Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of corporate hedging practices on firm's value: An empirical evidence from Indian MNCs

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Risk Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of financial and non-financial hedging on firms' value while mitigating the exchange rate exposure for 97 Indian multinational corporations from 2009 to 2020. Despite mixed evidence of the value increment effect of corporate hedging, the reduction effect is sporadic. With a dynamic panel set-up and applying the two-step GMM model, the result shows no impact from operation hedging on firms' value. In contrast, financial hedging is significant and impactful. Firms' value enhanced on average by 16.64–19.65% and 10.33–16.15% through derivative and foreign debt, respectively, after controlling non-operating profit (loss) from foreign exchange accounting and translation profit (loss) simultaneously and separately. The result of the robustness test is also consistent with the findings. The positive valuation effect motivates the decision maker of Indian MNCs to hedge the risk of foreign exchange exposure through derivatives and debts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

None.

Notes

  1. Studies (Carter et al. 2005; Gómez-González et al. 2012; Graham and Rogers 2002; Júnior and Laham 2008; Luo and Wang 2018; Nguyen and Faff 2010) give evidence of the positive effect, contrary to (Alam and Gupta 2018; Callahan 2002; Jin and Jorion 2006; Lau 2016; Santos et al. 2017) studies exhibits the negative effect of financial hedging on a firm’s value.

  2. Solely practice of operational hedging does not add value to firm worth (Allayannis et al. 2001; Vivel Búa et al. 2015); whereas study of (Gleason et al. 2005) evidence of value creation effect of operational hedging.

  3. studies by Vivel Búa et al. (2015) on Spanish, by Gómez-González, León Rincón, and Leiton Rodríguez (2012) on Colombian and by Luo and Wang (2018) on Chinese firm.

  4. In order to obtain information related to foreign exchange profit and loss transactions, the notes to the consolidated financial statement are investigated.

  5. Tobin’s Q is the ratio of the resulted value of the book value of assets minus the book value of equity plus the market value of equity to the book value of the assets.

  6. In pursuance of(Carter et al. 2006; Gleason et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2006; Vivel Búa et al. 2015), countries are grouped into 11 regions: Asia (Ex. Near East), East Asia, Baltics, C.W. of IND. States, Eastern Europe, Latin Amer. & Carib, Northern Africa, Northern America, Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe.

  7. Since, the version is “log-linear” and “β” is the envisioned coefficient, one-unit alter in independent variable results in alternation in log dependent variable of “β” units, the value of dependent variable is multiplication of “eβ.” In different words, one-unit growth in independent variable leads to “100 × (e.β-1)” percent within the dependent variable. (Benoit 2011).

References

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this research work. Mr. Jyoti Prakash Das contributed to concept and model development, data collection and analysis, and editing. Dr. Shilendra Kumar has developed the idea further and suggested a research methodology. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jyoti Prakash Das.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

A 1. Measurement of model variable and expected sign

Variables

Definitions

Expected sign

Data description

Explained variable

   

LNQt

Ln(Tobin's Q)

 

(Book Value of Total Asset-Book Value of equity + Market Value of Equity) / Book Value of Total Asset

Explanatory variable

   

FCDERVR

FC derivatives

 ± 

Summation of the notional value of currency derivatives contracts / total sales

FCDEBTR

FC denominated Debt

 ± 

Summation of the nominal value of foreign currency-denominated debt / total sales

OH_COUNT

Ln(No. of countries)

 + 

Natural log of the number of other than home countries where the company has a subsidiary

OH_REGIO

Ln(No. of regions)

 + 

Natural log of the number of regions the company operate in

HHIcount

Hirshman–Herfindahl Index (based on country)

 + 

\({1} - {\text{Hirshman - Herfindahl}} = 1 - \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{j} {Sub_{j}^{2} } }}{{\left( {\sum\nolimits_{j} {Sub_{j} } } \right)^{2} }}\)

HHIregio

Hirshman–Herfindahl Index (based on region)

 + 

\({1} - {\text{Hirshman - Herfindahl}} = 1 - \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{j} {Sub_{j}^{2} } }}{{\left( {\sum\nolimits_{j} {Sub_{j} } } \right)^{2} }}\)

FEXGAINTSA&TSL

Foreign exchange gain and losses ratio

 ± 

(Sum of profit from FX Transaction & Translation – Sum of losses from FX Transaction & Translation Losses) / total sales

FEXGAINTSA

FX transaction ratio

 ± 

FX transaction / total sales

FEXGAINTSL

FX translation ratio

 ± 

FX translation / total sales

Control variable

   

FSALESR

Foreign Sales

 ± 

Foreign sales revenue / total sales revenue

FSIZE

Firm Size

 ± 

Natural log of total asset

FLEVERAGE

Leverage

 ± 

Total debt / total asset

FPROFR

Profitability

 + 

Net profit / total asset

FLIQR

Liquidity

 ± 

Current asset / current liabilities

FGROWTHR

Growth rate

 + 

One-year net revenue growth rate

FPUBLICITY

Investment opportunity

 + 

Advertising Expenses / total sales

FR&D

 + 

R&D Expenses / total assets

YEARD

Year dummy

 ± 

Taking 1 for each specific year and otherwise 0 (2009–2020)

A 2. Descriptive statistics of financial hedging instruments

 

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2009–20 Average

Panel A. Use of derivative

Users

67

67

68

70

70

72

75

77

78

78

78

78

 

Percentage

81.71

81.71

81.93

82.35

80.46

80.00

78.13

79.38

80.41

80.41

80.41

80.41

80.61

Non-users

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

19

19

19

19

19

 

Percentage

18.29

18.29

18.07

17.65

17.24

16.67

15.63

19.59

19.59

19.59

19.59

19.59

18.31

Panel B. Use of debt

Users

33

33

33

33

33

33

35

36

39

40

40

40

 

Percentage

40.24

40.24

39.76

38.82

37.93

36.67

36.46

37.11

40.21

41.24

41.24

41.24

39.26

Non-users

49

49

50

52

52

54

55

60

58

57

57

57

 

Percentage

59.76

59.76

60.24

61.18

59.77

60.00

57.29

61.86

59.79

58.76

58.76

58.76

59.66

Panel C: Financial hedging

Only FC Derivative users

35

35

36

38

38

38

40

40

40

40

40

40

38.33

Percentage

42.68

42.68

43.37

44.71

43.68

42.22

41.67

41.24

41.24

41.24

41.24

41.24

42.27

Only FC Debt users

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1.42

Percentage

1.22

1.22

1.20

1.18

1.15

1.11

1.04

2.06

2.06

2.06

2.06

2.06

1.54

FC Derivative and FC Debt

             

User

32

32

32

32

32

34

35

37

38

38

38

38

34.83

Percentage (Users)

39.02

39.02

38.55

37.65

36.78

37.78

36.46

38.14

39.18

39.18

39.18

39.18

38.34

Non-users

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

17

17

17

17

17

15.25

Percentage (Non-Users)

17.07

17.07

16.87

16.47

16.09

15.56

14.58

17.53

17.53

17.53

17.53

17.53

16.78

Number of observations

82

82

83

85

87

90

96

97

97

97

97

97

 

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Das, J.P., Kumar, S. Impact of corporate hedging practices on firm's value: An empirical evidence from Indian MNCs. Risk Manag 25, 10 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-023-00115-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-023-00115-3

Keywords

Navigation