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.     

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.     

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.

     

INCORPORATING COUNTRY RISK IN THE VALUATION OF OFFSHORE PROJECTS

Offshore projects, especially those in emerging economies, are generally viewed as more risky, and thus as contributing less to shareholder value, than otherwise comparable domestic investments. Emerging economies are typically more volatile than the economies of industrialized countries. They also present a greater array of risks that are (perceived as being) primarily of a downside nature, such as currency inconvertibility, expropriation, civil unrest, and general institutional instability. Further, because such risks are relatively unfamiliar to the investing companies, the companies are likely to make costly errors in early years and to require more time to bring cash flows and rates of return to acceptable steady-state levels. To reflect these higher risks and greater unfamiliarity, many companies include an extra premium in the discount rate they apply to offshore and, particularly, emerging-market projects. However, the basis for these discount rate adjustments is often arbitrary. Such adjustments do not properly reflect objective information available about either the nature of these risks, or about the ability of management to manage them. Nor do they take into account the reality that the risks stemming from unfamiliarity fall over time as the firm progresses along the learning curve. As a result, companies often “over discount” project cash flows in compensating for these risks, and thus unduly penalize offshore projects. More important, adjusting for country risk using arbitrary adjustments to the discount rate fails to focus management's attention on strategic and financial actions can be taken to reduce risk—notably, actions capable of transferring some of the company's exposures to specific risks to different parties with comparative advantages in bearing those risks. This paper outlines a four-step procedure for assessing overseas risks that integrates these various aspects:

• ? Classify risks in terms of various stakeholders' comparative advantage in risk-taking based on their: (a) existing portfolio of assets; (b) access to information; and (c) capabilities for reducing risk.
• ? Allocate risk through project structuring and financial engineering to exploitthese comparative advantages.
• ? Adjust resulting cash flows (relative to their most-likely levels) for (a) the impact of “asymmetric” risks; (b) learning effects; and (c) potential competitive options and/or barriers to entry resulting from comparative advantage in dealing with risks.
• ? Discount resulting expected cash flows at a risk-adjusted discount rate that reflects the covariance of the cash flows with the benchmark portfolio.

     

Robustly Hedging Variable Annuities With Guarantees Under Jump and Volatility Risks

Recent variable annuities offer participation in the equity market and attractive protection against downside movements. Accurately quantifying this additional equity market risk and robustly hedging options embedded in the guarantees of variable annuities are new challenges for insurance companies. Due to sensitivities of the benefits to tails of the account value distribution, a simple Black–Scholes model is inadequate in preventing excessive liabilities. A model which realistically describes the real world price dynamics over a long time horizon is essential for the risk management of the variable annuities. In this article, both jump risk and volatility risk are considered for risk management of lookback options embedded in guarantees with a ratchet feature. We evaluate relative performances of delta hedging and dynamic discrete risk minimization hedging strategies. Using the underlying as the hedging instrument, we show that, under a Black–Scholes model, local risk minimization hedging can be significantly better than delta hedging. In addition, we compare risk minimization hedging using the underlying with that of using standard options. We demonstrate that, under a Merton's jump diffusion model, hedging using standard options is superior to hedging using the underlying in terms of the risk reduction. Finally, we consider a market model for volatility risks in which the at‐the‐money implied volatility is a state variable. We compute risk minimization hedging by modeling at‐the‐money Black–Scholes implied volatility explicitly; the hedging effectiveness is evaluated, however, under a joint model for the underlying price and implied volatility. Our computational results suggest that, when implied volatility risk is suitably modeled, risk minimization hedging using standard options, compared to hedging using the underlying, can potentially be more effective in risk reduction under both jump and volatility risks.     

Valuing Companies with Cash‐Flow@Risk

The classic DCF approach to capital budgeting—the one that MBA students in the world's top business schools have been taught for the last 30 years—begins with the assumption that the corporate investment decision is “independent of” the financing decision. That is, the value of a given investment opportunity should not be affected by how a company is financed, whether mainly with debt or with equity. A corollary of this capital structure “irrelevance” proposition says that a company's investment decision should also not be influenced by its risk management policy—by whether a company hedges its various price exposures or chooses to leave them unhedged. In this article, the authors—one of whom is the CFO of the French high‐tech firm Gemalto—propose a practical alternative to DCF that is based on a concept they call “cash‐flow@risk.” Implementation of the concept involves dividing expected future cash flow into two components: a low‐risk part, or “certainty equivalent,” and a high‐risk part. The two cash flow streams are discounted at different rates (corresponding to debt and equity) when estimating their value. The concept of cash‐flow@risk derives directly from, and is fully consistent with, the concept of economic capital that was developed by Robert Merton and Andre Perold in the early 1990s and that has become the basis of Value at Risk (or VaR) capital allocation systems now used at most financial institutions. But because the approach in this article focuses on the volatility of operating cash flows instead of asset values, the authors argue that an internal capital allocation system based on cash‐flow@risk is likely to be much more suitable than VaR for industrial companies.     

The Theory and Practice of Corporate Risk Management*

The financial crisis of 2008 and the resulting recession caught many companies unprepared and, in so doing, provided a stark reminder of the importance of effective risk management. While academic theory has long touted the benefits of risk management, companies have varied greatly in the ways and extent to which they put theory into practice. Drawing on a global survey of over 300 CFOs of non‐financial companies, the authors report that while most CFOs felt that their risk management programs have significant benefits, the risk management function in general needs more attention. A large percentage of the finance executives surveyed acknowledged that the most important corporate risks extend far beyond the CFO's direct reports, and that risk‐based thinking is not incorporated into everyday business activities or corporate strategies. A large majority of executives also said they were seeking a more widespread understanding of risk throughout their organizations—and many confessed their firms' inability, or lack of interest, in evaluating their own risk management functions. At the same time, the efforts of most companies to develop enterprise‐wide risk management (ERM) programs were said to fall well short of the comprehensive and highly coordinated programs envisioned by the proponents of such programs. Three areas of opportunity were clearly identified as having potential to improve corporate risk management in ways that increase firm value over an entire business cycle:

• ? Incorporate risk management thinking into the strategic planning process. Line executives, and not just technicians, need to be sensitive to risks, thereby building flexibility into the firm's business plan and its execution.
• ? Clearly define the objectives of the risk management function, in part by developing appropriate benchmarks. The risk management process should be subject to the same rigorous evaluation process that is used when measuring risks throughout the business.
• ? Instill a risk management culture throughout the organization. While an effective risk management function is necessary, only when employees at all levels of the company embrace risk management as part of their daily operations will the firm get maximum value from risk management.

     

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.     

Lessons from the Financial Crisis on Risk and Capital Management: The Case of Insurance Companies

This article proposes that risk management be viewed as an integral part of the corporate value‐creation process— one in which the concept of economic capital can provide companies with the financial cushion and confidence to carry out their strategic plans. Using the case of insurance and reinsurance companies, the authors discuss three main ways that the integration of risk and capital management creates value:

• 1 strengthening solvency (by limiting the probability of financial distress);
• 2 increasing prospects for profitable growth (by preserving access to capital during post‐loss periods); and
• 3 improving transparency (by increasing the “information content” or “signaling power” of reported earnings).

Insurers can manage solvency risk by using Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) models to limit the probability of financial distress to levels consistent with the firm's specified risk tolerance. While ERM models are effective in managing “known” risks, we discuss three practices widely used in the insurance industry to manage “unknown” and “unknowable” risks using the logic of real options—slack, mutualization, and incomplete contracts. Second, risk management can create value by securing sources of capital that, like contingent capital, can be used to fund profitable growth opportunities that tend to arise in periods following large losses. Finally, the authors argue that risk management can raise the confidence of investors in their estimates of future growth by removing the “noise” in earnings that comes from bearing non‐core risks, thereby making current earnings a more reliable guide to future earnings. In support of this possibility, the authors provide evidence showing that, for a given level of reported return on equity (ROE), (re)insurers with more stable ROEs have higher price‐to‐book ratios, suggesting investors' willingness to pay a premium for the stability provided by risk management.     

Navigating in the Midst of More Uncertainty and Risk

With the steady increase in the variety and scale of uncertainties and risks, the challenges for today's executives have become ever more complex and daunting. One powerful tool for navigating among different risks and uncertainties is scenario planning. From its early days of use within Shell, scenario planning has evolved in ways that make it better suited to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, and managing various financial risks across different industries. During the last ten years, Morgan Stanley has also been using scenario planning to gain a better understanding of key risks and uncertainties facing the financial services industry, ranging from the consequences of possible changes in the dollar to the emergence of hedge funds and the remarkable growth of China and India. In discussing the benefits of scenario planning, the authors note its potential to help management in a number of ways:

• ? By challenging conventional thinking and current assumptions about its industry and world;
• ? By identifying key signals or potential direction changes ahead of time, which is especially important when lead times to invest, hedge, or change assets are limiting factors;
• ? By identifying and assessing the value of strategic or “real” options—options to invest in new opportunities or limit downside risks that may suddenly open up or disappear, and that man‐ agement must be prepared to “exercise” quickly and decisively;
• ? By reinforcing the recognition that value added comes not just from better strategic thinking and planning, but from the role of risk management in helping companies take advantage of new opportunities;
• ? By encouraging more cross‐divisional and firm‐wide conversations about strategic choices and options, thereby creating a shared understanding of and greater consensus about chosen strategies; and
• ? By forcing them to go beyond the limits of typical three‐to‐five year forecasting limitations to think hard about longer‐term strategic choices.

     

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.     

Allocating Shareholder Capital to Pension Plans

This article discusses the corporate challenge of providing retirement income to employees while limiting the costs and risks of pension plans to the companies themselves by addressing five main questions:

• ? What are the major issues and challenges surrounding pensions? Although the pension shortfalls have been the focus of attention, the author argues that the more serious concern is the risk stemming from the mismatch between pension assets and pension liabilities— that is, the funding of debt‐like liabilities with equity‐heavy asset portfolios.
• ? To what extent do the equity market and equity prices reflect the shortfall in value and the mismatch in risk? While the author describes some evidence of the market's ability to capture pension risk, analysts' P/E multiples and management's assessments of cost of capital may still be distorted by failure to take full account of the risks associated with pension assets.
• ? How should management analyze and formulate strategic solutions? Without offering specific solutions, the author presents a framework for analyzing the problem from a strategic perspective that can be used in formulating a company's pension policy. In particular, the article recommends that companies take an integrated perspective that views pension assets and liabilities as parts of the corporate balance sheet, and the pension asset allocation decision as a critical aspect of a corporate‐wide enterprise risk management program.
• ? If a company chooses to make a major change in its pension policy, such as a partial or complete immunization accomplished by substituting bonds for stocks, how would you communicate the new policy to the rating agencies and investors?
• ? What are the major issues to be thinking about when contemplating a change from a DB plan to a defined contribution, or DC, plan? The author argues that DC plans without some corporate oversight or responsibility for results are not a long‐term solution.

     

Risk and Regulation in Derivatives (or Why Derivatives Are a Blessing,Not a Curse)

In this article, first published in 1994, the authors aimed to defuse the widespread hysteria about derivatives fueled by media accounts (like Fortune magazine's cover story in the same year) by offering a systematic analysis of the risks to companies, investors, and the entire financial system associated with the operation of the relatively new derivatives markets. Such analysis ended up providing assurances like the following:

• As long as most companies are using derivatives mainly to limit their financial exposures and not to enlarge them in efforts to pad their operating profits, reported losses on derivatives should not be a matter for concern. “Complaining about losses on a swap used to hedge a firm's exposure,” as the authors note, “is like objecting to the costs of a fire insurance policy if the building doesn't burn down.”
• To the extent that companies are using derivatives to hedge—and what evidence we have suggests that most are—the default risk of derivatives has been greatly exaggerated. An interest rate swap used by a B‐rated company to hedge a large exposure to interest rates will generally have significantly less default risk than a AAA‐rated corporate bond issue.
• Thanks to the corporate use of derivatives, much of the impact of economic shocks such as spikes in interest rates or oil prices is being transferred away from the hedging companies to investors and other companies better able to absorb them. And in this fashion, defaults in the economy as a whole, and hence systemic risk, are effectively being reduced, not increased, through the operation of the derivatives markets.

Moreover, the authors warn in closing that the likely effect of then proposed derivatives regulation would be to restrict access to and increase the costs to companies of using derivatives markets. As one example, the excessive capital requirements associated with derivatives facing bank dealers—based on gross rather than net measures of exposure—and which regulators have since proposed extending to nonbank dealers—were expected to have the unintended effect of encouraging dealers to sell precisely the kinds of riskier, leveraged derivatives that Bankers Trust sold Procter & Gamble, and that functioned as Exhibit A in the Fortune article.     

Managing Pension Risks: A Corporate Finance Perspective

Defined benefit (DB) pension plans of both U.S. and European companies are significantly underfunded because of the low interest rate environment and prior decisions to invest heavily in equities. Additional contributions and the recovery of stock markets since the end of the crisis have helped a bit but pension underfunding remains significant. Pension underfunding has substantial corporate finance implications. The authors show that companies with large pension deficits have historically delivered weaker share price performance than their peers and also trade at lower valuation multiples. Large deficits also reduce financial flexibility, increase financial risk, particularly in downside economic scenarios, and contribute to greater stock price volatility and a higher cost of capital. The authors argue that the optimal approach to managing DB pension risks relates to the risk tolerance of specific companies and their short and long‐term strategic and financial priorities. Financial executives should consider the follow pension strategies:

• Voluntary Pension Contributions: Funding the pension gap by issuing new debt or equity can provide valuation and capital structure benefits—and in many cases is both NPV‐positive and EPS‐accretive. The authors show that investors have reacted favorably to both debt‐ and equity‐financed contributions.
• Plan de‐risking: Shifting the pension plan's assets from equity to fixed income has become an increasingly popular approach. The primary purpose of pension assets is to fund pension liabilities while limiting risk to the operating company. The pension plan should not be viewed or run as a profit center.
• Plan Restructuring: Companies should also consider alternatives such as terminating and freezing plans, paying lump sums, and changing accounting reporting.

     

STRATEGIC HEDGING

This article presents a new approach to financial risk management whose primary objective is to ensure that companies have sufficient internal funds and access to outside capital to carry out their strategic investments. The foundation of this approach is a comprehensive measure of corporate exposure that views the firm as a collection of current cashgenerating assets and future investment opportunities and that attempts to show how changes in fundamental economic variables can threaten the firm's ability to realize its strategic objectives. As such, the measure of exposure reflects the effect of expected changes in economic variables not only on the firm's operating cash flows but also on its future investment requirements.
Because its focuses only on the exposures that need protection when regular sources of funds are exhausted, this strategic hedging approach will generally lead to a more conservative hedging policy. In so doing, it should enable companies to avoid the excessive and costly "micro" hedging of individual transactions—an approach that can easily degenerate into speculation.     

Exposure-Based Cash-Flow-at-Risk: An Alternative to VaR for Industrial Companies

Cash-Flow-at-Risk (CFaR) is the cash flow equivalent of Value-at-Risk (VaR), a measure widely used as the basis for risk management in financial institutions. Whereas VaR-based systems specify the maximum amount of total value a firm is expected to lose under most foreseeable conditions (for example, with a 99% confidence level), CFaR-based systems determine the maximum shortfall of cash the firm is willing to tolerate. CFaR is gaining in popularity among industrial companies for much the same reasons VaR has succeeded with financial firms: it sums up all the company's risk exposures in a single number that can be used to guide corporate risk management decisions.
The authors describe a six-step process for calculating a measure they call "exposure-based CFaR" and then demonstrate its application to Norsk Hydro, the Norwegian industrial conglomerate. Exposure-based CFaR involves the estimation of a set of exposure coefficients that provide information about how various macroeconomic and market variables are expected to affect the company's cash flow, while also accounting for interdependencies among such effects. The resulting model enables management to estimate the variability in corporate cash flow as a function of various risks, and to predict how a hedging contract or a change in financial structure will alter the company's risk profile.     

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.     

Dynamic volatility spillovers and investment strategies between the Chinese stock market and commodity markets

Building on the increased interest in the volatility spillover effects between Chinese stock market and commodity markets, this paper investigates the dynamic volatility spillovers of Chinese stock market and Chinese commodity markets based on the volatility spillover index under the framework of TVP-VAR. The result shows that there is a highly dependent relationship between the stock market and commodity markets. On average, the Chinese stock market is the net recipient of spillover, non-ferrous metals and chemical industry have a very obvious spillover impact on the stock market. The degree of total volatility spillover is different in different periods. After major crisis events, the volatility correlation between markets increases. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the spillover effect of the stock market on the commodity market has been significantly enhanced. Then optimal portfolio weights and hedge ratios are calculated for portfolio diversification and risk management. The result shows that the ability of most commodities to hedge against risks is significantly reduced when the crisis occurs; NMFI (precious metals) and CRFI (grain) still have good hedging ability after the crisis, but the effectiveness of hedging risk is relatively low. Besides, the combination of CRFI and SHCI (the Shanghai composite index) is the most effective for risk reduction.     

Which form of hedging matters — Operational or financial? Evidence from the US oil and gas sector

We examine the extent and impact of operational and financial hedging on commodity price risk in US oil and gas companies. We find significant exposure to underlying commodity movements. Using a combination of hand collected and publicly available data we examine the impact of hedging strategies. We find no evidence that operational hedging, defined here as multinationality, is effective. In contrast, we find that financial hedging is significant and impactful. Sub-period analysis shows that the effectiveness of financial hedging diminishes when commodity price volatility is high.     

Risk Allocation in Retirement Plans: A Better Solution

The corporate world is reconsidering the cost‐effectiveness of defined benefit pension plans while contemplating a change to defined contribution plans. This article begins by examining the three primary risks faced by sponsors of most DB pension plans—investment risk, interest rate risk, and longevity risk—and shows how shifting these risks to employees through a DC plan would affect both the corporation and the individual. Although DC plans clearly help companies manage risks, they provide at best an incomplete solution for individual participants. This article describes an innovation in pension design—the Retirement Shares Plan (RSP)—that combines many of the best features of DB and DC plans. An RSP provides:

• ? predictable and stable cost to the plan sponsor, with little chance of unfunded liabilities;
• ? lifetime income, guaranteeing that retirees will never outlive their benefits;
• ? a benefit accrual pattern comparable to that of traditional pension plans that preserves value for older, long‐service employees; and
• ? potential inflation protection for retirees.

The RSP accomplishes this by allocating risk to sponsors and individuals differently than either a traditional DB plan or a DC plan. Unlike most DB plans, the RSP shifts investment and interest rate risks from plan sponsors to participants. Unlike DC plans, the RSP keeps longevity risk with the sponsor.