Exchange Rate Exposure at the Firm and Industry Level

Previous work on the exposure of firms to exchange rate risk has primarily focused on U.S. firms and, surprisingly, found stock returns were not significantly affected by exchange‐rate fluctuations. The equity market premium for exposure to currency risk was also found to be insignificant. In this paper we examine the relation between Japanese stock returns and unanticipated exchange‐rate changes for 1,079 firms traded on the Tokyo stock exchange over the 1975–1995 period. Second, we investigate whether exchange‐rate risk is priced in the Japanese equity market using both unconditional and conditional multifactor asset pricing testing procedures. We find a significant relation between contemporaneous stock returns and unanticipated yen fluctuations. The exposure effect on multinationals and high‐exporting firms, however, is found to be greater in comparison to low‐exporting and domestic firms. Lagged‐exchange rate changes on firm value are found to be statistically insignificant implying that investors are able to assess the impact of exchange‐rate changes on firm value with no significant delay. The industry level analysis corroborates the cross‐sectional findings for Japanese firms in that they are sensitive to contemporaneous unexpected exchange‐rate fluctuations. The co‐movement between stock returns and changes in the foreign value of the yen is found to be positively associated with the degree of the firm's foreign economic involvement and inversely related to its size and debt to asset ratio. Asset pricing tests show that currency risk is priced. We find corroborating evidence in support of the view that currency exposure is time varying. Our results indicate that the foreign exchange‐rate risk premium is a significant component of Japanese stock returns. The combined evidence from the currency exposure and asset pricing analyses, suggests that currency risk is priced and, therefoe, has implications for corporate and portfolio managers.     

The impact of the introduction of the Euro on foreign exchange rate risk exposures

This paper tests whether significant changes in stock return volatility, market risk, and foreign exchange rate risk exposures took place around the launch of the Euro in 1999. The experiment analyzes weekly returns for 3220 nonfinancial firms from 18 European countries, the United States, and Japan. We find that though the Euro's launch was associated with an increase in total stock return volatility, significant reductions in market risk exposures arose for nonfinancial firms both in and outside of Europe. We show that the reductions in market risk were concentrated in firms domiciled in the Euro area and in non-Euro firms with a high fraction of foreign sales or assets in Europe. The Euro's introduction led to a net absolute decrease in the foreign exchange rate exposure of nonfinancial firms, but these changes are statistically and economically small. We interpret our findings in the context of existing theories of exchange rate risk management.     

The pricing of currency risk in Japan

Previous work on the pricing of exchange-rate risk has primarily focused on US firms and, surprisingly, found stock returns were not significantly affected by exchange-rate fluctuations. In this paper we conduct an in-depth investigation that examines whether exchange-rate risk is priced in the equity market of Japan using an intertemporal asset pricing testing procedure that allows risk premia to change through time in response to changes in macroeconomic conditions. Our multiperiod asset pricing tests show that the foreign exchange-rate risk premium is a significant component of Japanese stock returns. Specifically, the results suggest that currency-risk exposure commands a significant risk premium for multinationals and high-exporting Japanese firms. The currency-risk factor is found to be less influential in explaining the behavior of average returns for low-exporting and domestic firms. However, it is shown to exhibit large return volatility that is likely to be perceived by investors, who wish to control portfolio risk, as an important underlying source of risk. Furthermore, Japanese stock returns are found to be related to the relative distress and size factors above and beyond the covariation explained by the currency-risk factor.     

Idiosyncratic Cash Flows and Systematic Risk

We show that unpriced cash flow shocks contain information about future priced risk. A positive idiosyncratic shock decreases the sensitivity of firm value to priced risk factors and simultaneously increases firm size and idiosyncratic risk. A simple model can therefore explain book‐to‐market and size anomalies, as well as the negative relation between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns. Empirically, we find that anomalies are more pronounced for firms with high idiosyncratic cash flow volatility. More generally, our results imply that any economic variable correlated with the history of idiosyncratic shocks can help to explain expected stock returns.     

Crossing the lines: The conditional relation between exchange rate exposure and stock returns in emerging and developed markets

This paper examines the importance of exchange rate exposure in the return generating process for a large sample of non-financial firms from 37 countries. We argue that the effect of exchange rate exposure on stock returns is conditional and show evidence of a significant return impact to firm-level currency exposures when conditioning on the exchange rate change. We further show that the realized return to exposure is directly related to the size and sign of the exchange rate change, suggesting fluctuations in exchange rates as a source of time-variation in currency return premia. For the entire sample the return impact ranges from 1.2 to 3.3% per unit of currency exposure, and it is larger for firms in emerging markets compared to developed markets. Overall, the results indicate that foreign exchange rate exposure estimates are economically meaningful, despite the fact that individual time-series results are noisy and many exposures are not statistically significant, and that exchange rate exposure plays an important role in generating cross-sectional return variation. Moreover, we show that the relation between exchange rate exposure and stock returns is more consistent with a cash flow effect than a discount rate effect.     

The Volatility and Price Sensitivities of Managerial Stock Option Portfolios and Corporate Hedging

We use estimates of the Black–Scholes sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility and the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price to test the relationship between managers' risk preferences and hedging activities. We find that as the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price increases, firms tend to hedge more. However, as the sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility increases, firms tend to hedge less.     

Stock return volatility,operating performance and stock returns: International evidence on drivers of the ‘low volatility’ anomaly

This study highlights the link between stock return volatility, operating performance, and stock returns. Prior studies suggest that there is a ‘low volatility’ anomaly, where firms with a low stock return volatility out-perform firms with a high stock return volatility. This paper confirms that low volatility stocks earn higher returns than high volatility stocks in emerging markets and developed markets outside of North America. We also show that low volatility stocks have higher operating returns and this might explain why low volatility stocks earn higher stock returns. These results provide a partial explanation for the ‘low volatility effect’ that is independent from the existence of market anomalies or per se inefficiencies that might otherwise drive a low volatility effect. We emphasize the importance of controlling for stock return volatility when analyzing operating performance and stock performance.     

Foreign exchange volatility and stock returns

This paper explores whether foreign exchange volatility is a priced factor in the US stock market. Our investigation is motivated by a number of empirical as well as theoretical considerations. Empirically, Menkhoff et al. (2012) find that foreign exchange volatility is a pervasive factor across a variety of test assets. Theoretically, Shapiro (1974), Dumas (1978), and Levi (1990) imply that foreign exchange volatility can influence firms’ cash flow volatility therefore the discount rate. In terms of empirical implementation, we employ the cross-sectional regression methodology of Fama and MacBeth (1973) as well as the time-series regression approach of Fama and French (1996). For robustness, we also use the mimicking portfolio approach of Fama and French (1993). We find that foreign exchange volatility has no power to explain either the time-series or the cross-section of stock returns, which calls for more research on foreign exchange risk. Bartov et al. (1996) and Adrian and Rosenberg (2008) suggest an alternative and maybe promising direction.     

Asset Pricing with a Bank Risk Factor

This paper studies how the state of the banking sector influences stock returns of nonfinancial firms. We consider a two‐factor pricing model, where the first factor is the traditional market excess return and the second factor is the change in the average distance to default of commercial banks. We find that this bank factor is priced in the cross section of U.S. nonfinancial firms. Controlling for market beta, the expected excess return for a stock in the top quintile of bank risk exposure is on average 2.83% higher than for a stock in the bottom quintile.     

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.     

Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China

This paper investigates the impact of foreign institutional ownership on firm-level stock return volatility in China, based on our study of a sample of 1458 firms between 1998 and 2008. The empirical results show that share ownership by foreign institutions (both financial and non-financial) increases firm-level stock return volatility, even after controlling for a complete ownership structure, firm size, turnover, and leverage, and correcting for potential endogeneity problems. However, the results also show that foreign individual shareholdings reduce volatility. Furthermore, we document a positive relationship between domestic shareholdings (individual, institutional, and governmental) and firm-level stock return volatility. Empirical results with interaction terms show that foreign institutional ownership increases firm-level return volatility by strengthening the positive impact of liquidity on volatility. The volatility reduction effect of foreign individual ownership is attenuated by government ownership suggests a poor governance environment as a result of the involvement of the Chinese government.     

Firm-level effects of asymmetric intervention in foreign exchange markets: Evidence from the Swiss currency floor

In January 2015, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) abandoned the Swiss franc's exchange rate floor against the Euro. This paper is the first to study the firm-level effects of this asymmetric type of central bank intervention in foreign exchange markets. Using weekly stock returns for a sample of Swiss non-financial firms, I find significant reductions in total stock return volatility as well as market risk following the introduction of the currency floor. Accounting for the asymmetric nature of the intervention, I show that the enforcement of this policy solely manifests in a significant reduction of incremental EUR/CHF exchange rate risk exposures of exporting firms, while importing firms experience reductions in proportion to the market portfolio only. Thus, the asymmetric policy design is reflected in asymmetric responses of firm-level currency exposures. All effects, however, do not depend on the extent of business activity in the Eurozone. The overall results suggest that the currency floor was successful in supporting the performance of the Swiss economy by effectively reducing stock return sensitivities to market fluctuations and EUR/CHF exchange rate volatility.     

Exchange rate risk in the US stock market

Kolari et al. (2008) show that exchange rate risk measured by contemporaneous exchange rate changes is priced in the US stock market. However, by construction, their exchange rate risk factor has a strong correlation with the size factor, and their exchange rate sensitivity portfolios have a strong factor structure. To test whether their results are spurious, we carry out two sets of tests. The first set is motivated by Lewellen et al. (2010), where the second set is motivated by the voluminous literature which suggests that stock returns are heavy-tailed (e.g. Rachev and Mitnik, 2000). Different from Kolari et al. (2008), we find that exchange rate risk measured by contemporaneous exchange rate changes is not priced in the US stock market if we use industry portfolios which do not have a strong factor structure as the testing assets or if we use more robust methods to estimate firm-specific exchange rate sensitivity. Our findings therefore suggest that researchers take a new perspective on exchange rate risk.     

The effect of exchange rate variability on US shareholder wealth

We examine the relationship between financial crisis exchange rate variability and equity return volatility for US multinationals. Empirical analysis of the major financial crises of the last decades reveals that stock return variability increases significantly in the aftermath of a crisis, even relative to the increase in stock return volatility for other firms belonging to the same industry and market capitalization class. In conjunction with this increase in total volatility, there is also an increase in stock market risk (β) for multinational firms. Moreover, trade and service oriented industries appear to be particularly sensitive to these changing exchange rate conditions.     

Exchange rate variability and the riskiness of US multinational firms: evidence from the Asian financial turmoil

This paper studies the relationship between exchange rate variability and the volatility of the returns of US multinationals. Based on a sample of US multinationals with sales in the Asia-Pacific region, we examine how exchange rate fluctuations around the 1997 Asian financial crisis affected the sensitivity of those firms to stock market risk. The empirical evidence shows that increases in exchange rate variability during the crisis were associated with statistically significant increases in stock return volatility for the multinationals. Some of the increases in volatility were systematic in nature, because the beta coefficients of the firms rose during the period of increased exchange rate variability.     

Foreign Exchange Volatility Is Priced in Equities

This paper finds that standard asset pricing models fail to explain the significantly negative delta hedging errors that occur as a result of the purchase of options on foreign exchange futures. Foreign exchange volatility does influence stock returns, however. The volatility of the JPY/USD exchange rate predicts the time series of stock returns and is priced in the cross‐section of stock returns.     

RISK, SEASONALITY AND THE ASYMMETRIC BEHAVIOUR OF STOCK RETURNS

For some time there has been a puzzle surrounding the seasonal behaviour of stock returns. This paper demonstrates that there is an asymmetric relationship between systematic risk and return across the different months of the year for both large and small firms. In the case of both large and small firms systematic risk appears to be priced in only two months of the year, January and April. During the other months no persistent relationship between systematic risk and return appears to exist. The paper also shows that when systematic risk is priced, the size of the systematic risk premium is higher for large firms than for small firms and varies significantly across the months of the year.     

Convergence and risk-return linkages across financial service firms

We examine the risk and return linkages across US commercial banks, securities firms, and life insurance companies during the 1991–2001 period. After controlling for changes in the broader stock market, interest rates, and foreign currency values, we find that return and risk interdependencies across these financial firms are significant and size-varying; larger institutions display stronger volatility transmission linkages, while smaller ones exhibit more prominent return-related linkages. The tighter link in risk among large financial institutions (FIs) suggests stronger convergence, employment of common models of risk measurement and risk management, and more intense inter-industry competition, particularly between large banks and large securities firms, compared to smaller institutions. Lack of risk spillover among smaller FIs confirms the intuition that they typically assume more localized and idiosyncratic risk. The co-movement of stock returns among smaller FIs has been helped by the effects of locally based factors, such as economic conditions and state regulations, on all such institutions, and a less diversified product set. Differences in spillover patterns between large and smaller institutions have implications on investment choices and mergers and acquisitions in the industry. Introduction of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) has had dissimilar effects on the riskiness of large versus smaller life insurance and securities firms, and an insignificant effect on commercial banks.     

Common risk factors in bank stocks

This paper provides evidence on the risk factors that are priced in bank equities. Alternative empirical models with precedent in the nonfinancial asset pricing literature are tested, including the single-factor CAPM, three-factor Fama–French model, and ICAPM. Our empirical results indicate that an unconditional two-factor ICAPM model that includes the stock market excess return and shocks to the slope of the yield curve is useful in explaining the cross-section of bank stock returns. However, we find no evidence that firm specific factors such as size and book-to-market ratios are priced in bank stock returns. These results have a number of important implications for the estimation of the banks’ cost of capital as well as regulatory initiatives to utilize market discipline to evaluate bank risk under Basel II.     

Foreign issuers in the U.S. PIPE market

We document that the use of private investment in public equity (PIPE) by foreign firms listed on U.S. exchanges is growing even faster than its use by U.S. firms. On average, foreign firm PIPE stock deals represent a similar proportion of the firm's market capitalization to U.S. firm PIPEs, but suffer less of a share price discount than U.S. firm PIPE issuances, a relation that is robust to consideration of exchange, deal size, share turnover and return volatility. We document that hedge funds are only small investors in foreign firm PIPEs issued in the U.S., which tend to be purchased by pensions, government funds and corporations. PIPE, in combination with the reverse merger method of going public, provides a cost-effective means for foreign firms to raise capital in the U.S. capital market.