Amrit P. Judge

Why and How UK Firms Hedge

This paper attempts to differentiate among the theories of hedging by using disclosures in the annual reports of 400 UK companies and data collected via a survey. I find, unlike many previous US studies, strong evidence linking the decision to hedge and the expected costs of financial distress. The tests show that this is mainly because my definition of hedging includes all hedgers and not just derivative users. However, when the tests employ the same hedging definition as previous US studies, financial distress cost factors still appear to be more important for this sample than samples of US firms. Therefore, a secondary explanation for the strong financial distress results might be due to differences in the bankruptcy codes in the two countries, which result in higher expected costs of financial distress for UK firms. The paper also examines the determinants of the choice of hedging method distinguishing between non-derivative and derivatives hedging. My evidence shows that larger firms, firms with more cash, firms with a greater probability of financial distress, firms with exports or imports and firms with more short-term debt are more likely to hedge with derivatives. Thus, differences in opportunities, in incentives for reducing risk and in the types of financial price exposure play an important role in how firms hedge their risks.

The Determinants of Foreign Currency Hedging: Does Foreign Currency Debt Induce a Bias?

In this paper we use UK data to present strong empirical evidence that explains the mixed results in previous studies with respect to the effect of financial distress on the demand for corporate hedging. We build on recent studies that have identified a strong link between foreign currency (FC) debt use and leverage. Given this relationship, we show that using leverage variables as proxies for financial distress and the failure to distinguish between FC debt users and non-users causes misleading inference. More specifically, when we partition our sample of FC hedgers into firms that use and do not use foreign debt, we show that leverage variables are significantly related to the FC hedging decision for firms that use FC debt either in isolation or in combination with FC derivatives but not for firms that only use FC derivatives. This suggests that FC debt users are influencing these results. However, we also find that other financial distress cost proxies with no obvious link to FC debt use are significant determinants in the corporate demand for FC hedging, including derivatives use.

Foreign Currency Derivatives versus Foreign Currency Debt and the Hedging Premium

This paper compares the effect on firm value of different foreign currency (FC) financial hedging strategies identified by type of exposure (short or long term) and type of instrument (forwards, options, swaps and foreign currency debt). We find that hedging instruments depend on the type of exposure. Short term instruments such as FC forwards and/or options are used to hedge short term exposure generated from export activity while FC debt and FC swaps into foreign currency (but not into domestic currency) are used to hedge long term exposure arising from assets located in foreign locations. Our results relating to the value effects of foreign currency hedging indicate that foreign currency derivatives use increases firm value but there is no hedging premium associated with foreign currency debt hedging, except when combined with foreign currency derivatives. Taken individually, FC swaps generate more value than short term derivatives.

Motives for Corporate Hedging: Evidence from the UK

In this paper, we use survey data and data from annual reports to identify the determinants of hedging activity of United Kingdom (UK) firms in the context of an overall program of risk management. Comparing the two sets of data makes it possible to identify misclassified firms, that is, firms whose hedging claims are not consistent across the two data sets. Our results on the consistent data show that the likelihood of hedging is related to growth options, foreign currency exposure, liquidity and economies of scale in hedging costs. Contrary to many previous US studies, we also find strong evidence linking the decision to hedge and the expected costs of financial distress. Results for the misclassified firms suggest that they are actually hedgers that hedge less extensively than the correctly classified (CC) hedgers.

Why Do Firms Hedge? A Review of the Evidence

The academic debate on the merits of hedging has identified five main theoretical rationales for corporate hedging: (a) to minimize corporate tax liability; (b) to reduce the expected costs of financial distress; (c) to ameliorate conflicts of interest between shareholders and bondholders; (d) to improve co-ordination between financing and investment policy; (e) to maximize the value of the manager’s wealth portfolio.

Non-linear effect of exchange rate volatility on exports: the role of financial sector development in emerging East Asian economies

This paper empirically examines the role of financial sector development in influencing the impact of exchange rate volatility on the exports of five emerging East Asian countries – China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand – using a GMM‐IV estimation method. The results indicate that the effect of exchange rate volatility on exports is conditional on the level of financial sector development. The less financially developed an economy, the more its exports are adversely affected by exchange rate volatility. In addition, a stable exchange rate seems to be a necessary condition to achieve export promotion via a currency depreciation in these economies.