Empirical studies of the behavior of stock returns are important for several reasons. First, the nature of stock return behavior is fundamental to the formulation of the concept of “risk” (or “uncertainty”) in various financial theories and models. Second, the measurement of risk depends heavily on properties (such as the stationarity, long-tailedness, finiteness of the second and higher moments, etc.) of empirical stock return distributions. Third, various tests for the empirical validity of financial models [28] and the applications of these models (e.g., to the evaluation of investment performances [21], [22]) rely to a considerable extent on the steadiness over time of stock return distributions and the constancy of systematic risk. Fourth, several important pricing models for stock options, warrants, convertible debentures, and other similar financial instruments usually require explicit estimates of stock return variances [5]; the usefulness of such models depends largely on the adequacy (e.g., the finiteness, accuracy, etc.) and the stationarity of the variance measurements.

With the formation of a formal market for the trading of financial futures in October 1975, a renewed interest in the futures contract as an investment vehicle has emerged. The traditional approach was to view investing in futures as a way of off setting potential price risk associated with a given spot position. While these descriptive scenarios (see [3], [6], [10], [12], [13], [14], and [19]) adequately illustrate the traditional hedging strategy, their simplifying assumptions introduce a lack of realism into the investment process. The implication drawn from many of these articles is that, if one is interested in risk reduction, one should simply take the opposite position in the appropriate number of futures contracts to totally offset one's existing spot position.

D. Chinhyung Cho, Edwin J. Elton, Martin J. Gruber, On the Robustness of the Roll and Ross Arbitrage Pricing Theory, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 1-10