Skip to main content
Log in

On the Stochastic Properties of Carbon Futures Prices

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pricing carbon is a central concern in environmental economics, due to the worldwide importance of emissions trading schemes to regulate pollution. This paper documents the presence of small and large jumps in the stochastic process of the CO\(_2\) futures price. The large jumps have a discrete origin, i.e. they can arise from various demand factors or institutional decisions on the tradable permits market. Contrary to the existing literature, we show that the stochastic process of carbon futures prices does not contain a continuous component (Brownian motion). The results are derived by using high-frequency data in the activity signature function framework (Todorov and Tauchen in J Econom 154:125–138, 2010; Todorov and Tauchen in J Bus Econ Stat 29:356–371, 2011). The implication is that the carbon futures price should be modeled as an appropriately sampled, centered Lévy or Poisson process. The pure-jump behavior of the carbon price might be explained by the lower volume of trades on this allowance market (compared to other highly liquid financial markets).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Ellerman et al. (2000)—in the context of the US Acid Rain Program—, the notion of success can be approximated by various effects (pre-existing regulatory environment, technology innovation and diffusion, reduction of regulatory uncertainty, aggregate cost savings, etc). In this paper, we will focus on the stochastic properties of the permits price.

  2. As pioneered by Dixit and Pindyck (1994).

  3. Aït-Sahalia and Jacod (2010) also suggest an alternative test, where the null hypothesis is the absence of a continuous component. The difference between the tests lies in their theoretical and finite-sample properties.

  4. The large empirical evidence about financial data is discussed in Cont and Tankov (2004), among others.

  5. Other examples of pure jump or jump-diffusion models are provided in Jing et al. (2012). The authors emphasize that such models have applications far beyond the financial domain.

  6. The interested reader may look at the Sect. 2 in Jing et al. (2012), where distributions from several processes of different natures are plotted. The distributional aspect of pure-jump or diffusion is strikingly different, thereby motivating investigation of the fine nature of the underlying process for financial as well as for non-financial (real-world) applications.

  7. A growth option is a complex (real) option which, when exercised, in addition to the value of the underlying initial investment, gives an option to a subsequent investment of considerably larger scale (due to experimental learning, market growth, etc.). An extension (real) option has elements of a compound option which, if it has not been exercised at a given date in the past, can be extended to a later period by paying a penalty.

  8. Note that these results can be extended to the potential effect of risk-aversion on CO\(_2\) prices.

  9. Banking consists in saving certificates for future use, by emitting less or abating more than would be required to cover the emissions of the current year.

  10. The authors typically use Monte-Carlo simulations or trinomial tree methods to study or estimate costs and risks directly dependent on the carbon futures prices.

  11. The rationale for mean-reversion is that the price of a commodity tends to be pulled back to its production cost plus a margin (Schwartz 1997; Schwartz and Smith 2000). For commodities such as energy, the mean is determined by the marginal cost of production and the extent of demand. In the short-run, there can be deviations from this arithmetic mean, but in the long-run the price converges towards the marginal costs of production as a result of competition among the producers. That is why the modeling of energy prices using the mean-reversion process is quite common.

  12. The PERT distribution is a version of the beta distribution. We leave to the interested reader the explanation of the PERT distribution in the original article.

  13. By assuming an exogenous price process for the forward contract.

  14. Every year, the European Commission aggregates submitted emissions data and compares this to the quantity of allowances surrendered. The processing of emissions data for the entire zone takes a couple of months, and announcements on the market’s net position are not released until mid-April.

  15. This mathematical system is widely used in business cycle analysis to explain the transitions from one state of the economy to another (e.g. boom or bust), between a finite or countable number of possible states.

  16. The carbon spot price can be calculated using a Monte Carlo routine.

  17. This setting can be seen as tailored to the constraints of the EU ETS during 2005–2007, when the inter-phase I and II intertemporal transfer of allowances had been banned.

  18. Namely, geometric Brownian motion process, mean-reverting square-root process, mean-reverting logarithmic process, constant-elasticity of variance, geometric Brownian motion process augmented by jumps, and mean-reverting square-root process augmented by jumps.

  19. Note, however, that the authors do not investigate the presence of infinite activity jumps (as in our setting).

  20. While the modeling results of Dannenberg and Ehrenfeld (2011) and Zhu et al. (2009) have been covered, we briefly mention here the findings of Lin and Lin (2007). They model carbon dioxide spot prices as a result of mean-reversion with varying trends, combined with state-dependent price jumps and volatility structure. Globally, their results show that mean-reversion with state-dependent price jumps performs the best in forecasting CO\(_2\) futures prices.

  21. I.e. with banking. Results with no banking are also provided.

  22. Details on the setting of the test and the calculation of standard errors are not given here to save space. They can be found in Todorov and Tauchen (2010).

  23. In other words, our dataset includes all transactions on the front-year contract, i.e. all prices where two investors have agreed to take simultaneously a long and a short position, respectively (Kolb and Overdahl 2006 is an excellent reference for an introduction to futures markets).

  24. A similar analysis would not have been possible in the (now closed) BlueNext spot market for CO\(_2\) allowances in light of its insufficient liquidity, which produces unreliable estimates (only 38,924 ticks are available during our sample period in BlueNext).

  25. This was 50 seconds between each transaction for the 2008 futures contract studied in Chevallier and Sévi (2010, 2011). However, the authors empirically show that this is sufficient to use intraday returns to compute, say, the realized volatility, and that the estimates are not too noisy.

  26. We keep a sampling interval for intraday returns of 5-min as in the bulk of the literature when using this type of data, but we sample with starting points at each minute. Thus, we have 5 more estimates of the ratio at each period, and an average of these ratios provides much more robust results.

  27. Despite the fact that the computation of power variations relies on infill asymptotics (i.e. the interval is sampled over a finer and finer mesh as the sample size increases), less noisy estimates can obviously be obtained by using more data. Todorov and Tauchen (2011) suggest a 22-day block which is a good ‘compromise in the tradeoff between the presumption of constant activity over the subinterval and the associated reduction in sampling error inference with more data points per interval’. (p. 362). Due to data limitation, we experiment with 5-day blocks in our empirical analysis.

    Fig. 2
    figure 2

    QASF for the EUA ECX futures price series for 1-day blocks (top), and 5-day blocks (bottom). Note: QASF is computed using 5-min sampling intervals. Lower and upper-quartiles are represented in dashed lines, along with the reference horizontal line fixed at 2

  28. Note that some point estimates \(\log _{b_{s}}(p)\) may lie above the 0.69 line, as long as they are not too significantly above the line. A statistical threshold normally has to be computed from Theorem 2 in Todorov and Tauchen (2010). As all our point estimates are below 0.69, we do not need to investigate the issue of confidence bounds any further.

  29. The sampling frequency is known to play a major role when using tick-by-tick data because of the microstructure noise in observed prices. As for the carbon price, see the discussion in Chevallier and Sévi (2010, 2011). Jing et al. (2011) develop theoretical results about the estimation of the activity index in a noisy context.

  30. One disclaimer concerning the generalization of our results is called for. In this paper, we have examined the stochastic properties of a particular time series, in this case tick level data on EUA futures from 2009–2010. Footnote 30 continued We acknowledge that these results only hold for the given data. Our results cannot be generalized to other carbon price time series for other time periods or other regions (U.S.). Moreover, only future empirical work on the relationship between liquidity and the nature of the underlying stochastic process can help to determine the generalizability of our results.

  31. See also a discussion on the implications of these pure-jump models in the Appendix.

  32. The Wiener process is a mathematical idealization of Brownian motion, but often the term Brownian motion is used instead of the term Wiener process.

  33. There are other qualitative features that characterize real market log-return distributions that cannot be reproduced by the pure-diffusion model but can be modeled, in part, by adding jumps to the diffusion process. First, real markets have negatively skewed log-return distributions: they are found to be pessimistic due to more negative log-returns (including crashes) than positive log-returns. Second, real markets distributions are found to be leptokurtic: the distribution is more peaked at the maximum, and consequently has fatter tails than the normal distribution. The third characteristic is the volatility smile, which refers to the curvature of the implied volatility (e.g. volatility implied by the log-normal Black-Scholes formula) versus the strike price.

References

  • Aït-Sahalia Y, Jacod J (2009a) Testing for jumps in a discretely observed process. Ann Stat 37:184–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aït-Sahalia Y, Jacod J (2009b) Estimating the degree of activity of jumps in high frequency financial data. Ann Stat 37:2202–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aït-Sahalia Y, Jacod J (2010) Is Brownian motion necessary to model high-frequency data? Ann Stat 38: 3093–3128

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballotta L (2005) A Lévy process-based framework for the fair valuation of participating life insurance contracts. Insur Math Econ 37:173–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N (2001) Non-Gaussian Ornstein–Uhlenbeck-based models and some of their uses in financial economics. J R Stat Soc Ser B 63:167–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N (2004) Power and bipower variation with stochastic volatility and jumps. J Financial Econ 2:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N (2006) Econometrics of testing for jumps in financial economics using bipower variation. J Financ Econ 4:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N (2012) Lévy driven volatility models. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)

  • Barndorff-Nielsen OE, Hansen PR, Lunde A, Shephard N (2009) Realized kernels in practice: trades and quotes. Econom J 12:C1–C32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz E, Trück S (2009) Modeling the price dynamics of \(\text{ CO }_2\) emission allowances. Energy Econ 31:4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal R, Getoor R (1961) Sample functions of stochastic processes with independent increments. J Math Mech 10:493–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Borovkov K, Decrouez G, Hinz J (2011) Jump-diffusion modeling in emission markets. Stoch Model 27:50–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona R, Hinz J (2011) Risk-neutral models for emission allowance prices and option valuation. Manag Sci 57:1453–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona R, Fehr M, Hinz J (2009) Optimal stochastic control and carbon price formation. SIAM J Control Optim 48:2168–2190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona R, Fehr M, Hinz J, Porchet A (2010) Market designs for emissions trading schemes. SIAM Rev 52:403–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr P, Madan DB (1999) Option valuation using the fast fourier transforms. J Comput Financ 2:61–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr P, Geman H, Madan DB, Yor M (2003) Stochastic volatility for Lévy processes. Math Financ 13:345–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çetin U, Verschuere M (2009) Pricing and hedging in carbon emissions markets. Int J Theor Appl Financ 12:949–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesney M, Taschini L (2012) The endogenous price dynamics of emission allowance and an application to CO\(_2\) option pricing. Appl Math Financ, (forthcoming) doi:10.1080/1350486X.2011.639948

  • Chevallier J (2011) A model of carbon price interactions with macroeconomic and energy dynamics. Energy Econ 33:1295–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevallier J, Sévi B (2010) Jump-robust estimation of realized volatility in the EU emissions trading scheme. J Energy Mark 3:49–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevallier J, Sévi B (2011) On the realized volatility of the ECX CO\(_2\) emissions 2008 futures contract: distribution, dynamics, and forecasting. Ann Financ 7:1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cont R, Tankov P (2004) Financial modelling with jump processes. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronshaw MB, Kruse JB (1996) Regulated firms in pollution permit markets with banking. J Regul Econ 9:179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvitanić J, Polimenis V, Zapatero F (2008) Optimal portfolio allocation with higher moments. Ann Financ 4:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dales JH (1968) Pollution, property and prices. Toronto University Press, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannenberg H, Ehrenfeld W (2011) A model for the valuation of carbon price risk. In: Antes R, Hansjürgens B, Letmathe P, Pickl S (eds) Emissions trading: institutional design, decision making and corporate strategies. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalakis G, Psychoyios D, Markellos RN (2009) Modeling CO\(_2\) emission allowance prices and derivatives: evidence from the European trading scheme. J Banking Financ 33:1230–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman AD (2005) A note on tradeable permits. Environ Resour Econ 31:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman AD, Buchner BK (2008) Over-allocation or abatement? A preliminary analysis of the EU ETS based on the 2005–06 emissions data. Environ Resour Econ 41:267–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman AD, Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Montero JP, Bailey E (2000) Markets for clean air: the US acid rain program, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman RM, Valdez-Flores C (2010) Applied probability and stochastic processes. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ghahramani S (2005) Fundamentals of probability with stochastic processes. Pearson Education, Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie DT (1996) Exact numerical simulation of the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process and its integral. Phys Rev E 54:2084–2091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson FB (2007) Applied stochastic processes and control for jump-diffusions: modeling, analysis and computation. SIAM Press, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson FB, Westman JJ (2002) Portfolio optimization with jump-diffusions: estimation of time-dependent parameters and application. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE conference on decision and control, pp 377–381

  • Hinz J, Novikov A (2010) On fair pricing of emission-related derivatives. Bernoulli 16(4):1240–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jing B-Y, Kong X-B, Liu Z (2011) Estimating the jump activity index under noisy observations using high-frequency data. J Am Stat Assoc 106:558–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jing B-Y, Kong X-B, Liu Z (2012) Modeling high-frequency financial data by pure jump processes. Ann Stat 40:759–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan D (1979) An introduction to stochastic processes. North Holland Series in Probability and Applied Mathematics, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatzas I, Shreve SE (1997) Brownian motion and stochastic calculus, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassberg S, Kiesel R, Liebmann T (2008) Fair valuation of insurance contracts under Lévy process specifications. Insurance Math Econ 42:419–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling C, Rubin J (1997) Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. J Public Econ 64:101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill O (2009) Probability and stochastic processes with applications. Overseas India Press, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb RW, Overdahl JA (2006) Understanding futures markets. Blackwell Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong X-B (2012) Is a pure jump process fitting the high frequency data better than a jump-diffusion process? J Stat Plan Inference, (forthcoming)

  • Kroese DP, Taimre T, Botev ZI (2011) Handbook of Monte Carlo methods. Wiley Series in Probabilities and Statistics, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leiby P, Rubin J (2001) Intertemporal permit trading for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Resour Econ 19:229–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin YN, Lin AY (2007) Pricing the cost of carbon dioxide emission allowance futures. Rev Futur Mark 16:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Longstaff F, Pan J (2003) Dynamic asset allocation with event risk. J Financ 58:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeda A (2004) Impact of banking and forward contracts on tradable permit markets. Environ Econ Policy Stud 6:81–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Martzoukos SH, Trigeorgis L (2002) Real (investment) options with multiple sources of rare events. Eur J Oper Res 136:696–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery DW (1972) Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J Econ Theory 5: 395–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakkanen MS (2010) Microfoundations for diffusion price processes. Math Financ Econ 3:89–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolella MS, Taschini L (2008) An econometric analysis of emission allowance prices. J Banking Financ 32:2022–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolski T, Schmidli H, Schmidt V, Teugels J (1999) Stochastic processes for insurance and finance. Wiley Series in Probabilities and Statistics, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin J (1996) A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking, and borrowing. J Environ Econ Manag 31:269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydberg TH (1997) The normal inverse Gaussian Lévy process: simulation and approximation. Commun Stat Stoch Model 13:887–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schennach SM (2000) The economics of pollution permit banking in the context of title IV of the 1990 clean air act amendments. J Environ Econ Manag 40:189–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoutens W (2003) Lévy processes in finance. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz ES (1997) The stochastic behavior of commodity prices: implications for valuation and hedging. J Financ 52:923–973

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz ES, Smith JE (2000) Short-term variations and long-term dynamics in commodity prices. Manag Sci 46:893–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert J, Uhrig-Homburg M, Wagner M (2008) Dynamic behavior of \(\text{ CO }_2\) prices. J Environ Econ Manag 56:180–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speyer JL, Chung WH (2008) Stochastic processes, estimation, and control. SIAM Press, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens B, Rose A (2002) A dynamic analysis of the marketable permits approach to global warming policy: a comparison of spatial and temporal flexibility. J Environ Econ Manag 44:45–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirzaker D (2005) Stochastic processes and models. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorov V, Tauchen G (2010) Activity signature functions for high-frequency data analysis. J Econom 154:125–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorov V, Tauchen G (2011) Volatility jumps. J Bus Econ Stat 29:356–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Mykland PA, Aït-Sahalia Y (2005) A tale of two time scales: determining integrated volatility with noisy high frequency data. J Am Stat Assoc 100:1394–1411

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z, Graham P, Reedman L, Lo T (2009) A scenario-based integrated approach for modeling carbon price risk. Decis Econ Financ 32:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Editor Michael Finus as well as two anonymous referees for their advice, which led to a greatly improved version of the paper. Helpful comments were received from seminar participants at the 10th Envecon Applied Environmental Economics Conference in London (UKNEE). We wish to thank ECX for providing the data. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julien Chevallier.

Appendix: Key Properties of Stochastic Processes

Appendix: Key Properties of Stochastic Processes

In what follows, we provide a brief overview of the key characteristics of stochastic processes, in continuous and jump diffusion settings. By doing so, we build on the notations by Hanson (2007), Knill (2009) and Kroese et al. (2011).

The interested reader may refer to advanced texts in Kannan (1979), Karatzas and Shreve (1997), Rolski et al. (1999), Schoutens (2003), Cont and Tankov (2004), Ghahramani (2005), Stirzaker (2005), Speyer and Chung (2008), Feldman and Valdez-Flores (2010), or Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2012).

1.1 Continuous Diffusion

Let \(\Omega \) be a probability space, and let \(T \subset \mathbb R \) be time. A collection of random variables \(X_t, t \in T\) with values in \(\mathbb R \) is called a stochastic process.

If \(X_t\) takes values in \(S=\mathbb R ^d\), it is called a vector-valued stochastic process (but often abbreviates by the name stochastic process too).

If the sample function \(X_t(\omega )\) is a continuous function of \(t\) for almost all \(\omega \in \Omega \), then \(X_t\) is called a continuous stochastic process.

Let us start with the Brownian motionFootnote 32 as a fundamental example of an important stochastic process which does not feature mean reversion.

1.1.1 Brownian Motion

An \(\mathbb R ^d\)-valued continuous Gaussian process \(X_t\) with mean vector \(m_t=E[X_t]\) and covariance matrix \(V(s,t)=Cov (X_s,X_t)=E[(X_s-m_s)\cdot (X_t-m_t)]\) is called Brownian motion if for any \(0\le t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n\), the random vectors \(X_{t_0}, X_{t_{i+1}}-X_{t_i}\) are independent and the covariance matrix \(V\) satisfies \(V(s,t)=V(r,r)\), where \(r=\min (s,t)\) and \(s \rightarrow V(s,s)\). It is called the standard Brownian motion if \(m_t=0\) for all \(t\) and \(V(s,t)=\min \{s,t\}\).

A numerical example of a Brownian motion computed for 100 observations, \(r=0.02\) with a drift \(m_t=\sqrt{0.1}\) is pictured in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Numerical illustration of Brownian motion

Define the process \(B_t=X([0,t])\). For any sequence \(t_1,t_2,\cdot \cdot \cdot \in T\), this process has independent increments \(B_t-B_{t-1}\) and is a Gaussian process. For any \(x \in \mathbb R \), the process:

$$\begin{aligned} X_t=x+B_t \end{aligned}$$
(5)

is called Brownian motion started at \(x\).

Furthermore, if \(B_t\) is a Brownian motion, then \(X=f(B,t)\) can be written in differential form as:

$$\begin{aligned} d X_t=\alpha X_t dt+ \beta d M_t, \quad X_0=1 \end{aligned}$$
(6)

with \(\{\alpha ,\beta \}\) constants, and \(M\) a continuous martingale of finite variation. This is an example of a stochastic differential equation (SDE). Unlike ordinary differential equations, one has to use Ito’s formula to integrate when looking for solutions.

Next, we proceed with a generalization of stochastic processes featuring the mean reversion property.

1.1.2 Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Process

The mean reversion process can be considered as a modification of a random walk, where the alterations to the process do not occur entirely independently.

The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process has the property that it is mean-reverting, i.e. it always tries to come back to its asymptotic mean value. For this reason, it is also called the oscillatory process. The Brownian motion \(B_t\) and the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process \(O_t\) are for \(t \ge 0\) related by:

$$\begin{aligned} O_t=\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{-t}B_{e^{2t}} \end{aligned}$$
(7)

The corresponding SDE is obtained by writing:

$$\begin{aligned} d X_t=-\tau X_t dt+ \beta d B_t \end{aligned}$$
(8)

with the parameter \(\tau >0\) governing the rate of mean-reversion, and \(\beta \) a constant.

An example of the path for the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process with mean reversion rate \(\tau = 0.1\) and diffusion constant \(\beta = 0.03\) is given in Fig. 6. The numerical method used here was published by Gillespie (1996).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Numerical illustration of Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process

1.1.3 Vasicek Process

The Vasicek process is very close to the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process presented above. This process is a diffusion process, which leads to the following closed form formula:

$$\begin{aligned} dX_t=\kappa ({\theta }-X_t)dt + \beta d B_t \end{aligned}$$
(9)

where the parameters \(\kappa , \theta \) and \(\beta \) are constants, and the random motion is generated by the Brownian motion \(B_t\). An important property of the Vasicek process is that the mean is reverting to \(\theta \), and the tendency to revert is controlled by \(\kappa \).

To give an idea of what the Vasicek process looks like, we have generated a sample path in Fig. 7 by plugging the values \(\theta =0.014, \kappa =0.161\) and \(\beta =0.03\).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Numerical illustration of Vasicek process

1.2 Jump Diffusion

In the pure diffusion stochastic model, there is one obvious missing feature that large market fluctuations or crashes / rallies—which characterize the market’s bullish or bearish trends—are not represented. These discontinuities highlight the statistical importance of including jumps in financial market models.Footnote 33 That is why we present below jump diffusion process models.

1.2.1 Poisson Process

A Poisson process \(P_t\) with rate \(\lambda \) verifies the following property:

$$\begin{aligned} P_t= \text {Number of occurrences in} \ [0,t) \sim P_0 (\lambda t) \end{aligned}$$
(10)

The differential of a simple Poisson counting process satisfies:

$$\begin{aligned} d P_t=\lambda dt \end{aligned}$$
(11)

with \(\lambda >0\) and initial conditions \(P(0^{+})=0\) with probability one. The simplest approach to view the Poisson processes is to consider these differential stochastic processes as increments, i.e.:

$$\begin{aligned} d P_t = P(t+dt)-P(t) \end{aligned}$$
(12)

for infinitesimal increments in time \(dt\). We verify that the Poisson process \(P_t\) is quite different from continuous diffusion processes, primarily because of its discontinuity property, and the property that multiple jumps are highly unlikely during small increments of time \(d t\).

The sample path of a Poisson process with \(\lambda =2\) is displayed in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Numerical illustration of poisson process

1.2.2 Bernoulli Process

The Bernoulli process is the discrete time counterpart of the Poisson process. It consists of finite or infinite sequence of independent random variables \(X_t, t=1,\ldots ,T\) such that:

$$\begin{aligned} X_t = \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} 1 &{} \text{ with } prob=p \\ -1 &{} \text{ with } prob=1-p \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$

In practice, this model corresponds to a regular sampling period \(S\) for which observations are missing at random, with failure probability \(1-p\). The regular sampling period corresponds to \(p=1\). Random variables associated with the Bernoulli process include:

  • The number of successes in the first \(n\) trials: this has a binomial distribution.

  • The number of trials needed to get \(r\) successes: this has a negative binomial distribution.

  • The number of trials needed to get one success: this has a geometric distribution, which is a special case of the negative binomial distribution.

As an example, the numerical simulation of a Bernoulli process with \(p = 0.5\) from a discrete uniform \(X_t\sim \mathcal U _d(-1,1)\) is given in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Numerical illustration of Bernoulli process

1.2.3 Lévy Process

Lévy processes can be thought of as a combination of a diffusion process and a jump process. Both Brownian motion (i.e. a pure diffusion process) and Poisson processes (i.e. pure jump processes) are Lévy processes. As such, Lévy processes represent a tractable extension of Brownian motion to infinitely divisible distributions. In addition, Lévy processes allow the modeling of discontinuous sample paths, whose properties match those of empirical phenomena such as financial time series.

There have been many efforts to apply Lévy processes, such as the CGMY model (Carr et al. 2003), the variance gamma (VG) model (Carr and Madan 1999), and the Normal Inverse Gaussian (NIG) model (Rydberg 1997).

A \(d\)-dimensional Lévy process is a stochastic process \(\{X_t,t \ge 0\}\) taking values in \(\mathbb R ^d\) with the following properties:

  1. 1.

    Independent increments: For any \(t_1 < t_2 \le t_3 < t_4\), the random variables \(X_{t_4}-X_{t_3}\) and \(X_{t_2}-X_{t_1}\) are independent.

  2. 2.

    Stationarity: The law of \(X_{t+h}-X_t\) does not depend on \(t\).

  3. 3.

    Stochastic continuity: when the process coefficients are not constant, then the process will in general not be stationary, as the preceding condition requires. For many real problems, such as in financial markets, the time-dependence of process coefficients is important (Hanson and Westman 2002).

  4. 4.

    Zero initial value: \(X_0=0\) almost surely.

A Lévy process can be seen as a continuous time generalization of a random walk process. Indeed, the process observed at time \(0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\ldots \) forms a random walk:

$$\begin{aligned} X_{t_n}=\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n} (X_{t_i}-X_{t_{i-1}}) \end{aligned}$$
(13)

whose increments \(\{X_{t_i}-X_{t_{i-1}}\}\) are independent. Let \(N([0,t]\times A)\) denote the number of jumps of \(X\) during the interval \([0,t]\) whose size lies in the ensemble \(A\), excluding \(0\). Let \(\Delta X_t\) denote the size of the jump of the process at time \(t\). The measure \(\nu \) defined by:

$$\begin{aligned} \nu (A)=N([0,1]\times A), \quad \{t \in [0,1]: \Delta X_t \ne 0, \Delta X_t \in A\} \end{aligned}$$
(14)

is called the Lévy measure of \(X_t\). The random measure \(N(dt,dx)\) is called the jump measure. We observe that Lévy processes are essentially jump-diffusion processes, but are extended to processes with infinite jump-rates.

A numerical simulation of a Lévy process with \(\nu =0.01\) can be observed in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Numerical illustration of Lévy process

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chevallier, J., Sévi, B. On the Stochastic Properties of Carbon Futures Prices. Environ Resource Econ 58, 127–153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9695-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9695-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation