South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

EXCHANGE RATE RISK MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT:

ISSUES AND APPROACHES FOR FIRMS

MICHAEL G. PAPAIOANNOU, Ph.D.

International Monetary Fund

Abstract
Measuring and managing exchange rate risk exposure is important for reducing a
firm’s vulnerabilities from major exchange rate movements, which could adverse-
ly affect profit margins and the value of assets. This paper reviews the traditional
types of exchange rate risk faced by firms, namely transaction, translation and
economic risks, presents the VaR approach as the currently predominant method
of measuring a firm’s exchange rate risk exposure, and examines the main ad-
vantages and disadvantages of various exchange rate risk management strate-
gies, including tactical vs. strategical and passive vs. active hedging. In addition,
it outlines a set of widely-accepted best practices in managing currency risk and
presents some of the main hedging instruments in the OTC and exchange-traded
markets. The paper also provides some data on the use of financial derivatives
instruments, and hedging practices by US firms.

JEL Classification: F31, G13, G15, G32, M21

Keywords: Financial Risk, Financial Management, Foreign Exchange Hedging,
Corporate Hedging Practices

Corresponding address: 700 19th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20431

e-mail: mpapaioannou@imf.org

This paper draws heavily on various presentations on risk management while the author was
the Director of Foreign Exchange Service of the WEFA Group. I thank Carlos Medeiros and a
referee for helpful comments. As customary, the views expressed are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the I.M.F.
130 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

Introduction
Exchange rate risk management is an integral part of every firm’s decisions about for-
eign currency exposure (Allayannis, Ihrig, and Weston, 2001). Currency risk hedging
strategies entail eliminating or reducing this risk, and require understanding of both
the ways that the exchange rate risk could affect the operations of economic agents
and techniques to deal with the consequent risk implications (Barton, Shenkir, and
Walker, 2002). Selecting the appropriate hedging strategy is often a daunting task due
to the complexities involved in measuring accurately current risk exposure and decid-
ing on the appropriate degree of risk exposure that ought to be covered. The need for
currency risk management started to arise after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods
system and the end of the US dollar peg to gold in 1973 (Papaioannou, 2001).
The issue of currency risk management for non-financial firms is independent
from their core business and is usually dealt with by their corporate treasuries. Most
multinational firms also have risk committees to oversee the treasury’s strategy in
managing the exchange rate (and interest rate) risk (Lam, 2003). This shows the
importance that firms attach to risk management issues and techniques. Conversely,
international investors usually manage their exchange rate risk independently from
the underlying assets and/or liabilities. Since their currency exposure is related to
translation risks on assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, they tend
to consider currencies as a separate asset class requiring a currency overlay mandate
(Allen, 2003).
This paper reviews the standard measures of exchange rate risk, examines best
practices on exchange rate risk management, and analyzes the advantages and dis-
advantages of various hedging approaches for firms. It concentrates on the major
types of risk affecting firms’ foreign currency exposure, and pays more attention to
techniques on hedging transaction and balance sheet currency risk. It is argued that
prudent management of multinational firms requires currency risk hedging for their
foreign transaction, translation and economic operations to avoid potentially adverse
currency effects on their profitability and market valuation. The paper also provides
some data on hedging practices by US firms.
The organization of the paper is as follows: In section I, we present a broad defini-
tion and the main types of exchange rate risk. In section II, we outline the main meas-
urement approach to exchange rate risk (VaR). In section III, we review the main
elements of exchange rate risk management, including hedging strategies, hedging
benchmarks and performance, and best practices for managing currency risk. In sec-
tion IV, we offer an overview of the main hedging instruments in the OTC and ex-
change-traded markets. In section V, we provide data on the use of various deriva-
tives instruments and hedging practices by US firms. In section VI, we conclude by
offering some general remarks on the need for hedging operations based on recent
currency-crisis experiences.
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 131

1. Definition and types of exchange rate risk

A common definition of exchange rate risk relates to the effect of unexpected ex-
change rate changes on the value of the firm (Madura, 1989). In particular, it is de-
fined as the possible direct loss (as a result of an unhedged exposure) or indirect loss
in the firm’s cash flows, assets and liabilities, net profit and, in turn, its stock market
value from an exchange rate move. To manage the exchange rate risk inherent in
every multinational firm’s operations, a firm needs to determine the specific type of
current risk exposure, the hedging strategy and the available instruments to deal with
these currency risks.
Multinational firms are participants in currency markets by virtue of their inter-
national transactions. To measure the impact of exchange rate movements on a firm
that is involved in foreign-currency denominated operations, i.e., the implied value-
at-risk (VaR) from exchange rate moves, we need to identify the type of risks that the
firm is exposed to and the amount of risk encountered (Hakala and Wystup, 2002).
The three main types of exchange rate risk that we consider in this paper are (Shapiro,
1996; Madura, 1989):
1. Transaction risk, which is basically cash flow risk and deals with the effect of ex-
change rate moves on transactional account exposure related to receivables (export
contracts), payables (import contracts) or repatriation of dividends. An exchange
rate change in the currency of denomination of any such contract will result in a
direct transaction exchange rate risk to the firm;
2. Translation risk, which is basically balance sheet exchange rate risk and relates
exchange rate moves to the valuation of a foreign subsidiary and, in turn, to the
consolidation of a foreign subsidiary to the parent company’s balance sheet. Trans-
lation risk for a foreign subsidiary is usually measured by the exposure of net assets
(assets less liabilities) to potential exchange rate moves. In consolidating financial
statements, the translation could be done either at the end-of-the-period exchange
rate or at the average exchange rate of the period, depending on the accounting reg-
ulations affecting the parent company. Thus, while income statements are usually
translated at the average exchange rate over the period, balance sheet exposures of
foreign subsidiaries are often translated at the prevailing current exchange rate at
the time of consolidation; and
3. Economic risk, which reflects basically the risk to the firm’s present value of fu-
ture operating cash flows from exchange rate movements. In essence, economic
risk concerns the effect of exchange rate changes on revenues (domestic sales and
exports) and operating expenses (cost of domestic inputs and imports). Economic
risk is usually applied to the present value of future cash flow operations of a firm’s
parent company and foreign subsidiaries. Identification of the various types of cur-
rency risk, along with their measurement, is essential to develop a strategy for
managing currency risk.
132 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

2. Measurement of exchange rate risk

After defining the types of exchange rate risk that a firm is exposed to, a crucial as-
pect of a firm’s exchange rate risk management decisions is the measurement of these
risks. Measuring currency risk may prove difficult, at least with regards to translation
and economic risk (Van Deventer, Imai, and Mesler, 2004; Holton, 2003). At present,
a widely-used method is the value-at-risk (VaR) model. Broadly, value at risk is de-
fined as the maximum loss for a given exposure over a given time horizon with z%
confidence.
The VaR methodology can be used to measure a variety of types of risk, helping
firms in their risk management. However, the VaR does not define what happens to
the exposure for the (100 – z) % point of confidence, i.e., the worst case scenario.
Since the VaR model does not define the maximum loss with 100% confidence, firms
often set operational limits, such as nominal amounts or stop loss orders, in addition
to VaR limits, to reach the highest possible coverage (Papaioannou and Gatzonas,
2002).

Value-at-Risk calculation
The VaR measure of exchange rate risk is used by firms to estimate the riskiness of
a foreign exchange position resulting from a firm’s activities, including the foreign
exchange position of its treasury, over a certain time period under normal conditions
(Holton, 2003). The VaR calculation depends on 3 parameters:
• The holding period, i.e., the length of time over which the foreign exchange position
is planned to be held. The typical holding period is 1 day.
• The confidence level at which the estimate is planned to be made. The usual confi-
dence levels are 99% and 95%.
• The unit of currency to be used for the denomination of the VaR.
Assuming a holding period of x days and a confidence level of y%, the VaR meas-
ures what will be the maximum loss (i.e., the decrease in the market value of a foreign
exchange position) over x days, if the x-days period is not one of the (100-y)% x-days
periods that are the worst under normal conditions. Thus, if the foreign exchange
position has a 1-day VaR of $10 million at the 99% confidence level, the firm should
expect that, with a probability of 99%, the value of this position will decrease by
no more than $10 million during 1 day, provided that usual conditions will prevail
over that 1 day. In other words, the firm should expect that the value of its foreign
exchange rate position will decrease by no more than $10 million on 99 out of 100
usual trading days, or by more than $10 million on 1 out of every 100 usual trading
days.
To calculate the VaR, there exists a variety of models. Among them, the more
widely-used are: (1) the historical simulation, which assumes that currency returns
on a firm’s foreign exchange position will have the same distribution as they had in
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 133

the past; (2) the variance-covariance model, which assumes that currency returns on
a firm’s total foreign exchange position are always (jointly) normally distributed and
that the change in the value of the foreign exchange position is linearly dependent
on all currency returns; and (3) Monte Carlo simulation, which assumes that future
currency returns will be randomly distributed.
The historical simulation is the simplest method of calculation. This involves run-
ning the firm’s current foreign exchange position across a set of historical exchange
rate changes to yield a distribution of losses in the value of the foreign exchange po-
sition, say 1,000, and then computing a percentile (the VaR). Thus, assuming a 99%
confidence level and a 1-day holding period, the VaR could be computed by sorting in
ascending order the 1,000 daily losses and taking the 11th largest loss out of the 1,000
(since the confidence level implies that 1 percent of losses – 10 losses –should exceed
the VaR). The main benefit of this method is that it does not assume a normal distribu-
tion of currency returns, as it is well documented that these returns are not normal but
rather leptokurtic. Its shortcomings, however, are that this calculation requires a large
database and is computationally intensive.
The variance – covariance model assumes that (1) the change in the value of a
firm’s total foreign exchange position is a linear combination of all the changes in the
values of individual foreign exchange positions, so that also the total currency return
is linearly dependent on all individual currency returns; and (2) the currency returns
are jointly normally distributed. Thus, for a 99% confidence level, the VaR can be
calculated as:

VaR= -Vp (Mp + 2.33 Sp)

where Vp is the initial value (in currency units) of the foreign exchange position

Mp is the mean of the currency return on the firm’s total foreign exchange po-
sition, which is a weighted average of individual foreign exchange positions
Sp is the standard deviation of the currency return on the firm’s total foreign
exchange position, which is the standard deviation of the weighted transfor-
mation of the variance-covariance matrix of individual foreign exchange po-
sitions (note that the latter includes the correlations of individual foreign ex-
change positions)
While the variance-covariance model allows for a quick calculation, its drawbacks
include the restrictive assumptions of a normal distribution of currency returns and
a linear combination of the total foreign exchange position. Note, however, that the
normality assumption could be relaxed (Longin, 2001). When a non-normal distri-
bution is used instead, the computational cost would be higher due to the additional
estimation of the confidence interval for the loss exceeding the VaR.
134 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

Monte Carlo simulation usually involves principal components analysis of the

variance-covariance model, followed by random simulation of the components.
While its main advantages include its ability to handle any underlying distribution
and to more accurately assess the VaR when non-linear currency factors are present
in the foreign exchange position (e.g., options), its serious drawback is the computa-
tionally intensive process.

3. Management of exchange rate risk

After identifying the types of exchange rate risk and measuring the associated risk
exposure, a firm needs to decide whether or not to hedge these risks. In international
finance, the issue of the appropriate strategy to manage (hedge) the different types
of exchange rate risk has yet to be settled (Jacque, 1996). In practice, however, cor-
porate treasurers have used various currency risk management strategies depending,
ceteris paribus, on the prevalence of a certain type of risk and the size of the firm
(Allen, 2003).

3.1 Hedging strategies

Indicatively, transaction risk is often hedged tactically (selectively) or strategically
to preserve cash flows and earnings, depending on the firm’s treasury view on the
future movements of the currencies involved. Tactical hedging is used by most firms
to hedge their transaction currency risk relating to short-term receivable and payable
transactions, while strategic hedging is used for longer-period transactions. However,
some firms decide to use passive hedging, which involves the maintenance of the
same hedging structure and execution over regular hedging periods, irrespective of
currency expectations – that is, it does not require that a firm takes a currency view.
Translation, or balance sheet, risk is hedged very infrequently and non-systemati-
cally, often to avoid the impact of possible abrupt currency shocks on net assets. This
risk involves mainly long-term foreign exposures, such as the firm’s valuation of
subsidiaries, its debt structure and international investments. However, the long-term
nature of these items and the fact that currency translation affects the balance sheet
rather than the income statement of a firm, make hedging of the translation risk less of
a priority for management. For the translation of currency risk of a subsidiary’s value,
it is standard practice to hedge the net balance sheet exposures, i.e., the net assets
(gross assets less liabilities) of the subsidiary that might be affected by an adverse
exchange rate move.
Within the framework of hedging the exchange rate risk in a consolidated balance
sheet, the issue of hedging a firm’s debt profile is also of paramount importance (Mar-
rison, 2002; Jorion and Khoury, 1996). The currency and maturity composition of a
firm’s debt determines the susceptibility of its net equity and earnings to exchange
rate changes. To reduce the impact of exchange rates on the volatility of earnings,
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 135

the firm may use an optimization model to devise an optimal set of hedging strate-
gies to manage its currency risk. Hedging the remaining currency exposure after
the optimization of the debt composition is a difficult task. A firm may use tactical
hedging, in addition to optimization, to reduce the residual currency risk. Moreover,
if exchange rates do not move in the anticipated direction, translation risk hedging
may cause either cash flow or earnings volatility. Therefore, hedging translation risk
often involves careful weighing of the costs of hedging against the potential cost of
not hedging.
Economic risk is often hedged as a residual risk. Economic risk is difficult to
quantify, as it reflects the potential impact of exchange rate moves on the present
value of future cash flows. This may require measuring the potential impact of an ex-
change rate deviation from the benchmark rate used to forecast a firm’s revenue and
cost streams over a given period. In this case, the impact on each flow may be netted
out over product lines and across markets, with the net economic risk becoming small
for firms that invest in many foreign markets because of offsetting effects. Also, if
exchange rate changes follow inflation differentials (through PPP) and a firm has a
subsidiary that faces cost inflation above the general inflation rate, the firm could find
its competitiveness eroding and its original value deteriorating as a result of exchange
rate adjustments that are not in line with PPP (Froot and Thaler, 1990). Under these
circumstances, the firm could best hedge its economic exposure by creating payables
(e.g., financing operations) in the currency in which the firm’s subsidiary experiences
the higher cost inflation (i.e., in the currency in which the firm’s value is vulner-
able).
Sophisticated corporate treasuries, however, are developing efficient frontiers of
hedging strategies as a more integrated approach to hedge currency risk than buying
a plain vanilla hedge to cover certain foreign exchange exposure (Kritzman, 1993).
In effect, an efficient frontier measures the cost of the hedge against the degree of
risk hedged. Thus, an efficient frontier determines the most efficient hedging strategy
as that which is the cheapest for the most risk hedged. Given a currency view and
exposure, hedging optimization models usually compare 100% unhedged strategies
with 100% hedged using vanilla forwards and option strategies in order to find the
optimal one. Although this approach to managing risk provides the least-cost hedg-
ing structure for a given risk profile, it critically depends on the corporate treasurer’s
view of the exchange rate. Note that such optimization can be used for transaction,
translation or economic currency risk, provided that the firm has a specific currency
view (i.e., a possible exchange rate forecast over a specified time period).

3.2 Hedging benchmarks and performance

Hedging performance can be measured as a distance to a given benchmark rate
(Jacque, 1996). The risk embedded in the hedge is usually expressed as a VaR number
136 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

that will be consistent with the performance measure. Hedging optimization models,
as methods for optimizing hedging strategies for currency-denominated cash flows,
help find the most efficient hedge for individual currency exposures, while most of
them do not provide a hedging process for multiple currency hedging. Thus, both per-
formance and VaR are measured as effective hedge rates, calculated for each hedging
instrument used and the risk in terms of a confidence level. A single optimal hedg-
ing strategy is then selected by defining the risk that a firm is willing to take. This
strategy is the lowest possible effective hedge rate for an acceptable level of uncer-
tainty. In this way, when the firm’s currency view entails a perception of volatility,
options generate a better or similar effective hedge rate at lower uncertainty than the
unhedged position. Furthermore, when local currency has a relatively high yield and
low volatility, options will almost always generate a better effective hedging rate than
forward hedging.
As part of the currency risk management policy, firms use a variety of hedging
benchmarks to manage their hedging strategies effectively. Such benchmarks could
be the hedging level (i.e., a certain percentage), the reporting period, especially for
firms that use forward hedging to limit the volatility of their net equity, (e.g., quar-
terly or 12-month benchmarks), and budget exchange rates, depending on the prevail-
ing accounting rules. Moreover, benchmarks enable the performance of individual
hedges to be measured against that of the firm.

3.3 Hedging and budget rates

Budget exchange rates provide firms with a reference exchange rate level (Madura,
1989). Setting budget exchange rates is often linked to the firm’s sensitivities and
benchmarking priorities. After deciding on the budget rate, the corporate treasury
will have to secure an appropriate hedge rate and ensure that there is minimal devia-
tion from that hedge rate. This process will determine the frequency and instruments
to be used in hedging. It should be further pointed out that persistent moves relative
to the numeraire (functional) currency should be reflected in the budget rates, or stra-
tegic positioning and hedging should be considered.
Firms have different practices in setting budget exchange rates (Lam, 2003).
Many corporate treasurers of multinational firms prefer to use PPP rates as budget
exchange rates, often on the understanding that tactical hedging may be needed over
the short-term where the forecasting performance of the PPP model is usually poor.1
However, other multinational firms prefer to set the budget rate in accordance with
their sales calendar and, in turn, with their hedging strategy. For example, if a firm

1. The relative version of the PPP theory states that bilateral exchange rates would adjust to the rela-
tive price differentials of the same basket of goods traded in the two countries.
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 137

has a quarterly sales calendar, it may decide to hedge its next year’s quarterly foreign
currency cash flow in such a way that it does not differ by more than a certain per-
centage from the cash flow in the same quarter of the previous year. Accordingly, this
will necessitate four hedges per year, each of one-year tenor, with hedging being done
at the end of the period, using the end-of-period exchange rate as its budget rate.
Alternatively, a firm may decide to set its budget exchange rate at the daily average
exchange rate over the previous fiscal year (Barton, Shenkir, and Walker, 2002). In
such cases, the firm would need to use one hedge through, perhaps, an average-based
instrument like an option or a synthetic forward. This hedging operation will usually
be executed on the last day of the previous fiscal year, with starting day the first day of
the new fiscal year. Furthermore, a firm may also use passive currency hedging, such
as hedging the average value of a foreign currency cash flow over a specified time
period, relative to a previous period, through option structures available in the market.
This type of hedging strategy is fairly simple and easier to monitor.
Setting budget exchange rates is also crucial for a firm’s pricing strategy, in addi-
tion to their importance for defining the benchmark hedging performance and tenor
of a hedge (as the latter generally match cash flow hedging requirements). However,
the budget exchange rate used to forecast cash flows needs to be close to the spot ex-
change rate in order to avoid possible major changes in the firm’s pricing strategy or
to reconsider its hedging strategy. In this connection, it should be noted that forecast-
ing future exchange rates is a key aspect of a firm’s pricing strategy (Papaioannou,
1989). Since it has been well-documented that forward rates are poor predictors of
future spot rates, structural or time-series exchange rate models need to be employed
for such an endeavor (Bansal and Dahlquist, 2000; Fama, 1984). This becomes evi-
dent if we compare a firm’s net cash flows estimated by using the forecast rate and the
future spot exchange rate. For an investment in a foreign subsidiary, moreover, the
budget exchange rate is often the accounting rate, i.e., the exchange rate at the end of
the previous fiscal year.

3.4 Best practices for exchange rate risk management

For their currency risk management decisions, firms with significant exchange rate
exposure often need to establish an operational framework of best practices (Allen,
2003; Jacque, 1996). These practices or principles may include:
1. Identification of the types of exchange rate risk that a firm is exposed to and meas-
urement of the associated risk exposure. As mentioned before, this involves de-
termination of the transaction, translation and economic risks, along with specific
reference to the currencies that are related to each type of currency risk. In addition,
measuring these currency risks - using various models (e.g. VaR ) - is another criti-
cal element in identifying hedging positions.
138 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

2. Development of an exchange rate risk management strategy. After identifying the

types of currency risk and measuring the firm’s risk exposure, a currency strat-
egy needs to be established for dealing with these risks. In particular, this strategy
should specify the firm’s currency hedging objectives – whether and why the firm
should fully or partially hedge its currency exposures. Furthermore, a detailed cur-
rency hedging approach should be established. It is imperative that a firm details
the overall currency risk management strategy on the operational level, including
the execution process of currency hedging, the hedging instruments to be used, and
the monitoring procedures of currency hedges.
3. Creation of a centralized entity in the firm’s treasury to deal with the practical
aspects of the execution of exchange rate hedging. This entity will be responsible
for exchange rate forecasting, the hedging approach mechanisms, the accounting
procedures regarding currency risk, costs of currency hedging, and the establish-
ment of benchmarks for measuring the performance of currency hedging. (These
operations may be undertaken by a specialized team headed by the treasurer or, for
large multinational firms, by a chief dealer.)
4. Development of a set of controls to monitor a firm’s exchange rate risk and ensure
appropriate position taking. This includes setting position limits for each hedging
instrument, position monitoring through mark-to-market valuations of all currency
positions on a daily basis (or intraday), and the establishment of currency hedging
benchmarks for periodic monitoring of hedging performance (usually monthly).
5. Establishment of a risk oversight committee. This committee would in particular
approve limits on position taking, examine the appropriateness of hedging instru-
ments and associated VaR positions, and review the risk management policy on a
regular basis.
Managing exchange rate risk exposure has gained prominence in the last decade,
as a result of the unusual occurrence of a large number of currency crises. From the
corporate managers’ perspective, currency risk management is increasingly viewed
as a prudent approach to reducing a firm’s vulnerabilities from major exchange rate
movements (Van Deventer, Imai, and Mesler, 2004). This attitude has also been rein-
forced by recent international attention to both accounting and balance sheet risks.

4. Hedging instruments for managing exchange rate risk

Within the framework of a currency risk management strategy, the hedging instru-
ments allowed to manage currency risk should be specified. The available hedging
instruments are enormous, both in variety and complexity, and have followed the
dramatic increase in the specific hedging needs of the modern firm (Hakala and Wys-
tup, 2002; Jacque, 1996; Shapiro, 1996). These instruments include both OTC and
exchange-traded products. Among the most common OTC currency hedging instru-
ments are currency forwards and cross-currency swaps. Currency forwards are de-
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 139

fined as buying a currency contract for future delivery at a price set today. Two types
of forwards contracts are often used: outright forwards (involving the physical de-
livery of currencies) and non-deliverable forwards (which are settled on a net cash
basis). With forwards, the firm is fully hedged. However, the high cost of forward
contracts and the risk of the exchange rate moving in the opposite direction are seri-
ous disadvantages.
The two most commonly used cross-currency swaps are the cross-currency cou-
pon swap and the cross-currency basis swaps. The cross-currency coupon swap is
defined as buying a currency swap and at the same time paying fixed and receiving
floating interest payments. Its advantage is that it allows firms to manage their foreign
exchange rate and interest rate risks, as they wish, but it leaves the firm that buys this
instrument vulnerable to both currency and interest rate risk. Cross-currency basis
swap is defined as buying a currency swap and at the same time paying floating inter-
est in a currency and receiving floating in another currency. This instrument, while
assuming the same currency risk as the standard currency swap, has the advantage
that it allows a firm to capture prevailing interest rate differentials. However, the
major disadvantage is that the primary risk for the firm is interest rate risk rather than
currency risk.
For exchange-traded currency hedging instruments, the main types are currency
options and currency futures. The development of various structures of currency op-
tions has been very rapid, and is attributed to their flexible nature. The most common
type of option structure is the plain vanilla call, which is defined as buying an upside
strike in an exchange rate with no obligation to exercise (Allen, 2003). Its advantages
include its simplicity, lower cost than the forward, and the predicted maximum loss
- which is the premium. However, its cost is higher than other sophisticated options
structures such as call spreads (buy an at-the-money call and sell a low delta call).
Currency futures are exchange-traded contracts specifying a standard volume of
a particular currency to be exchanged on a specific settlement date. They are similar
to forward contracts in that they allow a firm to fix the price to be paid for a given
currency at a future point in time. Yet, their characteristics differ from forward rates,
both in terms of the available traded currencies and the typical (quarterly) settlement
dates. However, the price of currency futures will normally be similar to the forward
rates for a given currency and settlement date.
Comparing currency forward and currency futures markets, the size of the con-
tract and the delivery date are tailored to individual needs in the forward market (i.e.,
determined between a firm and a bank), as opposed to currency futures contracts
that are standardized and guaranteed by some organized exchange. While there is
no separate clearing-house function for forward markets, all clearing operations for
futures markets are handled by an exchange clearing house, with daily mark-to-mar-
ket settlements. In terms of liquidation, while most forward contracts are settled by
140 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

actual delivery and only some by offset - at a cost, in contrast, most futures contracts
are settled by offset and only very few by delivery. Furthermore, the price of a futures
contract changes over time to reflect the market’s anticipation of the future spot rate.
If a firm holding a currency futures contract decides before the settlement date that it
no longer wants to maintain such a position, it can close out its position by selling an
identical futures contract. This, however, cannot be done with forward contracts.
Finally, since currency hedging is often costly, a firm may first consider “natural”
hedging (Madura, 1989), such as (1) matching, which involves pairing suitably a
multinational firm’s foreign currency inflows and outflows with respect to amount
and timing; (2) netting, which involves the consolidated settlement of receivables,
payables and debt among the subsidiaries of a firm; and (3) invoicing in a foreign
currency, which reduces transaction risk related primarily to exports and imports.

5. Hedging practices by US firms

According to the BIS (see Tables 1-4) and the International Swap and Derivatives As-
sociation, the OTC derivatives market has experienced an exponential growth. Even
with the recent slowdown due to the special disclosure requirements of FAS 133,
derivatives continue to be the main hedging instrument for most firms. However, the
increased availability of derivative instruments, coupled with the advent of mark-to-
market hedge accounting (FAS 133 and IAS 39), implies an impact of derivatives on
firms’ financial statements which is difficult to follow.

Table 1. Notional Amounts Outstanding of OTC Derivatives by Instrument

(end of year; in billions of US dollars)

Source: BIS Quarterly Review, September 2005, Table 19

Table 2. Notional Amounts Outstanding of OTC Derivatives by Currency

(end of year; in billions of US dollars)

Source: BIS Quarterly Review, September 2005, Table 20B

M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 141

Table 3. Notional Amounts Outstanding of OTC Foreign Exchange Derivatives by

Maturity (end of year; in billions of US dollars)

Source: BIS Quarterly Review, September 2005, Table 20C

Table 4. Derivative Financial Instruments Traded on Organized Exchanges by Instru-

ment and Location (notional principal; in billions of US dollars)

Source: BIS Quarterly Review, September 2005, Table 23A

142 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

Several surveys have shown certain characteristics and practices of US non-fi-

nancial firms using derivatives (Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1998; Treasury Management
Association, 1996; Bodnar, Hayt, Marston, and Smithson, 1995; Papaioannou, 1989).
Thus, the larger the size of sales of US non-financial firms, the more likely they are
to use derivatives in their risk management (Table 5).

Table 5. Use of Derivative Instruments by US Non-financial Firms

Source: Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1998

Foreign currency derivatives usage is most common, with almost three-fourths of the
reporting firms taking positions. The primary goal of exchange risk hedging is the
minimization of the variability in cash flow and in accounting earnings, arising from
the firms’ operational activities and characteristics. Preoccupation with accounting
earnings may be related to their role in analysts’ perceptions and predictions of future
earnings and in management compensation. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
US firms do not attach high importance to minimizing the variation in the market
value of the firm (the present discounted value of the stream of future cash flows)
when they use derivatives in risk management (Table 6).
The choice of derivative instruments for foreign exchange management by US
firms is concentrated in simple instruments, with OTC currency forwards being by
far the most popular instrument (over 50% of all foreign exchange derivatives instru-
ments), OTC currency options being the second most preferred hedging instrument
(around 20% of all foreign exchange derivative instruments ) and OTC swaps being
the third (around 10%) (Table7). Forward-type (volatility elimination) instruments
are used to hedge foreign exchange exposures arising from US firms’ contractual
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 143

commitments (accounts receivable/payable, and repatriations), as recommended by

the international financial literature (Shapiro, 1996). Option-type instruments, on the
other hand, are used to hedge uncertain foreign currency-denominated future cash
flows (usually, related to anticipated transactions beyond one year and to cover eco-
nomic exposures). The tendency of US firms to use OTC currency forwards rather
than OTC options or swaps should mainly be attributed to the relatively higher li-
quidity and depth of forward markets.

Table 6. Objectives of Hedging Strategy by US Non-financial Firms (in percent)

Source: Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1998

Table 7. Choice of Foreign Exchange Instrument by US Non-financial Firms

(in percent)

Source: Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1998

The use of OTC instruments (forwards/swaps and options) is much more common
than that of exchange-traded hedging instruments, with currency futures being pre-
ferred by less than 10% of US firms and currency options being preferred by a very
small percentage of firms. The prevalence of OTC instruments should be attributed to
firms’ very specific hedging needs that can primarily be accommodated in the more-
flexible OTC market.
The majority of US firms with a set frequency for revaluing derivatives do so
144 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

on a monthly basis, with a quarter of the total firms valuing their derivatives at least
weekly and a very small percentage doing so only on an annual basis (Table 8). Fi-
nally, the most common methods to evaluate the riskiness of their foreign exchange
positions are stress testing of derivatives and VaR techniques.

Table 8. Frequency of Derivative Valuations by US Non-financial Firms

(in percent)

Source: Bodnar and Gebhardt, 1998

6. Concluding remarks
Measuring and managing currency risk exposure are important functions in reducing
a firm’s vulnerabilities from major exchange rate movements. These vulnerabilities
mainly arise from a firm’s involvement in international operations and investments,
where exchange rate changes could affect profit margins, through their effect on
sources for inputs, markets for outputs and debt, and the value of assets. Prudent
management of currency risk has been increasingly mandated by corporate boards,
especially after the currency-crisis episodes of the last decade and the consequent
heightened international attention to accounting and balance sheet risks.
In managing currency risk, multinational firms utilize different hedging strate-
gies depending on the specific type of currency risk. These strategies have become
increasingly complicated as they try to address simultaneously transaction, transla-
tion and economic risks. As these risks could be detrimental to the profitability and
the market valuation of a firm, corporate treasurers, even of smaller-size firms, have
become increasingly proactive in controlling these risks. Thereby, a greater demand
for hedging protection against these risks has emerged and, in response, a greater va-
riety of instruments has been generated by the ingenuity of the financial engineering
industry.
This paper presents some of the main issues in the measurement and manage-
ment of exchange rate risks faced by firms, with special attention to the traditional
types of exchange rate risk (transaction, translation, and economic), the currently pre-
dominant methodology in measuring exchange rate risk (VaR), and the advantages
M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146 145

and disadvantages of various exchange rate risk management approaches (tactical vs.
strategical, and passive vs. active). It also outlines a set of widely-accepted best prac-
tices in currency risk management, and reviews the use of some of the widely-used
hedging instruments in the OTC and exchange-traded markets. It also reports on the
use of various derivatives instruments and hedging practices of US multinationals.
Based on the reported US data, it is interesting to note that the larger the size of
a firm the more likely it is to use derivative instruments in hedging its exchange rate
risk exposure; the primary goal of US firms’ exchange rate risk hedging operations
is to minimize the variability in their cash flow and earning accounts (mainly related
to payables, receivables and repatriations); and the choice of foreign exchange de-
rivatives instruments is concentrated in OTC currency forwards (over 50 percent of
all foreign exchange derivatives used), OTC currency options (around 20 percent)
and OTC currency swaps (around 10 percent). From the available exchange-traded
foreign exchange hedging instruments, currency futures are preferred by less than 10
percent of US firms and currency options by around 2 percent.
Overall, it should be noted that the data on US firms are only representative of the
reporting period that they refer to and are indicative of the level of sophistication of
US corporate treasurers and the level of development of local derivatives markets. By
no means can these stylized facts be generalized for other time periods and countries,
especially those with different corporate structures and capital market development.
To form a better understanding of global firms’ practices in this area, more empirical
studies would need to be undertaken to explore their exchange rate risk measurement
and hedging behaviors.

References.
Allayannis, G., Ihrig, J., and Weston, J., 2001, Exchange-Rate Hedging: Financial vs. Operational
Strategies. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 91 (2), pp. 391-395.
Allen, S. L., 2003, Financial Risk Management: A Practitioner’s Guide to Managing Market and
Credit Risk, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Bank of International Settlements, 2005, Quarterly Review. Basle: BIS (September).
Bansal, R. and Dahlquist, M., 2000, The Forward Premium Puzzle: Different Tales from Developed
and Emerging Economies. Journal of International Economics, 51 (June), pp 115-144.
Barton, T. L., Shenkir, W. G. and Walker, P. L., 2002, Making Enterprise Risk Management Pay
Off: How Leading Companies Implement Risk Management. Brookfield, Connecticut: Fei Re-
search Foundation.
Bodnar, G. and Gebhardt, G., 1998, Derivatives Usage in Risk Management by U.S. and Ger-
man Non-Financial Firms: A Comparative Survey. NBER Working Paper No 6705, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: NBER (August).
Bodnar, G. M., Hayt, G., Marston, R. C., and Smithson, C.W., 1995, Wharton Survey of Derivatives
Usage by US Non-Financial Firms. Financial Management, 24 (2), pp. 104-114.
Fama, E. F., 1984, Forward and Spot Exchanges. Journal of Monetary Economics, 14 (3), pp. 319-
338.
Froot, K. and Thaler, R., 1990, Anomalies: Foreign Exchange. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
4 (3), pp. 179-192.
146 M. PAPAIOANNOU, South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics 2 (2006) 129-146

Jacque, L., 1996, Management and Control of Foreign Exchange Risk. Norwell, Massachusetts:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jorion, P., and Khoury, S.J., 1996, Financial Risk Management: Domestic and International Dimen-
sions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Hakala, J., and Wystup, U., 2002, Foreign Exchange Risk: Models, Instruments, and Strategies.
London: Risk Publications.
Holton, G. A., 2003, Value-at-Risk: Theory and Practice. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc, 2001, http://www.isda.org/statistics/recent.
html.
Kritzman, M., 1993, The Optimal Currency Hedging Policy with Biased Forward Rates. Journal of
Portfolio Management, 19 (4), pp. 94-101.
Lam, J., 2003, Enterprise Risk Management: From Incentives to Controls. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley and Sons.
Longin, F. M., 2001, Beyond the VaR. The Journal of Derivatives, pp. 36-48 (Summer).
Marrison, C., 2002, The Fundamentals of Risk Measurement, New York: McGraw Hill.
Papaioannou, M., 2001, Volatility and Misalignments of EMS and Other Currencies During 1974-
1998. In J. Jay Choi and Jeffrey M. Wrase (eds), European Monetary Union and Capital Mar-
kets, International Finance Review, 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 51-96.
Papaioannou, M., 1989, The Use of Derivatives Instruments by Multinational Firms: Some Survey
Results. Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania: The WEFA Group.
Papaioannou, M., and Gatzonas, E. K., 2002, Assessing Market and Credit Risk of Country Funds:
A Value-at-Risk Analysis. In J. Jay Choi and Michael R. Powers (eds), Global Risk Manage-
ment: Financial, Operational and Insurance Strategies, International Finance Review, 3, Am-
sterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 61-79.
Madura, J, 1989, International Financial Management, 2nd Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Pub-
lishing Company.
Shapiro, A. C, 1996, Multinational Financial Management, 5th Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons.
Treasury Management Association, 1996, Results of the 1996 Survey Questionnaire on Disclosure
of Accounting Policies and Market Risk Relative to Derivative Financial and Commodities
Instruments (October).
Van Deventer, D.R., Imai, K., and Mesler, M., 2004, Advanced Financial Risk Management: Tools
and Techniques for Integrated Credit Risk and Interest Rate Risk Management. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.