Loading ...
Global Do...
News & Politics
3
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
Faculty of Business and Law SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTING, ECONOMICS AND FINANCE School Working Paper - Accounting/Finance Series 2007 SWP 2007/15 Does the Type of Derivative Instrument used by Companies Impact Firm Value? Hoa Nguyen and Robert Faff The working papers are a series of manuscripts in their draft form. Please do not quote without obtaining the author’s consent as these works are in their draft form. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by the School. Does the Type of Derivative Instrument used by Companies Impact Firm Value? Hoa Nguyen* and Robert Faff** * School of Accounting, Economics and Finance Faculty of Business and Law Deakin University 225 Burwood Highway Burwood VIC 3125 Australia ** Department of Accounting and Finance Faculty of Business and Economics PO Box 11E Monash University Victoria 3800 Australia ** Corresponding author. Tel: +61 3 9905 2387; Fax: +61 3 9905 2339; Email: robert.faff@buseco.monash.edu.au Does the Type of Derivative Instrument used by Companies Impact Firm Value? Abstract We explore the relationship between the type of derivative instrument used and firm value, in a sample of Australian firms. Specifically, we examine the impact of the corporate use of swaps, futures, forwards and options, and the extent of such usage, on firm value. Our findings suggest that a ‘discount’ is most severely imposed on users of swaps. 2 1. Introduction In one of the pioneer papers that address the relationship between corporate risk management via the use of financial derivatives and firm value, Allayannis and Weston (2001) report that the corporate use of foreign currency derivatives by US (non-financial) firms has a positive impact on firm value. They documented a hedging premium of 4.87% of firm value for firms with positive foreign sales. More recently, Carter, Rogers and Simkins (2006) support the finding of Allayannis and Weston (2001) and report a hedging premium of 14% associated with fuel hedging in the airline industry. However, Lookman (2004) and Jin and Jorion (2006) examine the risk management practices of U.S. oil and gas producers and fail to find a significant relationship between commodity derivatives and firm value. Accordingly, in this paper we extend the literature by testing the hypothesis of whether the use of specific financial derivative instruments is rewarded by a higher market value. Specifically, we examine the impact of the corporate use of swaps, futures, forwards and options, and the extent of such usage, on firm value as measured by Tobin’s Q for a sample of Australian publicly listed companies over the period of 1999–2000. In direct contrast to the prediction that the use of derivatives is associated with a ‘hedging premium’, our findings suggest that if anything financial markets that are more prone to information asymmetry impose a ‘discount’ on derivative users – notably, the users of swaps. 2. Research Framework 2.1 Data We use the Connect4 database that contain data of publicly listed Australian firms on the ASX to obtain our sample of non-financial firms. Based on the Notes to Financial Statements of each individual firm, we classify a company as either a derivative user or non-user. Specifically, a company is identified as a derivative user if it reports the use of options, swaps and futures/forwards. For every derivative user, the notional value of derivative contracts is 1 used to proxy how active that user is in that derivative instrument. The sample obtained from Connect4 was then compared with the Datastream database to obtain data on the market value of equity. Our final sample consists of 428 firm/year observations, of which 217 observations relate to 1999 and the remainder to 2000. As revealed in Table 1, our sample is unevenly distributed across 23 industries, most heavily represented by the Property Trusts (47 observations), Miscellaneous Industrials (50 observations) and, as expected from an Australian sample, Gold (35 observations) industries. 2.2 Variables We use a simple type of TobinQ calculated as the sum of total liabilities and market value of equity divided by total book assets as our dependent variable. Table 1 further reveals that, specific to our sample, firms belonging to the Healthcare and Biological Index industry have the highest average TobinQ (2.53). At the other end of the spectrum, firms in the Engineering sector score the lowest average TobinQ (1.07). Our independent variables are measures of whether a firm uses a specific financial derivative instrument or not and in the case of a user, the extent to which that instrument is used. To proxy for the incidence of derivative usage, we use a dummy variable which equals unity if a firm uses a particular form of financial derivative and zero otherwise: (a) FUFO – futures and/or forwards; (b) OP - options; (c) SW - swaps. The extent of usage is calculated as the total notional value of derivative contracts for the given instrument, scaled by firm size where firm size is defined as total book assets: (a) ExtentFUFO – futures and/or forwards; (b) ExtentOP - options; (c) ExtentSW - swaps. To identify the impact of financial derivatives on firm value, we consider a number of factors that have been documented in the literature. These control variables are (a) firm size (eg Daines, 2001; Carter, Simkins and Simpson, 2003) – proxied by the log of total assets; (b) Leverage (eg Titman and Wessels, 1988; Rees, 1997) – proxied by the ratio of long term debt 2 to total assets; (c) Liquidity – proxied by the ratio of corporate cash and cash equivalents holding to total assets; (d) Profitability (eg Rees, 1997 and Hand and Landsman, 2005) – proxied by the ratio of net profit after tax and before abnormal items to total assets, ROA; (e) Growth (eg Sougiannis, 1994; Green, Stark and Thomas, 1996) – proxied by capital expenditure scaled by total assets; (f) Industrial Diversification – proxied by an ‘industry segment’ variable, the number of industrial segments in which the firm operates; (g) Geographical Diversification (eg Carter, Panzalis and Simkins, 2001) – proxied by the ratio of foreign sales to total sales (FSTS); (h) Managerial Ownership – proxied by the percentage of shares held by directors and executive officers. 3. Findings We aim to ascertain if the use of one type of derivative instrument is more value inhibiting than another. To achieve this objective, we classify our sample into futures and forwards users (FUFO), option users (OP) and swap users (SW). These analyses are motivated by the belief that derivatives with symmetrical payoffs are potentially more value hurting than derivatives with asymmetrical payoffs, assuming constant costs of hedging. Panel A of Table 2 reports the results of regressions that differentiate the use of financial derivatives along these dimensions.1 The major result observed is that the market apparently imposes a hedging discount on swap users. Moreover, the magnitude of the hedging discount is striking. Specifically, the incidence of swap usage is associated with a reduction in firm value of around 0.36. Given that the average TobinQ of the sample is 1.51, the hedging discount associated with the use of swaps represents a 24% reduction in firm value. Additionally, the more extensively firms make use of swap instruments, the lower the 1 The results for the control variables are suppressed to conserve space. 3 firm value. Although futures/forwards also provide symmetrical payoffs, the use of these instruments does not appear to induce a ‘hedging discount’. In Panels B and C of Table 2, we go one step further by considering the two dimensional interaction between the type of derivative instruments and the underlying exposure. As such, we develop nine new independent variables and examine the impact of each of these variables on firm value.2 The results that we obtain are largely consistent with those reported in Panel A. The choice of the type of derivative instrument does impact firm value – swap contracts tend to impair firm value. While derivative usage in general can potentially be a source of information asymmetry that explains a hedging discount, market participants may discount the use of swaps more heavily due to the possibly higher default risk associating with swap contracts. Despite the fact that default risk is inherent for all derivative contracts, in the case of exchange traded futures and options, the risk is mitigated through daily marking to market processes by an organized exchanged. In contrast, the swap market, like all other over the counter derivative markets, does not have such a systematic approach to control default risk but primarily rely on credit enhancement devices to control for default risk. Our results, therefore, suggest that market participants may price default risks associating with swap contracts into the valuation of a firm. 5. Conclusion We extend the literature by testing the hypothesis of whether the use of specific financial derivative instruments is rewarded by a higher market value. Specifically, we examine the impact of the corporate use of swaps, futures, forwards and options, and the extent of such usage, on firm value for a sample of Australian publicly listed companies. In direct contrast to 2 They are: FUFO_FCD, FUFO_IRD, FUFO_COM, OP_FCD, OP_IRD, OP_COM, SW_FCD, SW_IRD and SW_COM. 4 the prediction that the use of derivatives is associated with a ‘hedging premium’, our findings suggest that a ‘discount’ is imposed on derivative users. This discount is most strongly related to the use of swaps, while there is little evidence indicating that the use of options is harmful to value. 5 REFERENCES Allayannis, G. and Weston, J. 2001, ‘The use of foreign currency derivatives and firm market value’, Review of Financial Studies, 14, 243-276. Carter, D. A., Pantzalis, C. and Simkins, B. J. 2001, 'Firm-wide risk management of foreign exchange exposure by US multinational corporations', Working paper, Oklahoma State University. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. and Simpson, G. 2003, ‘Corporate governance, board diversity and firm value’, Financial Review, 38, 33-53. Carter, D.A, Rogers, D. and Simkins, B. 2006, ‘Does fuel hedging make economic sense? The case of the U.S. airline industry’, Financial Management, forthcoming. Daines, R. 2001, ‘Does Delaware law improve firm value?’, Journal of Financial Economics, 62, 525-558. Green, J. Stark, A. and Thomas, H. 1996, ‘UK Evidence on the market valuation of research and development expenditure’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23, 2, 191-216 Hand, J. and Landsman, W. 2005, ‘The pricing of dividends in equity valuation’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 32, 435-469. Jin, Y and Jorion, P. 2006, ‘Firm value and hedging: evidence from U.S. Oil and Gas producers’, Journal of Finance, 61, 893-919. Lookman, A. 2004, ‘Does hedging increase firm value? Evidence from oil and gas producing firms’, working paper, University of South Florida. Rees, W. 1997, ‘The impact of dividends, debt and investment on valuation models’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 24, 1111-1140 Sougiannis, T. 1994, ‘The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D’, Accounting Review, 69, 1, 44-68 Titman, S. and Wessels, R. 1998, 'The determinants of capital structure', Journal of Finance, 43, 1-19. 6 Table 1 Industry Classification Industry Number of Observations Mean Tobin Q Median Tobin Q Gold 35 1.2735 1.1486 Other Metals 19 1.2545 1.1951 Diversified Resources 5 1.4293 1.3126 Energy 27 1.5888 1.1601 Infrastructure and Utilities 17 1.4193 1.1711 Developers and Contractors 15 1.4502 1.1703 Building Materials 15 1.1353 1.0460 Alcohol and Tobacco 9 2.4296 2.2706 Food and Household Goods 12 1.1872 1.1408 Chemicals 5 1.1854 1.1861 Engineering 7 1.0735 1.0124 Paper and Packaging 8 1.3625 1.2409 Retail 29 1.8085 1.5238 Transport 8 1.8204 1.3727 Media 24 1.6271 1.3907 Banks 0 NA NA Insurance 4 1.7081 1.0875 Telecommunications 21 2.3358 1.9528 Investment and Financial Services 29 1.3570 1.0506 Property Trusts 47 1.1102 1.0108 Healthcare and Biological 17 2.5302 2.0802 Miscellaneous Industrials 42 1.5346 1.2855 Diversified Industrials 22 1.2630 1.1783 Tourism and Leisure 11 1.5570 1.2355 Total 428 1.5133 1.1904 7 Table 2 Type of Derivative Instrument Used and Firm Value Panel A: Futures/Forwards; Options; Swaps Predicted Sign Tobin Q t-stat R-squared FUFO + -0.1012 -1.2035 0.4048 OP + -0.0299 -0.4333 0.4019 SW + -0.3633a -4.3576 0.4343 ExtentFUFO + -0.0012 -0.7645 0.4020 ExtentOP + 0.0004 0.2004 0.4017 ExtentSW + -0.0086b -2.4556 0.4088 Panel B: An Interactive Model of Derivative Usage Tobin Q t-stat R-squared FUFO_FCD + -0.0360 0.0795 0.4021 FUFO_IRD + -0.2179 -0.9838 0.4023 FUFO_COM + -0.0718 -0.9763 0.4026 OP_FCD + -0.0257 -0.2934 0.4018 OP_IRD + 0.1962 1.3189 0.4039 OP_COM + 0.0449 0.5613 0.4020 SW_FCD + -0.0360 -0.2761 0.4018 SW_IRD + -0.3117a -3.8557 0.4272 SW_COM + -0.1860 -1.4760 0.4044 Panel C: An Interactive Model of the Extent of Derivative Use Tobin Q t-stat R-squared FUFO_FCD + -0.0003 -0.2417 0.4017 FUFO_IRD + -0.0794 -1.8452 0.4025 FUFO_COM + -0.0004 -1.4453 0.4028 OP_FCD + -0.0002 -0.2470 0.4017 OP_IRD + 0.0034 0.4363 0.4019 OP_COM + -0.3866 -0.3009 0.4018 SW_FCD + -0.0050c -1.7058 0.4029 SW_IRD + -0.0070a -3.2036 0.4104 SW_COM + -0.0031b -2.4987 0.4040 a significant at 1% level b significant at 5% level c significant at 10% level 8
