0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views36 pages

Corporate Liquidity and Risk Management

The document discusses multistage financing, focusing on corporate liquidity demand, risk management techniques, and the implications of soft budget constraints and free cash flow. It highlights the importance of liquidity ratios, the need for firms to manage cash flow effectively, and the challenges faced by cash-poor firms in securing financing. Additionally, it examines the role of hedging and the limitations of corporate risk management strategies in addressing financial volatility.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views36 pages

Corporate Liquidity and Risk Management

The document discusses multistage financing, focusing on corporate liquidity demand, risk management techniques, and the implications of soft budget constraints and free cash flow. It highlights the importance of liquidity ratios, the need for firms to manage cash flow effectively, and the challenges faced by cash-poor firms in securing financing. Additionally, it examines the role of hedging and the limitations of corporate risk management strategies in addressing financial volatility.
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

MULTISTAGE FINANCING

 LIQUIDITY RATIOS
 RISK MANAGEMENT
 SOFT BUDGET CONSTRAINT
 FREE CASH FLOW

2th set of transparencies for ToCF


CORPORATE LIQUIDITY DEMAND

HOARDING OF LIQUIDITY
Asset side : – securities
– credit lines and loan commitments
Future promises to lend
(maximum amount, lending terms, duration, commitment
fee, option to convert into term loan at maturity?,…)
Over 75% of commercial and industrial loans at large
US banks = take-downs under loan commitments.
Liability side : – long term debt and equity

WHY?
Concern about refinancing (Thakor-Hong-Greenbaum 1981, Froot-
2
Scharfstein-Stein 1993).
CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT

TECHNIQUES
• forward/futures markets (raw materials, agricultural products),
• swap  FX
•  interest rate,
• securitization,
• insurance against theft, fire, death of key employee,
• trade credit insurance,
• geographical plant diversification.

•Yet limited hedging (Culp-Miller). Large companies make much
greater use of derivatives.

3
WHY?
• reduction in volatility for claimholders : No!
• cut tax bill? (Stulz),
• insure managers by filtering out exogenous noise (Stulz, Fite-
Pfleiderer)? Alternative : virtual hedging.
• reduce probability of bankruptcy?

AGENCY BASED EXPLANATIONS


• unability to get funds when one needs them (Froot et al,
Stulz),
• avoid ancillary damages such as gambling behavior.

4
CORPORATE LIQUIDITY DEMAND
"Cash poor firm"

overruns/reinvestment
Cash need
shortfall in earnings

0 1 continue 2
Financing Outcome
Liquidation,
downsizing

5
• How to meet these needs?

2 options
Date 1 Date 0

go to capital market : hoard liquidity


new debt, new equity
DILUTION

SECURITIES CONTRACT
• credit line (ST)
• revolving credit
(often option to
convert into LT loan)

6
BASIC INSIGHT:LOGIC OF CREDIT RATIONING APPLIES AT
DATE 1 AS WELL  WANT TO HOARD LIQUIDITY

CASH RICH FIRM: flip side of same coin.

Jensen 1986 ST debt


pump out money
Easterbrook 1984 Dividend

steel, tobacco, chemical, broadcasting,...

Security design also regulates liquidity

Equity, LT debt: little cash draining


ST debt: drains cash
Preferred stocks...
7
I. LIQUIDITY RATIO AND CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT

I. FIXED INVESTMENT VERSION

Optimal policy: continue iff for some


8
(IC)

9
10
(i)

(first best)

(ii)

Then

[Third case (iii) no funding ]

11
CASH-RICH FIRM:

Theory of maturity structure:

Weak balance sheet

short maturity structure.

12
CASH-POOR FIRM:

Example: r = 0.

"Wait-and-see" policy suboptimal

13
II. VARIABLE INVESTMENT VERSION

2.1 Two-shock case


Timing

0 1 2
• Investment MH Outcome
I (choice RI
• Borrows pH or pL ) p
I-A

1-p
“INTACT” “DISTRESSED” 0
(no (reinvestment 
reinvestment per unit of
needed) investment)

14
Assumptions

(1) There exists store of value ( 1 1)

(2) remember

(3)

Interpretation

15
Policy #1 : abandon in case of distress

16
Policy #2: pursue project in case of distress

Minimize cost :

policy #2 1     1

Policy #2 when  low


 high 17
2.1 Continuum-of-shocks case

0 1 pay 2
Contract. Need for MH Outcome
Investment I. cash infusion p 1-p
External realized. No
financing pH pL RI 0
Distribution money
I-A. to pay

on

Project abandoned
(liquidation)
Yields 0
(later : yields LI)

18
a) OPTIMAL CONTRACT (later: implementation)

• Only investors can cover I .


• Suppose for the moment one can contract on continuation rule

 Optimum:
continue: needs
liquidate (nothing for entrepreneur)

Pledgeable income after continuation

  B  
0I   pH  R   I 
  p  

19
IR  
 * 
F ( * ) 0I I  A  

 0
f ( )d  I

 multiplier I = k A

Maximized at   0 .
*
Explanation.

20
NPV per unit of investment:

maximized at Intuition.
Borrower’s utility

Optimum: 21
Optimal

"expected unit cost of effective


investment"

22
Utility:

Utility
=

23
Generalization: liquidation value LI :

Intuition.

24
CORPORATE DEMAND FOR LIQUIDITY

1 WAIT-AND-SEE POLICY IS SUBOPTIMAL


 even with "perfect" financial market, investors won't bring in more
than at date 1.
 Conversely, initial investors willing to have their
claims diluted.

Dilution only
(even worse if debt overhang, etc.)

2 HOARDING:
* Nonrevocable credit line
no right to dilute
or right to dilute
25
* Securities: same
CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT

Modeling: • "Adverse" shocks with


(ex: foreign exchange risk).
• Can get insurance at fair rate.

Idea: obtain insurance so that does not mess up decision making.

• HEDGING
For an arbitrary

Remark : could be a conditional credit line (less common).

26
NO HEDGING
Firm can withstand shocks  such that

Hence:

where

Let

27
Lemma : H is more convex than F

convex
convex

Proof :

Arrow-Pratt:

In contrast, manager ex post may or may not hedge if given the choice

28
"risk averse" w.r.t. 
Firm
"risk loving" w.r.t. 

Mean preserving spread

Firm better off

DIFFERENCE:  "unavoidable";  option !

29
OPTIMALLY INCOMPLETE HEDGING

 Full hedging is too stark a result.


 Transaction costs... and 5 other reasons for hedging incompletely.
(a) Market power
Forward sales and over-supply by monopolist or oligopolist.
(b) Several correlation of profits
Example:
• random short-term income r (exogenous)
• "attractive-reinvestment-opportunities effect": probability of
success p +  (r) where ' > 0.

But "easier-refinancing effect": good news make it easier to return


to the capital market.

30
Optimal policy:

(firm should keep some of its cash-flow as retained earnings)


(c) Aggregate risk
Like CAPM: economic agents share (in different proportions) the
aggregate risk.
(d) Asymmetric information
(e) Incentives
Short-term profit r in general is endogenous. Motivates investment-
to-cash-flow sensitivity: see next section.

31
II. SOFT BUDGET CONSTRAINT

Basic idea:situation in which capital market is too soft: refinances when not ex ante
optimal to do so.
Date 0 Date 1

date 0 signal (or realization)


moral hazard informative about
(or AS) date-0 behavior
about

date-1continuation
incomeparameters
r •
• L
• 2nd period
prospects
(R, pH …)

want to punish if r small, etc. 32


• KEY: Monetary punishments limited (especially if continuation!)
Often liquidation (interference,…) only punishment or at least complementary punishment.

• EXAMPLE: r endogenous
Perhaps even deterministic

Low date-0 effort


- monetary rewards
High date-0 effort

Private benefit B0I of shirking at date 0.

State-invariant continuation rule does not provide incentives. Two possibilities:

• very small cost (2nd order) for B0 small

• not credible if 33
Text: if works
at date 0
if shirks

MLRP : increasing

Optimal policy:

over "relevant range" (small if B0 small).

SBC SBC
n o

r
"retained-earnings policy" Soft Budget Constraint

34
Jensen
III. FREE CASH FLOW
Easterbrook

• r exogenous (no SBC issue)


deterministic safe cash flow (public utilities,
banks,
mature industries)
• Generalized formulae:

Free cash flow assumption:

Payment:

ST debt

dividend (with ceiling) 35


CRITIQUES

Uncertainty not flexible enough, risk of liquidity problem

Ex:

Rigid (ST debt): • liquidity risk


(see hedging stuff)
P1 high: good reinvestments not made
P1 low: free cash flow

• does not respond to news about L, future prospects  need to make use of market
information !

Secret reinvestments just before r accrues.

36

You might also like