Vol. 9 No. 1 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Agent based interaction of commodity price and freight market

Abdullah Açık
Res. Asst. Dr., Dokuz Eylül University
Sadık Özlen Başer
Prof. Dr., Dokuz Eylül University

Published 2021-03-25


  • Commodity Price, Freight Market, Volatility Spillover
  • Emtia Fiyatı, Navlun Piyasası, Oynaklık Yayılımı

How to Cite

Açık, A., & Başer, S. Özlen. (2021). Agent based interaction of commodity price and freight market. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i1.1684


This study investigates the relationship between iron ore, coal and wheat prices, three major dry bulk cargoes, and Capesize, Panamax, and Handymax freight, which are the intensively used ships in transportation three essential cargoes. These major ship types are considered agents in the market. The main research questions are whether there are a volatility spillover and risk transmission between commodity prices and freight routes and whether there is a differentiation in relations according to the type of cargo and intensive carriage rate. Causality in variance analysis is used to test these research questions, which determines the flow of information between variables and the volatility spillover. The obtained results reveal that the interaction can differ according to both ship types and commodity types, and volatility spillovers and risk transfers are from commodity prices to freight rates.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Açık, A. (2016). The effects of fast decline in crude oil prices on the tanker market in the short run, Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Social Sciences, Master Thesis, İzmir.
  2. Açık, A. & Başer, S.Ö. (2018a). An analytical study on the likely causes of the minor bubbles in the Baltic dry index. International Journal of Logistics Economics and Globalisation, 7(4), 353-365.
  3. Açık, A. & Başer, S.Ö. (2018b). The effects of fast decline in crude oil prices on the tanker market in the short run. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 61-82.
  4. Açık, A. & Başer, S.Ö. (2019). Impact of Commodity Price on Freight Market Considering The 2008 Crisis: An Investigation of Iron Ore Price and Capesize Shipping Rates. II. Business & Organisation Research Conference Full Text Book (pp. 1087-1099), Organised by Yaşar University. İzmir. 4th-6th September 2019.
  5. Açık, A. & Başer, S.Ö. (2020). Asymmetric causality from commodity prices to shipping markets: an empirical research on Istfix region. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 9(1), 47–62.
  6. Açık, A. & İnce, M.R. (2019). Do commodity price shocks matter for dry bulk freight markets?. In Kaya, Ö. (Ed.), Studies on social sciences (pp. 77-101). Ankara: İKSAD Publishing House.
  7. Adıgüzel, U., Bayat, T., Kayhan, S. & Nazlıoğlu, Ş. (2013). Oil prices and exchange rates in Brazil, India and Turkey: Time and frequency domain causality analysis. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 49-73.
  8. Afonso, A. & Teixeira, J. (1999). Non-linear tests of weakly efficient markets: Evidence from Portugal, ISEG Economics Department Working Paper, 6(98).
  9. Ajmi, A. N. El Montasser, G. & Nguyen, D. K. (2013). Testing the relationships between energy consumption and income in G7 countries with non-linear causality tests. Economic Modelling, 35, 126-133.
  10. Alghalith, M. (2010). The interaction between food prices and oil prices. Energy Economics, 32, 1520–1522.
  11. Alizadeh, A. & Nomikos, N. (2009). Shipping derivatives and risk management. London: Macmillian.
  12. Alom, F., Ward, B. & Baiding, H. (2011). Spillover Effects of World Oil Prices on Food Prices: Evidence from Asia and Pacific Countries. 52nd New Zealand Association of Economists Annual Conference. Wellington, New Zealand. 29th June–1st July 2011.
  13. Angelopoulos, J., Sahoo, S. & Visvikis, I. D. (2020). Commodity and transportation economic market interactions revisited: New evidence from a dynamic factor model. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 133, 1-15.
  14. Bal, D. P., & Rath, B. N. (2015). Non-linear causality between crude oil price and exchange rate: A comparative study of China and India. Energy Economics, 51, 149-156.
  15. Başer, S.Ö., & Açık, A. (2019). Do commodity prices matter for second hand values? An empirical research on Capesize market. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, 5(1), 44-52.
  16. Başer, S.Ö., & Açık, A. (2018). The response of shipbuilding activities to freight rates. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), 120-136.
  17. Bayat, T., Nazlioglu, S., & Kayhan, S. (2015). Exchange rate and oil price interactions in transition economies: Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Panoeconomicus, 62(3), 267-285.
  18. Bendall, H., & Stent, A.F. (2005). Investment strategies in market uncertainty. In Leggate, H. et al (Eds.), International maritime transport: Perspectives (pp. 13-23). London: Routledge.
  19. Bhattarai, K., & Margariti, V. (2018). An empirical test of the theory of efficient markets of stock prices. Finance and Market, 3(2), 1-30.
  20. Bildirici, M. E., & Turkmen, C. (2015). Non-linear causality between oil and precious metals. Resources Policy, 46, 202-211.
  21. Blasco, N., Del Rio, C., & Santamaría, R. (1997). The random walk hypothesis in the spanish stock market: 1980–1992. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(5), 667-684.
  22. Bloomberg. (2019, July 20). Freight rate data [Data provider]. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/
  23. Brock, W. (1991). Causality, chaos, explanation and prediction in economics and finance. In Casti, J.L., and Karlqvist, A. (Eds.), Beyond belief: Randomness, prediction and explanation in science (pp. 230-279). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  24. Brock, W., Dechect, W. & Scheinkman, J. (1987). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Working Paper. Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
  25. Brock, W., Dechert, D., Sheinkman, J. & LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197–235.
  26. Bullock R.L. & Mernitz, S. (2017). Mineral property evaluation: Handbook for feasibility studies and due diligence. USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
  27. Chen, S., Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E. & Frouws, K. (2014). Modelling and forecasting in dry bulk shipping. Informa Law from Routledge.
  28. Cheung, Y. W. & Ng, L. K. (1996). A causality-in-variance test and its application to financial market prices. Journal of Econometrics, 72(1-2), 33-48.
  29. Chiou-Wei, S. Z., Chen, C. F. & Zhu, Z. (2008). Economic growth and energy consumption revisited—Evidence from linear and non-linear Granger causality. Energy Economics, 30(6), 3063-3076.
  30. Chou, M. T., Su, Y. L., Chou, T. Y. & Liang, H. U. (2015). An analysis of the relationship between Asian Steel Index and the Baltic Capsize Index. Modern Economy, 6(2), 207-216.
  31. Dorina, L. & Simina, U. (2007). Testing efficiency of the stock market in emerging economies. The Journal of the Faculty of Economics-Economic Science Series, 2, 827-831.
  32. Dura, Y. C., Beser, M. K. & Acaroglu, H. (2017). Econometric analysis of Turkey's export-led growth. Ege Akademik Bakis, 17(2), 295-310.
  33. ECMT. (2001). Short sea shipping in Europe. France: OECD Publications Service.
  34. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50(4), 987-1007.
  35. Fisher, T. & Waschik, R. (2002). Managerial economics: A game theoretic approach. New York: Routledge.
  36. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37(3), 424-438.
  37. Hafner, C. M. & Herwartz, H. (2006). A lagrange multiplier test for causality in variance. Economics Letters, 93(1), 137-141.
  38. Harlaftis, G. & Theotokas, J. (2002). Maritime business during the 20th century: continuity and changes. In Grammenos, C. (Eds.), The handbook of maritime economics and business (pp. 3-34). London: Lloyd's of London Press.
  39. Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 447-456.
  40. Heij, C., de Boer, P., Franses, P. H., Kloek, T. & van Dijk, H. K. (2004). Econometric methods with applications in business and economics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D. & Regnér, P. (2014). Exploring strategy. Italy: Pearson Education Limited.
  42. Kavussanos, M., Visvikis, I. & Dimitrakopoulos, D. (2010). Information linkages between panamax freight derivatives and commodity derivatives markets. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 12(1), 91-110.
  43. Kavussanos, M.G., Visvikis, I.D. & Dimitrakopoulos, D.N. (2014). Economic spillovers between related derivatives markets: The case of commodity and freight markets. Transportation Research Part E, 68, 79–102.
  44. Koseoglu, S. D. & Cevik, E. I. (2013). Testing for causality in mean and variance between the stock market and the foreign exchange market: An application to The Major Central and Eastern European Countries. Finance a Uver, 63(1), 65-86.
  45. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
  46. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2013). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492.
  47. Lim, K. P. & Brooks, R. (2011). The evolution of stock market efficiency over time: A survey of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(1), 69-108.
  48. Lim, S. Y. & Ho, C. M. (2013). Non-linearity in ASEAN-5 export-led growth model: Empirical evidence from nonparametric approach. Economic Modelling, 32, 136-145.
  49. Ljung, G. M. & Box, G. E. (1978). On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika, 65(2), 297-303.
  50. Månsson, K. & Shukur, G. (2009). Granger causality test in the presence of spillover effects. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 38(10), 2039-2059.
  51. McLeod, A. I., Yu, H. & Mahdi E. (2012). Time series analysis with R. In Rao, T. et al (Eds.), Time series analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 30) (pp. 661-712). Elsevier.
  52. Mosk, C. (2008). Japanese economic development: Markets, norms, structures. New York: Routledge.
  53. Narayan, P. K. & Popp, S. (2010). A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(9), 1425-1438.
  54. Nazlioglu, S., Erdem, C. & Soytas, U. (2013). Volatility spillover between oil and agricultural commodity markets. Energy Economics, 36, 658-665.
  55. Nouira R., Amor T.H. & Rault C. (2019). Oil price fluctuations and exchange rate dynamics in the MENA Region: Evidence from non-causality-in-variance and asymmetric non-causality tests. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 73, 159-171.
  56. Ragan, C.T.S (2014). Microeconomics. Canada: Pearson.
  57. Schernikau, L. (2016). Economics of the international coal trade: why coal continues to power the World. London: Springer.
  58. Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime economics. London and New York: Routledge.
  59. Tsioumas, V. & Papadimitriou, S. (2018). The dynamic relationship between freight markets and commodity prices revealed. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(2), 267-279.
  60. Ünal, G., & Derindere Köseoğlu, S. (2014). Revealing the freight market risk in ISTFIX shipping area. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 6(6), 593–610.
  61. UNCTAD (2019, December 10). Merchant fleet by flag of registration and by type of ship [Data provider]. Retrieved from https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=93
  62. WorldBank. (2019, December 28). Monthly commodity prices. https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commoditymarkets
  63. Yu, L., Li, J., Tang, L. & Wang, S. (2015). Linear and non-linear Granger causality investigation between carbon market and crude oil market: A multi-scale approach. Energy Economics, 51, 300-311.
  64. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. W. K. (2002). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 25-44.