Why Do Hedgers Hedge? The Role of Ambiguity

ABSTRACT This paper investigates whether ambiguity influences hedging behavior in commodity futures markets. Using high‐frequency crude oil futures data, distinct measures of risk and ambiguity are linked to weekly hedging positions from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The results show that ambiguity significantly affects hedging behavior beyond traditional risk measures. Importantly, different types of hedgers respond to ambiguity in opposing ways: Operational hedgers, who hedge direct exposure to physical prices, reduce their hedging pressure when facing ambiguity, while financial intermediaries, who hedge exposures from client contracts, increasing their hedging pressure. The findings are robust to alternative ambiguity measures, additional controls, and causal identification strategies. Instrument variable evidence supports the intermediary effects; for operational hedgers, results are directionally similar but not longer significant.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Futures Markets
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.70098
Primary Topic
Market Dynamics and Volatility
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why Do Hedgers Hedge? The Role of Ambiguity

Fiona Höllmann
Journal of Futures Markets
Market Dynamics and Volatility
article

Why Do Hedgers Hedge? The Role of Ambiguity

Fiona Höllmann
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper investigates whether ambiguity influences hedging behavior in commodity futures markets. Using high‐frequency crude oil futures data, distinct measures of risk and ambiguity are linked to weekly hedging positions from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The results show that ambiguity significantly affects hedging behavior beyond traditional risk measures. Importantly, different types of hedgers respond to ambiguity in opposing ways: Operational hedgers, who hedge direct exposure to physical prices, reduce their hedging pressure when facing ambiguity, while financial intermediaries, who hedge exposures from client contracts, increasing their hedging pressure. The findings are robust to alternative ambiguity measures, additional controls, and causal identification strategies. Instrument variable evidence supports the intermediary effects; for operational hedgers, results are directionally similar but not longer significant.

Journal of Futures Markets
University of Münster (DE), University Hospital Münster (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Market Dynamics and Volatility
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.