The issue is that futures/forwards/etc are tools used for hedging, so they don't clear at a level that represents a "prediction", they have embedded reflections of liquidity conditions and net positioning of participants active in the instrument. Because these variables are opaque, this can't easily be disentangled. One of the biggest fallacies in markets and trading is the conflation of where a financial instrument clears with "prediction." It is simply not the case. This is primarily a result of the people reporting on the data never having traded the actual instruments, in my opinion, and it results in situations where the "market is wrong", etc, yet the funds holding the position are making money on the other legs of the trade. It is also extremely important in the modern market to consider the price-insensitive nature of many participants (from central banks, to passive flows). Ex: at the bottom of the banking crisis, rolling VIX futures down the curve for a year had a large guaranteed yield. Was this reflective of high risk or predictions about volatility? No, it was simply a reflection of liquidity conditions. Many of these instruments provide outright contra-indicators. Huge markets like credit spreads are similar as well. I would recommend looking up the hard data and studies regarding futures contracts vs future price before committing to that view.