| Abstract: | In this article, it is shown that although minimum‐variance hedging unambiguously reduces the standard deviation of portfolio returns, it can increase both left skewness and kurtosis; consequently the effectiveness of hedging in terms of value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR) is uncertain. The reduction in daily standard deviation is compared with the reduction in 1‐day 99% VaR and CVaR for 20 cross‐hedged currency portfolios with the use of historical simulation. On average, minimum‐variance hedging reduces both VaR and CVaR by about 80% of the reduction in standard deviation. Also investigated, as an alternative to minimum‐variance hedging, are minimum‐VaR and minimum‐CVaR hedging strategies that minimize the historical‐simulation VaR and CVaR of the hedge portfolio, respectively. The in‐sample results suggest that in terms of VaR and CVaR reduction, minimum‐VaR and minimum‐CVaR hedging can potentially yield small but consistent improvements over minimum‐variance hedging. The out‐of‐sample results are more mixed, although there is a small improvement for minimum‐VaR hedging for the majority of the currencies considered. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:369–390, 2006 |
