resolving the exposure puzzle: the many facets of exchange rate exposure fdic october 27, 2006...
TRANSCRIPT
Resolving the Exposure Puzzle:Resolving the Exposure Puzzle:The Many Facets of Exchange The Many Facets of Exchange
Rate ExposureRate Exposure
FDICFDICOctober 27, 2006October 27, 2006
Söhnke M. BartramLancaster University
Gregory W. BrownUniversity of North Carolina
Bernadette A. MintonOhio State University
2
MotivationMotivation
• FX risk is a major financial risk to nonfinancial firms
• “FX Exposure Puzzle”– Theoretical models predict exposure
• Bodnar, Dumas and Marston 2002; Marston 2001; Adler and Dumas 1984; Shapiro 1975
– Empirical studies find weak evidence
• Allayannis and Ihrig 2001; Dominguez and Tesar 2001a,b; Griffin and Stulz 2001; Williamson 2001
3
How to Resolve the Puzzle?How to Resolve the Puzzle?
• General idea/hypothesis of this paper– Firms do have potentially large FX risk– Pricing and financial policies reduce exposures
• Analysis– Use structural models to analyze different facets of FX
exposure and hedging• Gross (or pre-hedging) exposure• Net (or post-hedging) exposure
4
What We DoWhat We Do
• Motivating Example: Global Automotive Industry– Bodnar and Marston (2002) model– Detailed firm-level data
• Enhanced Bodnar, Dumas and Marston (BDM, 2002) model– Firm selling and producing in local and foreign market– Exposure is a function of:
• market share• product substitutability, • sales and cost in foreign currency
– Use model to analyze a large sample of global manufacturing firms around the world
5
ContributionContribution
• Resolving the Exposure Puzzle– Model predicts that firms should have large gross FX
exposures
– Firms reduce these exposures via three channels:• Pass-through (10%-15%)• Operational hedging (10%-15%)• Financial hedging (45%-50%)
– Residual FX exposures (as estimated in the prior literature) are economically and statistically small
6
Automotive IndustryAutomotive Industry
• Industry study to motivate main analysis– 16 auto manufacturers from 6 countries– Mature and competitive industry– Important FX risk (Williamson 2001)– Bodnar and Marston (2002)
h1: percent foreign sales
h2: percent foreign cost
r : profit margin
1
1211 r
hhh
1
1211 r
hhh
7
Automotive CompaniesAutomotive Companies
Volkswagen
Foreign Sales 0.52
Margin 0.16
Gross Exposure (h2=0) 3.29
8
Automotive CompaniesAutomotive Companies
Volkswagen
Foreign Sales 0.52
Margin 0.16
Gross Exposure (h2=0) 3.29
Foreign Production 0.42
Model Exposure 1.02
9
Automotive CompaniesAutomotive Companies
Volkswagen
Foreign Sales 0.52
Margin 0.16
Gross Exposure (h2=0) 3.29
Foreign Production 0.42
Model Exposure 1.02
FX-Derivatives 0.46
Foreign Currency Debt 0.18
Residual Exposure 0.38
10
Automotive CompaniesAutomotive Companies
Volkswagen
Foreign Sales 0.52
Margin 0.16
Gross Exposure (h2=0) 3.29
Foreign Production 0.42
Model Exposure 1.02
FX-Derivatives 0.46
Foreign Currency Debt 0.18
Residual Exposure 0.38
Actual Exposure 0.16
p-value [0.270]
11
Automotive CompaniesAutomotive Companies
Volkswagen Mean
Foreign Sales 0.52 0.55
Margin 0.16 0.22
Gross Exposure (h2=0) 3.29 2.70
Foreign Production 0.42 0.38
Model Exposure 1.02 1.26
FX-Derivatives 0.46 0.41
Foreign Currency Debt 0.18 0.09
Residual Exposure 0.38 0.76
Actual Exposure 0.16 0.18
p-value [0.270] [0.291]
12
BDM ModelBDM Model
• FX exposure of exporter
• Exposure depends on– Product market competition => pass-through: degree of product substitutability: market share of exporting firm in foreign market
– Operational Hedging: fraction of marginal cost due to foreign currency-based inputs
2*
1
1 1ln1 1 1
ln 1 1
d
d S
13
Enhanced BDM ModelEnhanced BDM Model
• Two extensions of BDM model– Both firms can have cost in local and foreign currency– Firm sells globally
• Global firm is sales-weighted average of foreign and domestic operations ( is percent of foreign sales).
• Model is more broadly applicable– Captures global firms in global markets– Allows for broader set of exposures and pass-through– BDM model is a special case of enhanced model
14
Enhanced BDM ModelEnhanced BDM Model
• Foreign Exchange Rate Exposure
• Foreign Exchange Rate Pass-Through
2
2
11 1
1 1
11 1 .
1 1
f f f f
f f f
f f
d d d dd d d
dd
1 21 1 1 ,df f f f d d d
15
ParametersParametersDescription Empirical Counterpart
Percent foreign sales Percent foreign sales
Percent domestic sales 1-Percent foreign sales
Exporting firm
γf1Firm’s fraction of marginal costs in foreign currency
Percentage of foreign assets of firm
f2Import competing firms’ fraction of marginal costs in the foreign market, also foreign currency costs of other exporting firms
Weighted average of the percentage of domestic assets of foreign firms and percentage of foreign assets of other domestic firms
fMarket share of firm in foreign markets
Rest-of-world GDP-weighted average of import penetration ratio
16
ParametersParametersDescription Empirical Counterpart
Import-competing firm
γd1Exporters’ fraction of marginal costs in the domestic market, also domestic currency costs of other domestic, import-competing firms
Weighted average of the percentage of foreign assets of foreign firms and percentage of domestic assets of other domestic firms
d2
(=1- γf1)
Firm’s fraction of marginal costs in the domestic currency
1-Percentage of foreign assets of firm
dMarket share of import competing firm in domestic market
1-Domestic market import penetration ratio
f, dDegree of product substitutability in the foreign (f) and domestic (d) markets
Specified exogenously
17
BDM vs. Enhanced BDMBDM vs. Enhanced BDM
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
f=d
Feasible Exposures in BDM
Additional Feasible Exposure in Enhanced Model
18
Automakers Again…Automakers Again…
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Automakers' Actual Exposuresdmaxdmin
Foreign Sales %
Maximum Exposure - Enhanced Model
Minimum Exposure - Enhanced Model
19
Sample and DataSample and Data
• 1,161 manufacturing firms from 16 countries
• Accounting data (USD) (Thomson)
• Market data (LC) (Datastream)
• Import penetration (UNIDO, SSIS)
• Herfindahl indices to measure industry competition (complete Worldscope universe)
• Collect data from annual reports for FX derivatives and foreign currency debt
20
Sample StatisticsSample Statistics
Mean Stdev 25th Perc. 75th Perc.
Actual FX Exposure 0.071 1.945 -0.806 1.058
Foreign Sales 34.5% 27.2% 11.6% 53.5%
Foreign Assets 19.1% 21.7% 2.2% 27.7%
Foreign Debt Dummy 0.871
FX Derivatives Dummy 0.659
Import Penetration 24.1% 17.3% 11.9% 32.8%
21
Model Exposures & Pass-ThroughModel Exposures & Pass-Through
Mean Stdev
Model Exposure
f =d=0.5 0.428 0.296
f =d=0.7 0.477 0.316
f =d=0.9 0.549 0.355
22
Model Exposures & Pass-ThroughModel Exposures & Pass-Through
Mean Stdev
Model Exposure
f =d=0.5 0.428 0.296
f =d=0.7 0.477 0.316
f =d=0.9 0.549 0.355
Model Pass-Through
f =d=0.5 -0.088 0.215
f =d=0.7 -0.061 0.218
f =d=0.9 -0.035 0.223
23
Level of Model ExposureLevel of Model ExposureHigh Low p-value
Actual FX Exposure 0.128 -0.091 0.033
24
Level of Model ExposureLevel of Model ExposureHigh Low p-value
Actual FX Exposure 0.128 -0.091 0.033
Foreign Debt 0.978 0.764 <0.001
FX Derivatives 0.799 0.519 <0.001
25
Level of Model ExposureLevel of Model ExposureHigh Low p-value
Actual FX Exposure 0.128 -0.091 0.033
Foreign Debt 0.978 0.764 <0.001
FX Derivatives 0.799 0.519 <0.001
Import Penetration 0.289 0.193 <0.001
Foreign Import Penetration 0.295 0.293 0.474
Industry Herfindahl 0.152 0.140 0.151
Country-Industry Herfindahl 0.478 0.355 <0.001
26
Level of Model ExposureLevel of Model ExposureHigh Low p-value
Actual FX Exposure 0.128 -0.091 0.033
Foreign Debt 0.978 0.764 <0.001
FX Derivatives 0.799 0.519 <0.001
Import Penetration 0.289 0.193 <0.001
Foreign Import Penetration 0.295 0.293 0.474
Industry Herfindahl 0.152 0.140 0.151
Country-Industry Herfindahl 0.478 0.355 <0.001
Model Pass-through -0.211 0.088 <0.001
27
Hedging EffectsHedging Effects
(1)
Intercept -0.37***
FC Debt
FX-Derivatives
28
Hedging EffectsHedging Effects
(1) (2)
Intercept -0.37*** -0.10
FC Debt -0.31***
FX-Derivatives
29
Hedging EffectsHedging Effects
(1) (2) (3)
Intercept -0.37*** -0.10 -0.30***
FC Debt -0.31***
FX-Derivatives -0.10
30
Hedging EffectsHedging Effects
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Intercept -0.37*** -0.10 -0.30*** -0.10
FC Debt -0.31*** -0.30***
FX-Derivatives -0.10 -0.01
31
Hedging EffectsHedging Effects
Coef. p-value
Intercept -0.15 [0.156]
FC Debt only -0.22 [0.086]
FX Derivatives only 0.42 [0.156]
Both -0.27 [0.019]
32
Importance of Hedging ChannelsImportance of Hedging Channels• Gross FX exposure = 0.674
– no market share, no foreign assets, no financial hedging
– values at sample means, f=d =0.7
• Firms reduce FX exposure via 3 channels
(1) Pass-through (10%-16%)
- Market shares at sample average
(2) Operational hedging (9%-16%)
- Foreign assets at sample average
(3) Financial hedging (46% - 50%)
- FC Debt (45%)
- FX Derivatives (1%)
• Consistent with Guay and Kothari (2003), derivatives have limited impact on risk profile of the firm
33
Industry PortfoliosIndustry Portfolios
R2 = 0.75
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Model Exposure
Model Pass-through
R2 = 0.18
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Model Exposure
Foreign Import Penetration
R2
= 0.15
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Model Exposure
Foreign Assets
R2 = 0.54
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Model Exposure
FC Debt or Derivatives
34
SummarySummary• Comprehensive analysis of FX exposure
• Resolving the “Exposure Puzzle”– Firms have large gross FX exposures
– Firms reduce these exposures via pass-through, operating and financial hedging
– Residual FX exposures are economically and statistically small
– FX risk management is effective, and companies can stop whining about FX risk