Hedging,liquidity, and the competitive firm under price uncertainty

In this paper, the behavior of the competitive firm under price uncertainty when the firm has access to an intertemporally unbiased futures market is examined. Futures contracts are marked‐to‐market and thus require interim cash settlement of gains and losses. The firm is subject to a liquidity constraint in that it is forced to prematurely close its futures position on which the interim loss incurred exceeds a threshold level. It is shown that the liquidity constrained firm optimally opts for an under‐hedge should it be prudent. Furthermore, the prudent firm cuts down its optimal level of output in response to the presence of the liquidity constraint. As such, the liquidity risk created by the interim funding requirement of a futures hedge adversely affects the hedging and production decisions of the competitive firm under price uncertainty. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 24:697–706, 2004     

Liquidity constraints and the hedging role of futures spreads

This paper examines the behavior of the competitive firm under price uncertainty in general and the hedging role of futures spreads in particular. The firm has access to a commodity futures market where unbiased nearby and distant futures contracts are transacted. A liquidity constraint is imposed on the firm such that the firm is forced to prematurely close its distant futures position whenever the net interim loss due to its nearby and distant futures positions exceeds a threshold level. This paper shows that the liquidity constrained firm optimally opts for a long nearby futures position and a short distant futures position should the firm be prudent, thereby rendering the optimality of using futures spreads for hedging purposes. This paper further shows that the firm's production decision is adversely affected by the presence of the liquidity constraint. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 24:909–921, 2004     

Production and hedging under state‐dependent preferences

This study examines the behavior of the competitive firm under output price uncertainty and state‐dependent preferences. When there is a futures market for hedging purposes, the firm's optimal production decision is independent of the output price uncertainty and of the state‐dependent preferences. If the futures contracts are unbiased, the firm's optimal futures position is an over‐hedge or an under‐hedge, depending on whether the firm is correlation averse or correlation loving, and on whether the output price is positively or negatively expectation dependent on the state variable. When the firm has access not only to the unbiased futures but also to fairly priced options, sufficient conditions are derived under which the firm's optimal hedge position includes both hedging instruments. This study thus establishes a hedging role of options, which is over and above that of futures, in the case of state‐dependent preferences. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 32:945–963, 2012     

Risk management with options and futures under liquidity risk

Futures hedging creates liquidity risk through marking to market. Liquidity risk matters if interim losses on a futures position have to be financed at a markup over the risk‐free rate. This study analyzes the optimal risk management and production decisions of a firm facing joint price and liquidity risk. It provides a rationale for the use of options on futures in imperfect capital markets. If liquidity risk materializes, the firm sells options on futures in order to partly cover this liquidity need. It is shown that liquidity risk reduces the optimal hedge ratio and that options are not normally used before a liquidity need actually arises. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 29:297–318, 2009     

Cross Hedging with Currency Forward Contracts

This study examines the behavior of a competitive exporting firm that exports to a foreign country and faces multiple sources of exchange rate uncertainty. Although there are no hedging instruments between the home and foreign currencies, there is a third country that has well‐developed currency forward markets to which the firm has access. The firm's optimal cross‐hedging decision is shown to depend both on the degree of incompleteness of the currency forward markets in the third country, and on the correlation structure of the random spot exchange rates. Furthermore, the firm is shown to be more eager to produce and expand its exports to the foreign country when the missing currency forward contracts between the home and foreign currencies can be synthesized by the existing currency forward contracts. In this case of perfect cross hedging, the separation theorem holds but the full‐hedging theorem may or may not hold. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark     

Hedging under counterparty credit uncertainty

This study investigates optimal production and hedging decisions for firms facing price risk that can be hedged with vulnerable contracts, i.e., exposed to nonhedgeable endogenous counterparty credit risk. When vulnerable forward contracts are the only hedging instruments available, the firm's optimal level of production is lower than without credit risk. Under plausible conditions on the stochastic dependence between the commodity price and the counterparty's assets, the firm does not sell its entire production on the vulnerable forward market. When options on forward contracts are also available, the optimal hedging strategy requires a long put position. This provides a new rationale for the hedging role of options in the over‐the‐counter markets exposed to counterparty credit risk. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 28: 248–263, 2008     

The impact of liquidity on option prices

This study illustrates the impact of both spot and option liquidity levels on option prices. Using implied volatility to measure the option price structure, our empirical results reveal that even after controlling for the systematic risk of Duan and Wei ( 2009 ), a clear link remains between option prices and liquidity; with a reduction (increase) in spot (option) liquidity, there is a corresponding increase in the level of the implied volatility curve. The former is consistent with the explanation on hedging costs provided by Cetin, Jarrow, Protter, and Warachka ( 2006 ), whereas the latter is consistent with the “illiquidity premium” hypothesis of Amihud and Mendelson ( 1986a ). This study also shows that the slope of the implied volatility curve can be partially explained by option liquidity. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark     

Production,liquidity, and futures price dynamics

This study examines the optimal design of a futures hedge program for the competitive firm under output price uncertainty. All futures contracts are unbiased and marked to market in that they require interim cash settlement of gains and losses. The futures price dynamics follows a first-order autoregression with a random walk serving as a special case. The firm's futures hedge program is constituted of an endogenous provision for premature termination, which depends on how the futures prices are autocorrelated. Succinctly, the firm voluntarily commits to premature liquidation of its futures position on which the interim loss incurred exceeds a predetermined threshold level if the futures prices are positively autocorrelated. In this case, the liquidity constrained firm optimally opts for an over-hedge if its preferences exhibit either constant or increasing absolute risk aversion. If the futures prices are uncorrelated or negatively autocorrelated, the firm prefers to be liquidity unconstrained and thus adopts a full-hedge to completely eliminate the output price risk. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 28:749–762, 2008     

Exports and hedging exchange rate risks: the multi‐country case

This article examines the optimal production, export allocation, and hedging decisions of a risk‐averse international firm that exports to several foreign markets with different currencies. The firm faces multiple exchange rate risks. Optimal decisions are analyzed under two scenarios. In the first, there is a forward market for one currency only. Then, the export allocation to different markets is separable from the firm's preferences and the joint distribution of the exchange rates. In contrast, total production is not separable except for a special case. In the second scenario, there is a forward market for each currency. Then, both production and export allocation are separable. Hedging with forward contracts depends on risk premia and on the joint distribution of the exchange rates. If tradable exchange rate risk is a linear function of untradable exchange rate risk plus noise, there is a conflict between cross hedging and taking a basis risk. If, alternatively, the untradable exchange rate risk is a linear function of the tradable exchange rate risk and noise, there is no such conflict. A speculative position in a biased forward market for one currency can be cross hedged using an unbiased forward market for another currency. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 20:843–864, 2000.     

Minimum variance cross hedging under mean‐reverting spreads,stochastic convenience yields,and jumps: Application to the airline industry

Exchange traded futures contracts often are not written on the specific asset that is a source of risk to a firm. The firm may attempt to manage this risk using futures contracts written on a related asset. This cross hedge exposes the firm to a new risk, the spread between the asset underlying the futures contract and the asset that the firm wants to hedge. Using the specific case of the airline industry as motivation, we derive the minimum variance cross hedge assuming a two‐factor diffusion model for the underlying asset and a stochastic, mean‐reverting spread. The result is a time‐varying hedge ratio that can be applied to any hedging horizon. We also consider the effect of jumps in the underlying asset. We use simulations and empirical tests of crude oil, jet fuel cross hedges to demonstrate the hedging effectiveness of the model. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 29:736–756, 2009     

Volatility options: Hedging effectiveness,pricing, and model error

Motivated by the growing literature on volatility options and their imminent introduction in major exchanges, this article addresses two issues. First, the question of whether volatility options are superior to standard options in terms of hedging volatility risk is examined. Second, the comparative pricing and hedging performance of various volatility option pricing models in the presence of model error is investigated. Monte Carlo simulations within a stochastic volatility setup are employed to address these questions. Alternative dynamic hedging schemes are compared, and various option‐pricing models are considered. It is found that volatility options are not better hedging instruments than plain‐vanilla options. Furthermore, the most naïve volatility option‐pricing model can be reliably used for pricing and hedging purposes. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:1–31, 2006     

On the optimal mix of corporate hedging instruments: Linear versus nonlinear derivatives

We examine how corporations should choose their optimal mix of linear and nonlinear derivatives. We present a model in which a firm facing both quantity (output) and price (market) risk maximizes its expected profits when subjected to financial distress costs. The optimal hedging position generally is comprised of linear contracts, but as the levels of quantity and price‐risk increase, the use of linear contracts will decline due to the risks associated with overhedging. At the same time, a substitution effect occurs toward the use of nonlinear contracts. The degree of substitution will depend on the correlation between output levels and prices. Our model also allows us to provide insight into the relation between a firm's derivatives usage and its transaction‐cost structure. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 23:217–239, 2003     

Hedging in Futures and Options Markets with Basis Risk

This paper analyzes the hedging decisions for firms facing price and basis risk. Two conditions assumed in most models on optimal hedging are relaxed. Hence, (i) the spot price is not necessarily linear in both the settlement price and the basis risk and (ii) futures contracts and options on futures at different strike prices are available. The design of the first‐best hedging instrument is first derived and then it is used to examine the optimal hedging strategy in futures and options markets. The role of options as useful hedging tools is highlighted from the shape of the first‐best solution. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:59–72, 2002     

Too many options? Theory and evidence on option exchange design

A model of option exchange design is proposed and tested. The model allows investors to choose among several exchange‐traded options based on a trade‐off between standardization costs and liquidity/transaction costs. It employs a spatial economics approach to provide results for the existence of markets for particular option contracts on the exchange, a comparison of exchange design by a social planner and a profit‐maximizing monopolist (corresponding to the idea that most derivatives exchanges centralize the design and creation of option contracts), and comparative statics that can potentially aid decision makers in the design of option exchanges. In the empirical work, open interest is analyzed for Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) options on the stocks in the S&P 100 index. In accordance with the model's predictions, open interest forms a previously undocumented seesaw pattern across strike prices, clustering around certain strike prices, and dropping off for the adjacent strike prices. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:533–570, 2006     

Delivery risk and the hedging role of options

Multiple delivery specifications exist on nearly all commodity futures contracts. Sellers typically are allowed to deliver any of several grades of the underlying commodity and at any of several locations. On the delivery day, the futures price as such needs not converge to the spot price of the par‐delivery grade at the par‐delivery location, thereby imposing an additional delivery risk on hedgers. This article derives the optimal hedging strategy for a risk‐averse hedger in the presence of delivery risk. In particular, it is shown that the hedger optimally uses options on futures for hedging purposes. This article provides a rationale for the hedging role of options when futures markets allow for multiple delivery specifications. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:339–354, 2002     

Risk Management of Nonstandard Basket Options with Different Underlying Assets

Basket options are among the most popular products of the new generation of exotic options. They are particularly attractive because they can efficiently and simultaneously hedge a wide variety of intrinsically different financial risks and are flexible enough to cover all the risks faced by firms. Oddly, the existing literature on basket options considers only standard baskets where all underlying assets are of the same type and hedge the same kind of risk. Moreover, the empirical implementation of basket‐option models remains in its early stages, particularly when the baskets contain different underlying assets. This study focuses on various steps for developing sound risk management of basket options. We first propose a theoretical model of a nonstandard basket option on commodity price with stochastic convenience yield, exchange rate, and domestic and foreign zero‐coupon bonds in a stochastic interest rate setting. We compare the hedging performance of the extended basket option containing different underlying assets with that of a portfolio of individual options. The results show that the basket strategy is more efficient. We apply the maximum likelihood method to estimate the parameters of the basket model and the correlations between variables. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to examine the performance of the maximum likelihood estimator in finite samples of simulated data. A real‐data study for a nonfinancial firm is presented to illustrate ways practitioners could use the extended basket option. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 33:299‐326, 2013     

Option pricing for the transformed‐binomial class

This article generalizes the seminal Cox‐Ross‐Rubinstein (1979) binomial option pricing model to all members of the class of transformed‐binomial pricing processes. The investigation addresses issues related with asset pricing modeling, hedging strategies, and option pricing. Formulas are derived for (a) replicating or hedging portfolios, (b) risk‐neutral transformed‐binomial probabilities, (c) limiting transformed‐normal distributions, and (d) the value of contingent claims, including limiting analytical option pricing equations. The properties of the transformed‐binomial class of asset pricing processes are also studied. The results of the article are illustrated with several examples. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl. Fut Mark 26:759–787, 2006     

AN ECONOMIC RATIONALE FOR COUNTERTRADE: Liquidity Constraints

Countertrade is a generic term for parallel business transactions linking sales contracts with agreements to purchase goods or services. Countertrade has been viewed as an inefficient way of doing business primarily because of problems associated with such things as quality variations and increases in transaction costs. A review of the international trade literature suggests that market imperfections (shortage of convertible currency, information asymmetry that may create the so-called lemon problem and moral hazard) may provide motivations for countertrade. This article focuses on one motivation: liquidity constraint. The liquidity constraint is introduced in both goods and the factor markets in addition to the production constraint. The article compares and contrasts two strategies facing the management team of a profit-maximizing firm. The model developed shows that countertrade strategy could be superior to standard money-mediated trade strategy when the liquidity constraint is binding. Therefore, countertrade appears to be a rational response to conditions that restrict standard trade. As such, countertrade can supplement standard money-mediated trade and contribute to the growth of international business.     

THE COST OF ILLIQUIDITY AND ITS EFFECTS ON HEDGING

Though liquidity is commonly believed to be a major effect in financial markets, there appears to be no consensus definition of what it is or how it is to be measured. In this paper, we understand liquidity as a nonlinear transaction cost incurred as a function of rate of change of portfolio. Using this definition, we obtain the optimal hedging policy for the hedging of a call option in a Black‐Scholes model. This is a more challenging question than the more common studies of optimal strategy for liquidating an initial position, because our goal requires us to match a random final value. The solution we obtain reduces in the case of quadratic loss to the solution of three partial differential equations of Black‐Scholes type, one of them nonlinear.     

Why do expiring futures and cash prices diverge for grain markets?

In recent years, cash and futures prices have failed to converge at expiration for selected corn, soybean, and wheat commodity contracts. This lack of convergence raises questions about the effectiveness of arbitrage activities, and increases concerns about the usefulness of these contracts for hedging. We describe the delivery process for these contracts, and show that it embeds a valuable real option on the long side—the option to exchange the deliverable for another futures contract. As the relative volatility of cash and futures prices increases, this option increases in value, which disconnects the cash market from the deliverable instrument in a futures contract. Our estimates of this option's value show that it may create significant price divergence. We parameterize an option pricing model using data on these three commodities from 2000 to 2008 and show that the option model fits closely to recent episodes of non‐convergence, which lends support to the importance of real option effects. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark

相似文献