 -7.42

Floor Brokers

and Traders -4.65 -4.54 -7.15 -6.84

Non-Registered

Participants -5.03 -5.11 -5.77 -7.75

All Commercials -6.13 -5.55 -6.81 -8.76

Non-Commercials -6.41 -4.59 -7.21 -8.20

All Non-Commercials -9.72 -12.25 -9.81 -10.35

Table 4 presents the unit root tests on the price and net positions for the eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 in the WTI 

futures and futures plus futures equivalent options, respectively. The critical value for ADF test statistics are -3.43, -2.86 and -2.56 for 1, 

5 and 10 percent level of significance. If the calculated value is lower than critical value, then the series is said to be stationary at the 

relevant level of significance.
27

Table 5a: Correlations: Net Futures Positions (Nearby Contract)

Price Dealers/

Merchants

Manufacturers Producers Swap

Dealers Other HedgeFunds

Floor 

Brokers

& Traders

NonRegistered

Participants

Commercial

NonComm

-ercial

Price Change 1.000

Dealer/

Merchants -0.021 1.000

Manufacturers -0.063 0.420 1.000

Producers -0.029 0.422 0.480 1.000

Commodity 

Swaps/

Derivatives 

Dealers

-0.010 -0.680 -0.378 -0.317 1.000

Other -0.030 -0.175 0.062 -0.035 -0.039 1.000

Managed

Money Traders 0.095 -0.182 -0.362 -0.305 -0.410 0.231 1.000

Floor Brokers

&Traders (FBT) 0.004 0.127 0.094 0.094 -0.184 -0.346 -0.164 1.000

Non-Registered

Participants (NRP) -0.018 -0.456 -0.176 -0.205 0.269 -0.089 -0.230 0.229 1.000

All Commericals

(COM) -0.065 0.277 0.356 0.309 0.425 -0.176 -0.880 -0.109 -0.153 1.000

Non-Commercials

(NON) 0.088 -0.342 -0.409 -0.366 -0.338 0.102 0.850 0.191 0.257 -0.965 1.000

All NonCommericals plus 

Swap Dealers

(ANC)

0.054 -0.911 -0.667 -0.575 0.726 0.037 0.222 -0.040 0.449 -0.291 0.401

Table 5a presents the correlation between price and net position changes for the eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 in the

WTI nearby futures contracts. 
28

Table 5b: Correlations: Change in Net Futures Positions (Nearby Contract)

Price Dealers/

Merchants

Manufacturers Producers Swap

Dealers Other HedgeFunds

Floor 

Brokers

& Traders

NonRegistered

Participants

Commercial

NonComm

-ercial

Price Change 1.000

Dealer/

Merchants -0.134 1.000

Manufacturers -0.158 0.246 1.000

Producers -0.105 0.176 0.216 1.000

Commodity 

Swaps/

Derivatives 

Dealers

0.018 -0.548 -0.385 -0.264 1.000

Other -0.145 -0.031 0.035 0.031 -0.006 1.000

Managed

Money Traders 0.339 -0.400 -0.312 -0.190 -0.176 -0.070 1.000

Floor Brokers

&Traders (FBT) -0.068 0.067 0.083 0.020 -0.182 0.005 -0.184 1.000

Non-Registered

Participants (NRP) -0.061 -0.226 -0.086 -0.051 0.160 0.078 -0.279 0.108 1.000

All Commercials

(COM) -0.216 0.525 0.335 0.193 0.253 0.032 -0.784 -0.077 -0.093 1.000

Non-Commercials

(NON) 0.281 -0.501 -0.331 -0.210 -0.141 -0.024 0.778 0.182 0.313 -0.851 1.000

All NonCommercials plus 

Swap Dealers

(ANC)

0.219 -0.801 -0.547 -0.363 0.692 -0.022 0.427 -0.012 0.355 -0.419 0.617

Table 5b presents the correlation between price changes and net position changes for the eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 

in the WTI nearby futures contracts.
29

Table 5c: Correlations: Net Futures and Futures Equivalent Positions (Nearby Contract)

Price Dealers/

Merchants

Manufacturers Producers Swap

Dealers

Other Hedge

Funds

Floor 

Brokers

& Traders

NonRegistered

Participants

Commercial

NonComm

-ercial

Price Change 1.000

Dealer/

Merchants -0.033 1.000

Manufacturers -0.066 0.412 1.000

Producers -0.039 0.454 0.487 1.000

Commodity 

Swaps/

Derivatives 

Dealers

0.015 -0.662 -0.358 -0.347 1.000

Other -0.051 -0.020 0.108 0.134 -0.211 1.000

Managed

Money Traders 0.089 -0.235 -0.387 -0.305 -0.414 0.116 1.000

Floor Brokers

&Traders (FBT) 0.024 0.307 0.069 0.077 -0.320 0.078 0.102 1.000

Non-Registered

Participants (NRP) -0.071 -0.454 -0.124 -0.235 0.356 0.024 -0.247 -0.401 1.000

All Commercials

(COM) -0.050 0.320 0.379 0.316 0.405 -0.189 -0.932 -0.091 -0.023 1.000

Non-Commercials

(NON) 0.067 -0.377 -0.435 -0.393 -0.326 0.137 0.939 0.073 0.083 -0.972 1.000

All NonCommercials plus 

Swap Dealers

(ANC)

0.063 -0.912 -0.659 -0.618 0.734 -0.106 0.273 -0.258 0.404 -0.306 0.403

Table 5c presents the correlation between price and net position changes for the eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 in the

WTI nearby futures plus futures equivalent options.
30

Table 5d: Correlations: Change in Net Futures and Futures Equivalent Positions (Nearby Contract)

Price Dealers/

Merchants

Manufacturers Producers Swap

Dealers

Other Hedge

Funds

Floor 

Brokers

& Traders

NonRegistered

Participants

Commercial

NonComm

-ercial

Price Change 1.000

Dealer/

Merchants -0.139 1.000

Manufacturers -0.164 0.263 1.000

Producers -0.146 0.195 0.219 1.000

Commodity 

Swaps/

Derivatives 

Dealers

0.098 -0.569 -0.399 -0.276 1.000

Other -0.255 0.064 0.045 0.048 -0.060 1.000

Managed

Money Traders 0.314 -0.432 -0.310 -0.210 -0.143 -0.163 1.000

Floor Brokers

&Traders (FBT) -0.052 0.041 0.014 0.015 -0.175 0.038 -0.084 1.000

Non-Registered

Participants (NRP) -0.162 -0.251 -0.100 -0.063 0.173 0.110 -0.305 -0.054 1.000

All Commercials

(COM) -0.167 0.551 0.357 0.209 0.197 0.092 -0.801 -0.124 -0.117 1.000

Non-Commercials

(NON) 0.230 -0.556 -0.364 -0.243 -0.108 -0.104 0.856 0.150 0.164 -0.914 1.000

All NonCommercials plus 

Swap Dealers

(ANC)

0.237 -0.840 -0.571 -0.389 0.725 -0.120 0.479 -0.036 0.251 -0.476 0.606

Table 5d presents the correlation between price and net position changes for the eight types of large traders between 2000 and 2009 in the

WTI nearby futures plus futures equivalent options.
Table 6a: Granger Causality Tests: Price and Position Change (Nearby)

Non-Commercials (Futures Only) Non-Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.001) 0.466 (0.227) 0.000 (0.000) 0.805 (0.376)

2 0.083 (0.670) 0.363 (0.185) 0.001 (0.046) 0.645 (0.246)

3 0.693 (0.952) 0.593 (0.172) 0.062 (0.208) 0.163 (0.372)

4 0.164 (0.080) 0.342 (0.187) 0.858 (0.941) 0.101 (0.394)

5 0.270 (0.137) 0.139 (0.254) 0.527 (0.615) 0.040 (0.496)

Commercials (Futures Only) Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.002) 0.873 (0.358) 0.000 (0.000) 0.643 (0.452)

2 0.077 (0.927) 0.398 (0.259) 0.001 (0.022) 0.645 (0.287)

3 0.785 (0.552) 0.429 (0.360) 0.104 (0.315) 0.342 (0.476)

4 0.161 (0.027) 0.097 (0.406) 0.642 (0.953) 0.057 (0.598)

5 0.140 (0.067) 0.043 (0.481) 0.659 (0.723) 0.027 (0.649)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures and 

Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.019) 0.983 (0.552) 0.000 (0.000) 0.313 (0.376)

2 0.000 (0.054) 0.946 (0.348) 0.000 (0.005) 0.973 (0.171)

3 0.002 (0.263) 0.209 (0.425) 0.000 (0.053) 0.153 (0.378)

4 0.031 (0.837) 0.417 (0.497) 0.000 (0.341) 0.376 (0.432)

5 0.008 (0.530) 0.293 (0.440) 0.000 (0.109) 0.305 (0.377)

Table 6a presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.

Table 6b: Granger Causality Tests (Non-Commercials): Price and Position Change

Managed Money Traders

(Futures Only)

Managed Money Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.000) 0.991 (0.234) 0.000 (0.000) 0.813 (0.229)

2 0.001 (0.116) 0.245 (0.113) 0.000 (0.051) 0.170 (0.113)

3 0.039 (0.348) 0.956 (0.235) 0.012 (0.153) 0.990 (0.242)

4 0.867 (0.284) 0.656 (0.288) 0.388 (0.793) 0.624 (0.298)

5 0.717 (0.731) 0.223 (0.405) 0.299 (0.670) 0.215 (0.396)

Floor Brokers and Traders

(Futures Only)

Floor Brokers and Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.004 (0.002) 0.007 (0.317) 0.435 (0.168) 0.439 (0.044)

2 0.199 (0.138) 0.198 (0.690) 0.615 (0.725) 0.990 (0.088)

3 0.477 (0.519) 0.075 (0.234) 0.228 (0.309) 0.643 (0.046)

4 0.388 (0.218) 0.154 (0.239) 0.461 (0.819) 0.447 (0.062)

5 0.348 (0.189) 0.372 (0.357) 0.382 (0.875) 0.725 (0.113)

Table 6b presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
32

Table 6c: Granger Causality Tests (Commercials): Price and Position Change

Dealer/Merchants (Futures Only) Dealer/Merchants (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.001) 0.254 (0.844) 0.000 (0.000) 0.133 (0.696)

2 0.010 (0.096) 0.805 (0.846) 0.000 (0.006) 0.933 (0.399)

3 0.152 (0.346) 0.151 (0.916) 0.008 (0.063) 0.179 (0.765)

4 0.667 (0.933) 0.226 (0.926) 0.089 (0.324) 0.286 (0.841)

5 0.508 (0.670) 0.100 (0.989) 0.047 (0.147) 0.157 (0.710)

Manufacturers (Futures Only) Manufacturers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.001) 0.155 (0.155) 0.000 (0.005) 0.216 (0.166)

2 0.000 (0.096) 0.171 (0.082) 0.000 (0.007) 0.249 (0.080)

3 0.003 (0.346) 0.805 (0.248) 0.001 (0.099) 0.726 (0.215)

4 0.004 (0.933) 0.895 (0.359) 0.001 (0.177) 0.868 (0.321)

5 0.010 (0.670) 0.912 (0.297) 0.003 (0.097) 0.850 (0.304)

Producers (Futures Only) Producers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.013 (0.017) 0.086 (0.670) 0.006 (0.147) 0.099 (0.609)

2 0.239 (0.043) 0.280 (.0577) 0.132 (0.302) 0.310 (0.505)

3 0.587 (0.241) 0.219 (0.380) 0.419 (0.816) 0.252 (0.328)

4 0.365 (0.383) 0.354 (0.671) 0.250 (0.837) 0.413 (0.598)

5 0.065 (0.295) 0.742 (0.690) 0.031 (0.486) 0.865 (0.568)

Other (Futures Only) Other (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.809 (0.141) 0.543 (0.772) 0.648 (0.833) 0.945 (0.946)

2 0.554 (0.345) 0.074 (0.877) 0.881 (0.806) 0.236 (0.991)

3 0.196 (0.822) 0.048 (0.749) 0.952 (0.792) 0.313 (0.779)

4 0.319 (0.848) 0.010 (0.719) 0.782 (0.570) 0.114 (0.694)

5 0.854 (0.490) 0.167 (0.893) 0.543 (0.520) 0.858 (0.722)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.186 (0.427) 0.456 (0.533) 0.000 (0.218) 0.437 (0.972)

2 0.076 (0.585) 0.507 (0.696) 0.000 (0.072) 0.763 (0.856)

3 0.146 (0.542) 0.333 (0.595) 0.001 (0.132) 0.463 (0.994)

4 0.117 (0.637) 0.767 (0.576) 0.003 (0.250) 0.972 (0.970)

5 0.055 (0.786) 0.749 (0.732) 0.002 (0.131) 0.965 (0.834)

Table 6c presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
33

Table 7a: Granger Causality Tests: Price and Position Change: Sample Period 2000-2004

Non-Commercials (Futures Only) Non-Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.002 (0.082) 0.121 (0.270) 0.000 (0.066) 0.116 (0325)

2 0.045 (0.729) 0.224 (0.519) 0.011 (0.772) 0.207 (0.580)

3 0.723 (0.098) 0.054 (0.365) 0.976 (0.072) 0.051 (0.412)

4 0.153 (0.003) 0.042 (0.213) 0.368 (0.002) 0.052 (0.262)

5 0.043 (0.000) 0.016 (0.164) 0.156 (0.000) 0.027 (0.217)

Commercials (Futures Only) Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.003 (0.019) 0.217 (0.201) 0.001 (0.015) 0.261 (0.258)

2 0.012 (0.615) 0.494 (0.515) 0.003 (0.548) 0.501 (0.585)

3 0.802 (0.084) 0.118 (0.297) 0.853 (0.082) 0.14 (0.361)

4 0.142 (0.001) 0.039 (0.152) 0.351 (0.001) 0.059 (0.205)

5 0.027 (0.000) 0.011 (0.121) 0.111 (0.000) 0.017 (0.166)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures 

and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.643) 0.074 (0.167) 0.000 (0.968) 0.064 (0.125)

2 0.019 (0.140) 0.064 (0.245) 0.000 (0.291) 0.078 (0.226)

3 0.686 (0.007) 0.069 (0.161) 0.092 (0.012) 0.078 (0.146)

4 0.842 (0.001) 0.112 (0.091) 0.309 (0.002) 0.124 (0.082)

5 0.748 (0.001) 0.088 (0.067) 0.462 (0.002) 0.107 (0.072)

Table 7a presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.

Table 7b: Granger Causality Tests (Non-Commercials): Price and Position Change:

Sample Period 2000-2004

Managed Money Traders

(Futures Only)

Managed Money Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.004 (0.447) 0.118 (0.193) 0.004 (0.405) 0.155 (0.186)

2 0.134 (0.470) 0.123 (0.351) 0.105 (0.540) 0.165 (0.352)

3 0.408 (0.007) 0.047 (0.226) 0.508 (0.010) 0.068 (0.222)

4 0.074 (0.000) 0.056 (0.150) 0.116 (0.000) 0.076 (0.152)

5 0.029 (0.000) 0.023 (0.113) 0.043 (0.000) 0.035 (0.188)

Floor Brokers and Traders

(Futures Only)

Floor Brokers and Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.901 (0.972) 0.901 (0.652) 0.752 (0.938) 0.433 (0.330)

2 0.217 (0.039) 0.833 (0.673) 0.460 (0.059) 0.43 (0.376)

3 0.009 (0.003) 0.989 (0.933) 0.091 (0.012) 0.152 (0.928)

4 0.007 (0.001) 0.769 (0.897) 0.048 (0.004) 0.238 (0.690)

5 0.024 (0.008) 0.963 (0.834) 0.088 (0.017) 0.238 (0.724)

Table 7b presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
34

Table 7c: Granger Causality Tests (Commercials): Price Change and Position Change: Sample 

Period 2000-2004

Dealer/Merchants (Futures Only) Dealer/Merchants (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.130) 0.520 (0.398) 0.000 (0.601) 0.479 (0.481)

2 0.001 (0.912) 0.564 (0.709) 0.000 (0.649) 0.579 (0.831)

3 0.190 (0.142) 0.417 (0.444) 0.048 (0.189) 0.450 (0.547)

4 0.695 (0.001) 0.314 (0.265) 0.318 (0.008) .0321 (0.334)

5 0.920 (0.005) 0.089 (0.188) 0.667 (0.009) 0.100 (0.252)

Manufacturers (Futures Only) Manufacturers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.005 (0.586) 0.267 (0.192) 0.000 (0.752) 0.210 (0.120)

2 0.872 (0.106) 0.170 (0.197) 0.368 (0.198) 0.140 (0.147)

3 0.172 (0.033) 0.080 (0.098) 0.561 (0.061) 0.070 (0.080)

4 0.134 (0.025) 0.065 (0.081) 0.463 (0.044) 0.063 (0.067)

5 0.046 (0.009) 0.135 (0.077) 0.236 (0.021) 0.120 (0.070)

Producers (Futures Only) Producers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.928 (0.762) 0.183 (0.806) 0.667 (0.364) 0.355 (0.885)

2 0.967 (0.875) 0.209 (0.873) 0.698 (0.600) 0.263 (0.962)

3 0.610 (0.469) 0.104 (0.874) 0.416 (0.290) 0.162 (0.959)

4 0.666 (0.517) 0.268 (0.963) 0.560 (0.374) 0.445 (0.965)

5 0.503 (0.856) 0.476 (0.910) 0.490 (0.967) 0.715 (0.940)

Other (Futures Only) Other (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.655 (0.999) 0.085 (0.125) 0.192 (0.498) 0.063 (0.057)

2 0.440 (0.196) 0.145 (0.148) 0.244 (0.133) 0.200 (0.102)

3 0.163 (0.048) 0.164 (0.320) 0.098 (0.035) 0.189 (0.245)

4 0.309 (0.069) 0.206 (0.502) 0.261 (0.109) 0.275 (0.418)

5 0.118 (0.006) 0.084 (0.612) 0.084 (0.007) 0.159 (0.508)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.053) 0.279 (0.393) 0.011 (0.074) 0.211 (0.162)

2 0.000 (0.085) 0.128 (0.228) 0.052 (0.157) 0.135 (0.121)

3 0.002 (0.156) 0.288 (0.228) 0.257 (0.196) 0.296 (0.136)

4 0.031 (0.215) 0.449 (0.247) 0.615 (0.258) 0.435 (0.137)

5 0.211 (0.377) 0.440 (0.265) 0.966 (0.469) 0.437 (0.188)

Table 7c presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
35

Table 8a: Granger Causality Tests: Price and Position Change: Sample Period: 2004-2009

Non-Commercials (Futures Only) Non-Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.025 (0.115) 0.371 (0.148) 0.000 (0.001) 0.884 (0.275)

2 0.180 (0.738) 0.252 (0.139) 0.004 (0.051) 0.496 (0.193)

3 0.625 (0.759) 0.806 (0.121) 0.037 (0.065) 0.275 (0.292)

4 0.293 (0.278) 0.696 (0.111) 0.536 (0.400) 0.263 (0.255)

5 03538 (0.456) 0.408 (0.161) 0.223 (0.123) 0.131 (0.346)

Commercials (Futures Only) Commercials (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.001 (0.014) 0.975 (0.250) 0.000 (0.000) 0.661 (0.349)

2 0.258 (0.940) 0.313 (0.210) 0.007 (0.024) 0.571 (0.244)

3 0.688 (0.920) 0.590 (0.276) 0.066 (0.095) 0.426 (0.401)

4 0.334 (0.192) .0277 (0.252) 0.349 (0.227) 0.160 (0.418)

5 0.402 (0.402) 0.169 (0.321) 0.251 (0.106) 0.101 (0.473)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Non-Commercials and Swap Dealers (Futures and 

Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.025) 0.686 (0.087) 0.000 (0.000) 0.525 (0.045)

2 0.000 (0.042) 0.603 (0.044) 0.000 (0.001) 0.627 (0.016)

3 0.002 (0.158) 0.428 (0.061) 0.000 (0.009) 0.302 (0.061)

4 0.019 (0.512) 0.760 (0.066) 0.000 (0.076) 0.685 (0.056)

5 0.003 (0.277) 0.598 (0.066) 0.000 (0.015) 0.584 (0.060)

Table 8a presents the Granger causality results for price and position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change and 

the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.

Table 8b: Granger Causality Tests (Non-Commercials): Price and Position Change:

Sample Period 2004-2009

Managed Money Traders (Futures Only) Managed Money Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.000) 0.921 (0.134) 0.000 (0.000) 0.767 (0.128)

2 0.002 (0.063) 0.148 (0.061) 0.000 (0.024) 0.099 (0.060)

3 0.023 (0.089) 0.798 (0.142) 0.005 (0.026) 0.780 (0.143)

4 0.538 (0.990) 0.964 (0.149) 0.180 (0.381) 0.981 (0.150)

5 0.379 (0.395) 0.500 (0.235) 0.111 (0.095) 0.459 (0.223)

Floor Brokers and Traders (Futures Only) Floor Brokers and Traders

(Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.002 (0.001) 0.004 (0.229) 0.449 (0.203) 0.324 (0.037)

2 0.109 (0.049) 0.181 (0.575) 0.743 (0.917) 0.873 (0.081)

3 0.200 (0.186) 0.0524 (0.188) 0.387 (0.446) 0.440 (0.049)

4 0.153 (0.052) 0.115 (0.205) 0.726 (0.961) 0.299 (0.063)

5 0.184 (0.056) 0.305 (0.292) 0.540 (0.945) 0.569 (0.117)

Table 8b presents the Granger causality results for price and position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change and 

the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
36

Table 8c: Granger Causality Tests (Commercials): Price and Position Change: 

Sample Period 2004-2009

Dealer/Merchants (Futures Only) Dealer/Merchants (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.003) 0.273 (0.523) 0.000 (0.000) 0.127 (0.217)

2 0.077 (0.109) 0.957 (0.354) 0.004 (0.006) 0.997 (0.116)

3 0.267 (0.237) 0.180 (0.553) 0.028 (0.025) 0.185 (0.324)

4 0.782 (0.668) 0.337 (0.486) 0.156 (0.094) 0.401 (0.321)

5 0.496 (0.328) 0.219 (0.421) 0.054 (0.030) 0.303 (0.251)

Manufacturers (Futures Only) Manufacturers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.000 (0.008) 0.068 (0.049) 0.000 (0.002) 0.097 (0.051)

2 0.000 (0.008) 0.061 (0.024) 0.000 (0.001) 0.091 (0.023)

3 0.001 (0.046) 0.428 (0.086) 0.000 (0.015) 0.364 (0.074)

4 0.001 (0.072) 0.608 (0.124) 0.000 (0.024) 0.622 (0.107)

5 0.001 (0.033) 0.380 (0.111) 0.000 (0.007) 0.726 (0.117)

Producers (Futures Only) Producers (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.008 (0.154) 0.164 (0.198) 0.002 (0.111) 0.143 (0.425)

2 0.205 (0.433) 0.476 (0.422) 0.074 (0.317) 0.489 (0.341)

3 0.458 (0.860) 0.443 (0.287) 0.241 (0.781) 0.447 (0.233)

4 0.275 (0.952) 0.603 (0.511) 0.159 (0.909) 0.603 (0.426)

5 0.082 (0.764) 0.971 (0.565) 0.041 (0.756) 0.996 (0.453)

Other (Futures Only) Other (Futures and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.742 (0.412) 0.797 (0.428) 0.792 (0.716) 0.840 (0.469)

2 0.458 (0.412) 0.149 (0.544) 0.974 (0.917) 0.353 (0.555)

3 0.112 (0.287) 0.102 (0.489) 0.735 (0.843) 0.446 (0.438)

4 0.223 (0.379) 0.025 (0.521) 0.936 (0858) 0.165 (0.429)

5 0.672 (0.808) 0.377 (0.703) 0.692 (0.901) 0.924 (0.479)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

Only)

Commodity Swaps/Derivative Dealers (Futures 

and Options)

Day Change ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice ΔPriceΔPosition ΔPositionΔPrice

1 0.004 (0.123) 0.632 (0.934) 0.000 (0.150) 0.620 (0.284)

2 0.006 (0.015) 0.741 (0.707) 0.000 (0.057) 0.985 (0.204)

3 0.040 (0.073) 0.485 (0.922) 0.000 (0.151) 0.637 (0.360)

4 0.043 (0.070) 0.930 (0.982) 0.002 (0.256) 0.848 (0.437)

5 0.024 (0.035) 0.914 (0.810) 0.002 (0.153) 0.857 (0.295)

Table 8c presents the Granger causality results for price and net position changes. It also shows the Granger-causality results for price change 

and the level of net position in parenthesis. Bolded probabilities indicate the rejection of Granger non-causality at 1 percent level of significance.
Figure 1: Open Interest and Price of Crude Oil

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

P

r

i

c

e

O

p

e

n

I

n

t

e

r

e

s

t Millions

Total Open Interest and Price of Crude Oil

Nearby Open Interest(Futures-Only) Total Open Interest (Futures plus Adjusted options)

Total Open Interest (Futures-Only) Nearby Price

Average Price
38

Figure 2a: Working’s Speculative Index, 2000-2009 (Nearby Futures) 

Figure 2b: Working’s Speculative Index, 2000-2009 (All Maturities)

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

W

o

r

k

i

n

g

'

s

S

p

e

c

u

l

a

t

i

v

e

I

n

d

e

x

N

e

a

r

b

y

P

r

i

c

e

Nearby Price Working's Speculative Index

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

W

o

r

k

i

n

g

'

s

S

p

e

c

u

l

a

t

i

v

e

I

n

d

e

x

P

r

i

c

e

Average Price Working's Speculative Index
39

Figure 3a: Growth of Commercial Traders Open Interest

Figure 3b: Growth of Non-Commercial Traders Open Interest

AO

AP

AM

AD

AS

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AO

AP

AM

AD

AS

FBT

MMT

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FBT

NRP

MMT