Skip to content
All library documents

Why Futures Basis Divergences Are Not Directional Signals

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Gascoyne

Summary

The document examines whether a futures contract’s price relative to its underlying asset predicts the underlying’s later direction. It proposes a historical check: compare the contract’s position above or below the underlying with the underlying’s eventual movement, then count directional matches. The answer argues that such divergences mainly reflect no-arbitrage pricing relationships and are quickly acted upon when exploitable opportunities appear, so the basis alone should not be treated as a directional signal.

The response also distinguishes this claim from the information in the futures curve. Contango or backwardation may express market pricing and risk compensation, but the author sees no automatic trading edge in that information. This is an opinionated answer, not an empirical study: it reports no test results, data design, or citations supporting the predictive claim. It suggests that understanding futures pricing is foundational, while trade timing and capital and position management remain central to execution of an investment approach.

Key ideas

  • A futures contract’s deviation from its underlying is explained by pricing relationships and arbitrage.
  • The proposed directional test counts whether the basis sign aligns with the underlying’s eventual move.
  • The answer argues that a basis divergence alone does not provide a reliable directional edge.
  • Contango and backwardation convey information about market pricing, but the answer does not claim they create automatic alpha.
  • The discussion is conceptual and presents no empirical results or formal study.

Tags

Full text
# Do futures have predictive value?


# Do futures have predictive value?












Futures closely mirror their underlying, as can be seen in the charts below. Eventually, at expiration, they reach the value of the underlying. However, they seem to show no extra information about the underlying's future; i.e. they don't trend any closer to the underlying's value at expiration than the underlying itself does.

Below is an underlying, SPY.

And below is the ES futures Dec 2012 contract.

However, it is possible to calculate how often a given future has been directionally correct. For instance, SPY closed at 142.79 on Dec 21, 2012. To determine the directional predictive power of the ES future, one would run the following pseudocode in a backtesting system:

```
$SPY_close = 142.79
$future_predicted_direction = 0
$days = 0
FOR $day (2012-01-01 .. 2012-12-21) {
  $days++
  IF $EOD_quotes["SPY"][$day] > $SPY_close
      THEN $future_predicted_direction += $EOD_quotes["ES"][$day] <= $EOD_quotes["SPY"][$day]
      ELSE $future_predicted_direction += $EOD_quotes["ES"][$day] >= $EOD_quotes["SPY"][$day]
}

print "ES futures correctly predicted direction $future_predicted_direction out of $days days, that is, "
+ int($future_predicted_direction / $days * 100) + "% of the time."
```

Are there any studies on this? Do futures have any predictive power?

## Answer by Matt Wolf (score 7)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7371

No I believe there is no directional predictive value derived from looking at divergences between futures and their underlying price value. The reason for divergences are of the no-arbitrage argument type. Futures could be arbitraged (and are immediately if such arbitrage opportunities surface, even those opportunities may only fill the stomach of a single person, not a whole family.)

Now, one may argue that there is reason to believe that when futures trade in contango or normal backwardation that this tells something where the market believes price will tend to trade. That is absolutely true but I would argue that there is no alpha to be generated from such knowledge. How farther out futures trade vs near months is something everyone knows and it comes down to the same old risk/reward equation since mankind was created: do you believe an asset is overvalued for a reason and thus go against what most market participants believe will happen or do you sell tops and buy bottoms , which is another way of saying that you want to be a value investor. The choice is yours, in fact if done right both approaches can work. There are a few highly successful traders/investors in either camp. So it comes down, IMHO, to not whether prices will converge to what you define their long term mean and thus whether futures lead their underlyinging asset prices but it comes down how you time your own trades, and particularly how you manage your capital and positions. I believe an understanding of futures pricing is similar to you reading in the newspaper how to hold a tennis racket, you don't win Wimbledon with that. It's a basic ingredient but not a recipe for success.

I would not invest too much time in searching for academic studies in this realm, after all have you ever seen a single academician who published a study in this particular field who struck it rich? I have not.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.