Does Risk Management Add Value? A Survey of the Evidence

The fact that 92% of the world's 500 largest companies recently reported using derivatives suggests that corporate managers believe financial risk management can increase shareholder value. Surveys of finance academics indicate that they too believe that corporate risk management is, on the whole, a valueadding activity. This article provides an overview of almost 30 years of broadbased, stock‐market‐oriented academic studies that address one or more of the following questions:

• ? Are interest rate, exchange rate, and commodity price risks reflected in stock price movements?
• ? Is volatility in corporate earnings and cash flows related in a systematic way to corporate market values?
• ? Is the corporate use of derivatives associated with reduced risk and higher market values?

The answer to the first question, at least in the case of financial institutions and interest rate risk, is a definite yes; all studies with this focus find that the stock returns of financial firms are clearly sensitive to interest rate changes. The stock returns of industrial companies exhibit no pronounced interest rate exposure (at least as a group), but industrial firms with significant cross‐border revenues and costs show considerable sensitivity to exchange rates (although such sensitivity actually appears to be reduced by the size and geographical diversity of the largest multinationals). What's more, the corporate use of derivatives to hedge interest rate and currency exposures appears to be associated with lower sensitivity of stock returns to interest rate and FX changes. But does the resulting reduction in price sensitivity affect value—and, if so, how? Consistent with a widely cited theory that risk management increases value by limiting the corporate “underinvestment problem,” a number of studies show a correlation between lower cash flow volatility and higher corporate investment and market values. The article also cites a small but growing group of studies that show a strong positive association between derivatives use and stock price performance (typically measured using price‐to‐book ratios). But perhaps the nearest the research comes to establishing causality are two studies—one of companies that hedge FX exposures and another of airlines' hedging of fuel costs—that show that, in industries where hedging with derivatives is common, companies that hedge outperform companies that don't.     

The Real and Financial Implications of Corporate Hedging

We study the implications of hedging for corporate financing and investment. We do so using an extensive, hand‐collected data set on corporate hedging activities. Hedging can lower the odds of negative realizations, thereby reducing the expected costs of financial distress. In theory, this should ease a firm's access to credit. Using a tax‐based instrumental variable approach, we show that hedgers pay lower interest spreads and are less likely to have capital expenditure restrictions in their loan agreements. These favorable financing terms, in turn, allow hedgers to invest more. Our tests characterize two exact channels—cost of borrowing and investment restrictions—through which hedging affects corporate outcomes. The analysis shows that hedging has a first‐order effect on firm financing and investment, and provides new insights into how hedging affects corporate value. More broadly, our study contributes novel evidence on the real consequences of financial contracting.     

RISK MANAGEMENT FOR MIDDLE MARKET COMPANIES

This article reinforces the message of the one immediately preceding by showing that small to medium‐sized firms have even stronger (non‐tax) motives for hedging risks than their large corporate counterparts. Although middle market companies have traditionally been viewed as less sophisticated than their larger corporate counterparts in the risk management arena, the authors suggest that such companies have become increasingly receptive to new hedging strategies using derivative products. When used appropriately, such products allow companies to stabilize their periodic operating cash flow by eliminating specific sources of volatility such as fluctuations in interest rates, exchange rates, and commodity prices. Smaller companies recognize that a single swing in a budgeted cost can have a catastrophic effect on an entire budget, whereas a larger company can more easily absorb such a cost. Moreover, because the principal owners of mid‐sized firms often have a substantial part of their net worth tied up in the business, they are likely to have a far stronger interest than typical outside shareholders in using risk management to reduce the volatility of corporate profits and firm value. Perhaps most important to owners whose firms rely on debt financing, the greater cash flow stability resulting from active risk management significantly reduces the possibility of financial distress or bankruptcy. In this article, three representatives of Bank of America's risk management practice discuss three different exposures faced by middle market companies—those arising from changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and commodity prices—and show how these risks can be managed with derivatives. Besides shielding companies from financial trouble, risk management is also likely to improve their access to the money and capital markets. By protecting the firm's access to capital, risk management increases the odds that the firm will not be forced to pass up good investment opportunities because of capital constraints or fear of getting into financial difficulty.     

Creating Value at the Intersection of Sourcing,Hedging and Trading

Higher commodity prices, along with higher currency and commodity price volatility, have combined with challenging economic circumstances to make for difficult economics within many industries today. These factors can introduce risk to both top‐line revenue and the cost structure, and wreak havoc on net cash flow and profitability. To the extent that high prices and increasing price volatility continue to be the rule in many global commodity categories, the authors suggest that both sourcing and hedging will soon be (if they are not already) near the top of the strategic agenda for many companies. Many companies now design their hedging programs—and in some cases their sourcing—to achieve the goals of reducing cash flow volatility and optimizing value (as opposed to the more conventional aim of minimizing sourced or manufactured unit cost). And a growing number of corporate managements have expressed interest in an even more systematic approach to risk management. Rising pressure for growth and profitability has led companies with large commodities exposures—both those that are naturally long and those with a natural short—to explore a more strategic role for commodity hedging and trading, as well as the use of innovative risk‐shifting mechanisms for inbound and outbound material flows. This article shows how companies can design their commodity risk management programs to make the greatest use of the expertise and capabilities of four different corporate groups: Purchasing, Treasury, Selling, and Marketing. To that end, the authors presents a five‐step program for creating a company‐wide strategic risk management program:

• ? The first step involves making active design choices about what risks to “own” and what risks to limit based on the company's strategy, core competencies, and relative competitive advantages in owning that risk.
• ? The second step is to establish relevant risk guidelines based on capacity to own risks and, to a lesser extent, risk appetite, with specific hedging targets and benchmarks. This involves defining objectives, priorities, and constraints (for example, protecting liquidity or increasing debt capacity by reducing cash flow volatility).
• ? The third step is to identify and characterize a complete inventory of all exposures—source, size and drivers—and those exposures to be managed. This involves defining, measuring and analyzing all exposures (e.g., commodities, FX, interest rates), with special attention to aggregating, netting, natural offsets, and correlations.
• ? The fourth step involves comparing the suitability of various hedging tools and determining how to incorporate these tools into a systematic program that will achieve stated goals, views, and risk preferences for each exposure.
• ? The fifth and last step is establishing an appropriate risk management operating model, which involves considerations of organizational architecture, management processes, decision rights, information flows, and governance.

     

Three Approaches to Risk Management—and How and Why Swedish Companies Use Them

Companies can manage risk by using derivatives or through operational hedging. But there is a third possibility: to leave their operating cash flows unhedged while ensuring that the firm has access to external finance in adverse states of the world. This article reports the findings of a recent survey of over 800 Swedish companies that aims to shed light on the relative importance of these three risk management methods, as well as how they interact in corporate risk management programs. The results show that risk management practices aimed at ensuring access to external finance are the main method used by the largest number of companies, followed by operational hedging methods and financial hedging with derivatives. Large companies hedge using both operational methods and derivatives, whereas small firms are less likely to use derivatives but nevertheless attach great importance to the other two ways of managing risk. Even among the largest companies, operational hedging tends to deemed more important than hedging with derivatives—a finding that, although perhaps a surprise to financial professionals, underscores the authors’ finding that operational and derivative‐based hedges function as complements rather than substitutes. Indeed, the authors report that the most financially sophisticated companies tend to use all three of these common forms of risk management.     

Measuring Corpotate Liquidity Risk

This article presents the outline of a framework for evaluating liquidity risk (at the corporate level) with risk measures that are intuitive and economically relevant. In particular, the risk measures are designed explicitly to show the effectiveness of a company's risk management program in helping the firm to (1) avoid financial distress or default and (2) ensure its ability to undertake all strategic investments. For managers attempting to quantify liquidity risks, this paper proposes that the risk measures have two important features: One is to make the liquidity risk estimate depend on some measure of the firm's balance sheet strength, one that reflects the role of the balance sheet as a risk buffer. The second is to provide a useful estimate of the opportunity costs associated with a given liquidity shortage—one that reflects the value of the investment opportunities that liquidity problems could jeopardize. The author illustrates the application of the proposed risk measures with an example of a company evaluating a hedging strategy designed to accompany a substantial increase in its investment budget. Using the risk measures discussed in this paper, the author shows how to assess the effectiveness of a proposed hedge in terms of its expected ability to reduce costly cash shortfalls in scenarios in which the firm's debt capacity is also expected to be depleted.     

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ROUNDTABLE ON ENTERPRISE-WIDE RISK MANAGEMENT

For many years, MBA. students were taught that there was no good reason for a company that hedged a large currency exposure to trade at a higher P/E than an otherwise identical company that chose not to hedge. Corporate stockholders, simply by holding well‐diversified portfolios, were said to neutralize any effects of interest rate and currency risk on corporate values. And thus corporate efforts to manage risk were thought to be “redundant,” a waste of corporate resources on a function that was already accomplished by investors at far lower cost. But the theory underlying this “perfect markets” framework has changed in recent years to focus on ways that corporate risk management can add value. The academics and practitioners who participated in this roundtable began by discussing in general terms how risk management can be used to support a company's strategic plan and investment policy. At Merck, for example, where R&D spending was determined as a percentage of earnings, a policy of hedging foreign currency exposure to reduce earnings volatility was viewed as adding value by “protecting” the firm's R&D. The panelists also agreed that a well executed risk management policy can increase corporate debt capacity and, in so doing, reduce the cost of capital by lowering the likelihood of financial distress. For example, companies with debt covenants might undertake a risk management program to lower earnings volatility and ensure a minimum level of earnings for debt compliance purposes. But one of the clear messages of the roundtable is that risk management and earnings management are not the same thing, and that companies that view risk management as primarily a tool for smoothing reported earnings have lost sight of its real economic functions. Moreover, in making decisions to retain or transfer risks, companies should generally be guided by the principle of comparative advantage. That is, if there is an outside firm or investor willing to bear a particular risk at a lower price than the cost to the firm of managing that risk internally, then it makes sense to lay off that risk. In addition to the cost savings and higher return on capital promised by such an approach, a number of the panelists also pointed to a less tangible benefit of an enterprise‐wide risk management program—namely, a marked improvement of the internal corporate dialogue, leading to a better understanding of all the firm's risks and how they are affected by the interactions among the firm's business units.     

RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT

This paper presents a theory of corporate risk management that attempts to go beyond the "variance-minimization" model that dominates most academic discussions of the subject. It argues that the primary goal of risk management is not to dampen swings in corporate cash flows or value, but rather to provide protection against the possibility of costly lower-tail outcomes –situations that would cause financial distress or make a company unable to carry out its investment strategy. (In the jargon of finance specialists, risk management can be viewed as the purchase of well-out-of-the-money put options designed to limit downside risk.)
By eliminating downside risk and reducing the expected costs of financial trouble, risk management can also help a company to achieve both its optimal capital structure and its optimal ownership structure. For, besides increasing corporate debt capacity, the reduction of downside risk also encourages larger equity stakes for managers by shielding their investments from "uncontrollables."
The paper also departs from standard finance theory in suggesting that some companies may have a comparative advantage in bearing certain financial market risks–an advantage that derives from information acquired through their normal business activities. Although such specialized information may lead some companies to take speculative positions in commodities or currencies, it is more likely to encourage "selective" hedging, a practice in which the risk manager's "view" of future price movements influences the percentage of the exposure that is hedged.
But, to the extent that such view-taking becomes an accepted part of a company's risk management program, it is important to evaluate managers' bets on a risk-adjusted basis and relative to the market. If risk managers want to behave like money managers, they should be evaluated like money managers.     

汇率风险对冲如何影响企业并购行为——基于自由现金流的视角

本文基于2001—2019年上市公司年报中关于外汇衍生品的使用信息,研究发现,使用外汇衍生品的上市公司相比未使用的公司发起并购的概率更低,但并购的市场和经营绩效有所提高。主要原因在于,中国上市公司进行并购通常以企业自有资金进行现金支付,外汇衍生品的使用大幅降低了公司出于预防性动机而持有的现金,从而降低了公司发起并购的概率。此外,进行汇率风险对冲可避免公司因持有大量自由现金流而发生的过度投资行为,从而提高了公司的投资效率。总体而言,使用外汇衍生品进行汇率风险对冲可使上市公司更注重并购质量而非并购数量,从而实现“少而精”的投资策略。本文研究对进一步厘清企业使用外汇衍生品的相关影响提供了一定参考。     

EVA AND TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Both TQM and EVA can be viewed as organizational innovations designed to reduce “agency costs”—that is, reductions in firm value that stem from conflicts of interest between various corporate constituencies. This article views TQM programs as corporate investments designed to increase value by reducing potential conflicts among non-investor stakeholders such as managers, employees, customers, and suppliers. EVA, by contrast, focuses on reducing conflicts between managers and shareholders by aligning the incentives of the two groups. Besides encouraging managers to make the most efficient possible use of investor capital, EVA reinforces the goal of shareholder value maximization in two other ways: (1) by eliminating the incentive for corporate overinvestment provided by more conventional accounting measures such as EPS and earnings growth; and (2) by reducing the incentive for corporate underinvestment provided by ROE and other rate-of-return measures. At a superficial level, EVA and TQM seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of its focus on multiple, non-investor stakeholders, TQM does not address the issue of how to make value-maximizing trade-offs among different stakeholder groups. It fails to provide answers to questions such as: What is the value to shareholders of the increase in employees' human capital created by corporate investments in quality-training programs? And, given that a higherquality product generally costs more to produce, what is the value-maximizing quality-cost combination for the company? The failure of TQM to address such questions may be one of the main reasons why the adoption of TQM does not necessarily lead to improvements in EVA. Because a financial management tool like EVA has the ability to guide managers in making trade-offs among different corporate stakeholders, it can be used to complement and reinforce a TQM program. By subjecting TQM to the discipline of EVA, management is in a better position to ensure that its investment in TQM is translating into increased shareholder value. At the same time, a TQM program tempered by EVA can help managers ensure that they are not under investing in their non-shareholder stakeholders.     

Corporate risk management: Costs and benefits

This paper establishes a framework within which the costs and the benefits of corporate risk management decisions can be analyzed. The most important conclusion is that risk management strategies should be pursued to enhance shareholder value. Although systematic hedging of all variation in the net cashflows may be in the best interest of the management, such behavior is inconsistent with maximizing firm and shareholder value. The extant empirical evidence cited is supportive of the notion that the strongest motive for risk management behavior is the avoidance of financial distress. However, there are offsetting costs to consider as well. The existence of these costs makes it imperative that shareholders understand the risk management process.     

Financial hedging and corporate investment

Building on the well-documented relationship between corporate financial hedging and firms' borrowing costs, this study examines the impact of utilizing financial derivative instruments on corporate investment. We document that engaging in financial hedging enables firms to pursue more inorganic growth opportunities in the form of M&As. Acquiring firms with financial hedging programs have a lower borrowing cost and are more likely to pay for their deals with cash and use external borrowing. While financial hedging serves as a vehicle for firms to bring their inorganic investment plans to fruition by facilitating their financing, it also leads to inferior investment choices when conflicts of interest among managers and shareholders are more likely to arise. Our study shows for the first time that the financial flexibility emanating from corporate financial hedging can give rise to agency costs by instigating entrenched managers to overinvest.     

模糊厌恶下股指期货风险对冲策略设计及实证分析

投资者对股指期货与现货有着不同的模糊厌恶,本文首先将此假设条件引入带交易成本的Garleanu and Pederson (2013)投资模型中,并以指数基金对冲策略为例,构建了一个股指期货动态对冲的理论模型。与非对冲策略相比,基于上述模型设计的对冲策略投资绩效更好,动态最优成交额占目标交易额的比例更小,目标成交额对收益率预测因子的敏感性更大。借助上述模型,本文选取2010年4月至2021年6月的中国ETF指数基金和股指期货数据,并以2015年9月股指期货管理措施实施为界进行区间划分,实证研究发现:(1)中国A股市场的ETF投资组合进行股指期货对冲显著提升了投资绩效,但股指期货管理会削弱该作用;(2)投资绩效改善主要来源于交易成本的下降与目标成交额因子敏感性的提升,该机制受到股指期货管理的约束;(3)与Garleanu and Pederson (2013)、Zhang et al. (2017)相比,本文对冲策略保留“抗跌”特点的同时增加了“易涨”特性。本文研究结果表明,在当前大力发展机构投资者的背景下应不断丰富股指期货、股指期权产品谱系,降低股指期货交易成本并完善持仓约束。     

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ROUNDTABLE ON: Enterprise‐Wide Risk Management

For many years, MBA students were taught that there was no good reason for companies that hedge large currency or commodity price exposures to have lower costs of capital, or trade at higher P/E multiples, than comparable companies that choose not to hedge such financial price risks. Corporate stockholders, just by holding well‐diversified portfolios, were said to neutralize any effects of currency and commodity price risks on corporate values. And corporate efforts to manage such risks were accordingly viewed as redundant, a waste of corporate resources on a function already performed by investors at far lower cost. But as this discussion makes clear, both the theory and the corporate practice of risk management have moved well beyond this perfect markets framework. The academics and practitioners in this roundtable begin by suggesting that the most important reason to hedge financial risks—and risk management's largest potential contribution to firm value—is to ensure a company's ability to carry out its strategic plan and investment policy. As one widely cited example, Merck's use of FX options to hedge the currency risk associated with its overseas revenues is viewed as limiting management's temptation to cut R&D in response to large currency‐related shortfalls in reported earnings. Nevertheless, one of the clear messages of the roundtable is that effective risk management has little to do with earnings management per se, and that companies that view risk management as primarily a tool for smoothing reported earnings have lost sight of its real economic function: maintaining access to low‐cost capital to fund long‐run investment. And a number of the panelists pointed out that a well‐executed risk management policy can be used to increase corporate debt capacity and, in so doing, reduce the cost of capital. Moreover, in making decisions whether to retain or transfer risks, companies should generally be guided by the principle of comparative advantage. If an outside firm or investor is willing to bear a particular risk at a lower price than the cost to the firm of managing that risk internally, then it makes sense to lay off that risk. Along with the greater efficiency and return on capital promised by such an approach, several panelists also pointed to one less tangible benefit of an enterprise‐wide risk management program—a significant improvement in the internal corporate dialogue, leading to a better understanding of all the company's risks and how they are affected by the interactions among its business units.     

Market liquidity,closeout procedures and initial margin for CCPs*

ABSTRACT

Closeout procedures enable central counterparties (CCPs) to respond to events that challenge the continuity of their normal operations, most frequently triggered by the default of one or more clearing members. The procedures typically entail three main phases: splitting, hedging, and liquidation. Together, these ensure the regularity of the settlement process through the prudent and orderly liquidation of the defaulters’ portfolios. Traditional approaches to CCPs’ margin requirements typically assume a simple closeout profile, not accounting for the ‘real life’ constraints embedded in the management of a default. The paper proposes an approach to assess how distinct closeout strategies may expose a CCP to different sets of risks and costs taking into account real-life frictions. The proposed approach enables the evaluation of a full spectrum of hedging strategies and the assessment of the trade-offs between the risk-reducing benefits of hedging and the transaction costs associated with it. Using an unexplored set of transactional level data, the proposed framework is evaluated assuming the hypothetical default of a real CCP clearing member. We consider the worst-case loss of a large interest rate swap portfolio observed over the past 10 years (i.e. 2005–2015) and show that an efficient hedging strategy which minimises risk may not be optimal when transaction costs are taken into account. The empirical analysis suggests that transaction costs are a significant factor and should be accounted for when designing a hedging strategy. Specifically, it is shown that the risk-reducing benefits arising from more tailored hedging strategies may introduce higher transaction costs, and therefore may change the effectiveness of the strategies.     

CORPORATE HEDGING AND SHAREHOLDER VALUE

Although theory suggests that corporate hedging can increase shareholder value in the presence of capital market imperfections, empirical studies show overall mixed support for rationales of hedging with derivatives. Although various empirical challenges and limitations advise some caution with regard to the interpretation of the existing evidence, the results are consistent with derivatives use being just one part of a broader financial strategy that considers the type and level of financial risks, the availability of risk management tools, and the operating environment of the firm. Moreover, corporations rely heavily on pass‐through, operational hedging, and foreign currency debt to manage financial risk.     

THE DETERMINANTS OF SELECTIVE EXCHANGE RISK MANAGEMENT–EVIDENCE FROM GERMAN NON-FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS

Survey studies of both corporate exchange risk management and the corporate use of derivatives in general have shown considerable variation in managerial practices. Some firms do not hedge open positions at all, and some hedge their exposures completely. Most companies, however, hedge only those positions on which they expect a currency loss, while leaving open positions on which they expect a currency gain—a practice known as “selective hedging.” Finally, there is a small minority of firms that engage in outright speculation, deliberately creating risk exposures in addition to those arising from their normal business operations. Such findings are consistent with survey studies that suggest that a majority of corporate financial managers appear to believe that they are able to “beat the market”—a belief that, of course, is inconsistent with efficient markets theory. So why do some companies follow selective risk management strategies while other firms hedge open positions without recourse to exchange rate forecasts? In an attempt to answer this question, the author surveyed 74 German non‐financial companies about their exchange risk management practices. He found that highly levered firms were less likely to take bets in the currency markets, while bank‐controlled firms were more likely to use a selective risk management strategy. There was a negative relationship between profitability and the use of selective hedging—a finding that could be interpreted as suggesting that selective hedging does not generally benefit the firm's shareholders. Finally, there was a weak tendency for larger firms to be more inclined to use forecasts in their foreign exchange risk management.     

Risk Management: Coordinating Corporate Investment and Financing Policies

This paper develops a general framework for analyzing corporate risk management policies. We begin by observing that if external sources of finance are more costly to corporations than internally generated funds, there will typically be a benefit to hedging: hedging adds value to the extent that it helps ensure that a corporation has sufficient internal funds available to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities. We then argue that this simple observation has wide ranging implications for the design of risk management strategies. We delineate how these strategies should depend on such factors as shocks to investment and financing opportunities. We also discuss exchange rate hedging strategies for multinationals, as well as strategies involving “nonlinear” instruments like options.     

The Value of Corporate Risk Management

We model and estimate the value of corporate risk management. We show how risk management can add value when revenues and costs are nonlinearly related to prices and estimate the model by regressing quarterly firm sales and costs on the second and higher moments of output and input prices. For a sample of 34 oil refiners, we find that hedging concave revenues and leaving concave costs exposed each represent between 2% and 3% of firm value. We validate our approach by regressing Tobin's q on the estimated value and level of risk management and find results consistent with the model.     

Can Companies Use Hedging Programs to Profit from the Market? Evidence from Gold Producers*

In this article, the authors summarize the findings of their recent study of the hedging activities of 92 North American gold mining companies during the period 1989‐1999. The aim of the study was to answer two questions: (1) Did such hedging activities increase corporate cash flows? (2) And if yes, were such increases the result of management's ability to anticipate price movements when adjusting their hedge ratios? Although the author's answer to the first question is “yes,” their answer to the second is “no.” More specifically, the authors concluded that:

• ? During the 1989‐1999 period, the gold derivatives market was characterized by a persistent positive risk premium— that is, a positive spread between the forward price and the realized future spot price—that caused short forward positions to generate positive cash flows. The gold mining companies that hedged their future gold production realized an average total cash flow gain of $11 million, or $24 per ounce of gold hedged, per year, as compared to average annual net income of only $3.5 million. Because of the positive risk premium, short derivatives positions did not generate significant losses even during those subperiods of the study when the gold price increased.
• ? There was considerable volatility in corporate hedge ratios during the period of the study, which is consistent with managers incorporating market views into their hedging programs and attempting to time the market by hedging selectively. But after attempting to distinguish between derivatives activities designed to hedge and those designed to profit from a view, the authors conclude that corporate efforts to time the market through selective hedging were largely if not completely futile. In fact, the companies' adjustments of hedge ratios appeared to consistently lag instead of leading the market.