IIMS Journal of Management Science
issue front

Laxmidhar Samal1,2 and Sudhansu Kumar Das3

First Published 3 Oct 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0976030X221116200
Article Information Volume 14, Issue 1 January 2023
Corresponding Author:

Laxmidhar Samal, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751004, India; P. G. Department of Commerce, Baba Bhairabananda Autonomous Mahavidyalaya, Chandikhole, Jajpur, Odisha 755044, India.
Email: laxmidharsamal.ckl@gmail.com

1 Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

P. G. Department of Commerce, Baba Bhairabananda Autonomous Mahavidyalaya, Chandikhole, Jajpur, Odisha, India

Department of Commerce, Sadhu Goureswar College, Odisha, India

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the  terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-Commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.


The study examines the mixture of distribution hypothesis (MDH) and the sequential information arrival hypotheses (SIH) in the base metal futures market of India. We use near-month futures daily trading data of price, volume and open interest for 7 years. It is downloaded from the official website of Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX), India. The study supports the MDH as it confirms the existence of a contemporaneous correlation between the return and change in volume of all base metal futures traded at MCX, India. The article exhibits no causality between the return and volume change of metal futures which supports the MDH and contradicts the SIH. This indicates a greater level of market efficiency. The study finds unidirectional causality between the return and daily change of open interest and bidirectional causality between the change in volume and change in open interest. This is found for all base metal futures and this aspect is left for in-depth analysis by the futures studies.


Base metal, futures, copper, lead, nickel


Baek, E., & Brock, W. (1992). A general test for nonlinear Granger causality: Bivariate model [Working Paper]. Iowa State University and University of Wisconsin.

Bessembinder, H., & Seguin, P. J. (1993). Price volatility, trading volume and market depth: Evidence from futures markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28, 21–39.

Biswal, P. C. (2008). Price discovery in futures and spot commodity market in India [TAPMI Working Paper Series No. 2008/01]. T. A. Pai Management Institute.

Biswas, S., & Rajib, P. (2011). Testing price volume relationship for Indian commodity futures. Journal of Indian Business Research, 3(2), 117–131.

Chen, G., Mishael, F., & Yu, X. (2004). The price-volume relationship in China’s commodity futures markets. The Chinese Economy, 37(3), 87.

Ciner, C. (2002). Information content of volume: An investigation of Tokyo commodity futures markets. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 10, 201–215.

Copeland, T. E. (1976). A model of asset trading under the assumption of sequential information arrival. Journal of Finance, 31, 1149–1168.

Cornell, B. (1981). The relationship between volume and price variability in futures markets. Journal of Futures Markets, 1, 303–316.

Darolles, S., Le Fol, G., & Mero, G. (2017). Mixture of distribution hypothesis: Analyzing daily liquidity frictions and information flows. Journal of Econometrics, 201(2), 367–383.

De Long, J. B., Shleifer, A., Summers, L. H., & Waldmann, R. J. (1990). Positive feedback investment strategies and destabilizing rational speculation. Journal of Finance, 45, 379–395.

Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.

Foster, A. J. (1995). Volume-volatility relationships for crude oil futures markets. Journal of Futures Markets, 15, 929–951.

Fujihara, R. A., & Mougoue, M. (1997). An examination of linear and nonlinear causal relationship between price volatility and volume in petroleum futures markets. Journal of Futures Markets, 17, 385–416.

Gallant, R., Rossi, P., & Touchen, G. (1992). Stock prices and volume. Review of Financial Studies, 5, 199–242.

Girard, E., & Biswas, R. (2007). Trading volume and market volatility: Developed versus emerging stock markets. The Financial Review, 42, 429–459.

Grammatikos, T., & Saunders, A. (1986). Futures price variability: A test of maturity and volume effects. Journal of Business, 59, 319-330.

Granger, C. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.

Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hadsell, L. (2006). A TARCH examination of the return volatility–volume relationship in electricity futures. Applied Financial Economics, 16, 893–901.

Harris, L. (1986). Cross security tests of the mixture of distributions hypothesis. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 21, 39–46.

Hiemstra, C., & Jones, J. D. (1994). Testing of linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. Journal of Finance, 49, 1639–1664.

Jennings, R. H., Starks, L. T., & Fellingham, J. C. (1981). An equilibrium model of asset trading with sequential information arrival. Journal of Finance, 36, 143–161.

Karpoff, J. M. (1987). A relation between price changes and trading volume: A survey. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22, 109–126.

Lokman, G., & Abdulnasser, H. (2005). Stock price and volume relation in emerging markets. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 41(1), 29–44.

Mcmillan, D., & Speight, A. (2002). Return-volume dynamics in UK futures. Applied Financial Economics, 12, 707–713.

Moosa, I. A., & Silvapulle, P. (2000). The price-volume relationship in the crude oil futures markets, some results based on linear and non-linear causality testing. International Review of Economics and Finance, 9, 11–30.

Nevin, Y., Erdem, C., & Erdem, M. S. (2006). Testing for linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation: Turkish banking firms’ evidence. Applied Financial Economic Letters, 2, 165–171.

Peguin-Feissolle, A., & Terasvirta, T. (1999). A general framework for testing the Granger noncausality hypothesis [Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance for Stockholm School of Economics No. 343]. Stockholm School of Economics.

Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrica, 75(2), 335–346.

Puri, T. N., & Philippatos, G. C. (2008). Asymmetric volume-return relation and concentrated trading in LIFFE futures. European Financial Management, 14(3), 528–563.

Silvapulle, P., & Choi, J.-S. (1999). Testing for linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation: Korean evidence. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 3(1), 59–76.

Srinivasan, K., Murthy, K., & Hajiri, S. A. (2016). Does the sequential information arrival and mixture of distribution holds for stock futures market in India. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 9(1), 33–45.

Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector auto regressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225–250.

Touchen, G., & Pitts, M. (1983). The price variability-volume relationship on speculative markets. Econometrica, 51, 485–505.

Wang, J. (1994). A model of competitive stock trading volume. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 127–168.

Zwergel, B., & Heiden, S. (2012). Intraday futures patterns and volume-volatility relationship: The German evidence. Review of Managerial Science, 8(1), 29–61.

Make a Submission Order a Print Copy