January 21st, 2004, 12:11 pm
The future is uncertain, spreads are certain is the core thesis. The argument that corporates should cleave to what they're good at is attractive in a modern finance world, where you want to add marginal exposure in as discrete a way as possible. (If I add Dell to my portfolio, it's because I have a view on or need diversity through the PC industry, and I don't want exposure to the dollar or interest rates or the price of memory). But is hedging cleaving to what you're good at? In the real world corporates tend to be bad at taking hedging advice, and so they hedge inefficiently and patchily. I saw a M&A deal hedge handled so badly once that the whole deal was made 20% more expensive to the buyer, all because the head of treasury there was too dumb or insecure to choose a simple hedge. I mean, a good trader/structurer is going to be in a bank.Over the long term, macro variables should balance out, and over a large population of positions, I can get diversity without paying 3% to the banking sector.I think the behavioural finance idea of loss-aversion being more motivating than profit-seeking explains the prediliction corporates have for hedging, together with the ownership issue (it's easier to defend hedging than a loss that could have been hedged). (I was typing while Johnny summed it up more concisely...sorry. And Nonius, if I could have spelled MM I would have mentioned it, I never thought of abbreviating)
Last edited by
Alphabet on January 20th, 2004, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.