Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate risk management practices and firm value in an emerging market: a mixed methods approach

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

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of corporate risk management strategies, namely, (1) financial, (2) operational, and (3) enterprise risk management on firm value in the context of an emerging market, Turkey. We use a unique hand-collected sample of non-financial Turkish companies for the years 2010–2015 and use mixed research methods to gain insights into the complex relationship between risk management and firm value. The quantitative methodology is accompanied by a follow up qualitative study that involves in-depth interviews with selected finance and risk management professionals. Results surprisingly reveal that none of the three risk management strategies increase firm value. We explore how the different institutional circumstances surrounding firms moderate the relationship between risk management and firm value and derive some policy implications for authorities in emerging markets regarding improving disclosures on risk management and corporate governance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Turkish lira lost 80% in value against USD between the years 2010 and 2015 (World Bank 2017).

  2. Pure risks are hazard risks which are insurable and there is no possibility of gain. Examples include property and liability risks.

  3. It is verified that the excluded firms, which do not conduct exports and imports, do not perform any kind of corporate hedging activities such as interest rate hedging, commodity price hedging, or ERM. Therefore, excluding them does not bias our results. We thank an anonymous referee for this insight.

  4. Turkish companies started implementing IFRS 7 since 2007 which requires firms to apply hedge accounting. Specifically, they are required to explicitly disclose how they hedge their risk exposures and they need to show such exposures separately for the financial instruments held for trading and speculation. Therefore, we rely on the information on the financial instruments provided in the annual reports while we exclude the use of derivatives for speculation purposes.

  5. As shown in Chung and Pruitt (1994), there is a high degree of correlation between these simple constructions of Tobin’s Q and more rigorous approximations.

  6. We use the net position of derivatives that are hedging opposite positions.

  7. IFRS 7 requires Turkish companies to disclose the different types of instruments that are used to hedge market risk which is provided separately for currency risk, interest rate risk, and commodity price risk. Therefore, we were able to collect the extent of hedging information separately for those types of market risk from annual reports.

References

  • Allayannis, G., J. Ihrig, and J. Weston. 2001. Exchange Rate Hedging: Financial Versus Operational Strategies. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 91 (2): 391–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allayannis, G., M. Lel, and D. Miller. 2012. The Use of Foreign Currency Derivatives, Corporate Governance, and Firm Value Around the World. Journal of International Economics 87 (1): 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allayannis, G., and J. Weston. 2001. The Use of Foreign Currency Derivatives and Firm Market Value. The Review of Financial Studies 14 (1): 243–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ameer, R. 2009. Value-Relevance of Foreign-Exchange and Interest-Rate Derivatives Disclosure: The Case of Malaysian Firms. Journal of Risk Finance 10 (1): 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., and S. Bond. 1991. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review of Economic Studies 58: 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aretz, K., and S.M. Bartram. 2010. Corporate Hedging and Shareholder Value. The Journal of Financial Research 33 (4): 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayturk, Y., A.O. Gurbuz, and S. Yanik. 2016. Corporate Derivatives Use and Firm Value: Evidence from Turkey. Borsa Istanbul Review 16–2: 108–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, S.M., G.W. Brown, and J. Conrad. 2011. The Effects of Derivatives on Firm Risk and Value. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46 (4): 967–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, M., D. Pagach, and R. Warr. 2008. Information Conveyed in Hiring Announcements of Senior Executives Overseeing Enterprise-Wide Risk Management. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 23 (3): 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belghitar, Y., E. Clark, and S. Mefteh. 2013. Foreign Currency Derivative Use and Shareholder Value. International Review of Financial Analysis 29: 283–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrospide, J. M., Purnanandam, A., & Rajan, U., 2008. Corporate Hedging, Investment and Value. FEDS Working Paper No. 2008-16.

  • Búa, V., et al. 2015. Is Value Creation Consistent with Currency Hedging? The European Journal of Finance 21 (10–11): 912–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, David A., Daniel A. Rogers, and Betty J. Simkins. 2006. Does Hedging Affect Firm Value? Evidence from the US Airline Industry. Financial Management 35: 53–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhry, B., and J.T.B. Howe. 1999. Corporate Risk Management for Multinational Corporations: Financial and Operational Hedging Policies. European Finance Review 2: 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K.H., and S.W. Pruitt. 1994. A Simple Approximation of Tobin’s q. Financial Management, 23 (3): 70–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., and B.B. Yurtoglu. 2013. Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets: A Survey. Emerging Markets Review 15: 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 2004. Executive Summary: Enterprise Risk Management - Integrated Framework. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 2017. Executive Summary: Enterprise Risk Management—Integrating with Strategy and Performance.

  • Dadalt, P., G.D. Gay, and J. Nam. 2002. Asymmetric Information and Corporate Derivatives Use. The Journal of Futures Markets 22 (3): 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMarzo, Peter, and Darrell Duffie. 1995. Corporate Incentives for Hedging and Hedge Accounting. Review of Financial Studies 8: 743–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denscombe, M. 2008. Communities of Practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2: 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Christopher. 2009. A Guide to Starting an ERM Program. Risk Management 56: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froot, K., D. Scharfstein, and J. Stein. 1993. Risk Management: Coordinating Corporate Investment and Financing Policies. Journal of Finance 48 (5): 1629–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatzert, N., and M. Martin. 2015. Determinants and Value of Enterprise Risk Management: Empirical Evidence from the Literature. Risk Management and Insurance Review 18 (1): 29–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geczy, C.C., B.A. Minton, and C.M. Schrand. 2007. Taking a View: Corporate Speculation, Governance, and Compensation. Journal of Finance 62: 2405–2443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Gonzalez, J.E., C.E.L. Rincon, and K.J.L. Rodriguez. 2012. Does the Use of Foreign Currency Derivatives Affect Firm’s Market Value? Evidence from Colombia. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 48: 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, L., M. Loeb, and C. Tseng. 2009. Enterprise Risk Management and Firm Performance: A Contingency Perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 28 (4): 301–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, W., and S. Kothari. 2003. How Much do Firms Hedge with Derivatives? Journal of Financial Economics 70 (3): 423–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, B.T., and T.G. Seaks. 1993. Functional Form in Regression Models of Tobin’s Q. The Review of Economics and Statistics 75 (2): 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, R.E., and A.P. Liebenberg. 2011. The Value of Enterprise Risk Management. Journal of Risk and Insurance 78 (4): 795–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y., and P. Jorion. 2006. Firm Value and Hedging: Evidence from US Oil and Gas Producers. Journal of Finance 61 (2): 893–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khediri, K.B. 2010. Do Investors Really Value Derivative Use? Empirical Evidence from France. The Journal of Risk Finance 11 (1): 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R.W. Vishny. 2002. Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation. Journal of Finance 57: 1147–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lel, U. 2012. Currency Hedging and Corporate Governance: A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance 18: 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leland, Hayne. 1998. Agency Cost, Risk Management, and Capital Structure. Journal of Finance 53: 1213–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, P., and Sara B. Moeller. 2007. The Value of Corporate Risk Management. Journal of Finance 62: 1349–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, S. 2009. Foreign Currency Hedging and Firm Value: A Dynamic Panel Approach. Working Paper, Macquarie University Department of Applied Finance and Actuarial Studies.

  • Mayers, D., and C. Smith. 1982. On the Corporate Demand for Insurance. Journal of Business 55 (2): 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, M.K., A. Nair, and E. Rustambekov. 2011. Does Enterprise Risk Management Increase Firm Value? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 16 (4): 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M.D. 2013. Qualitative Research in Business and Management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagach, D., and R. Warr. 2011. The Characteristics of Firms that Hire Chief Risk Officers. Journal of Risk and Insurance 78 (1): 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panaretou, A. 2013. Corporate Risk Management and Firm Value: Evidence from the UK Market. The European Journal of Finance 20 (12): 1161–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pantzalis, C., B. Simkins, and P. Laux. 2001. Operational Hedges and the Foreign Exchange Exposure of US Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies 32: 793–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Gonzalez, F., and H. Yun. 2013. Risk Management and Firm Value: Evidence from Weather Derivatives. Journal of Finance 68 (5): 2143–2176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pramborg, B. 2004. Derivatives Hedging, Geographical Diversification and Firm Market Value. Journal of Multinational Financial Management 14 (2): 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochette, M. 2009. From Risk Management to ERM. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions 2 (4): 394–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. P. 1998. Corporate Hedging: What, Why and How? Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

  • Sang Kim, Y., I. Mathur, and J. Nam. 2006. Is Operational Hedging a Substitute for or a Complement to Financial Hedging? Journal of Corporate Finance 12 (4): 834–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C.W., and R.M. Stulz. 1985. The Determinant of Firms’ Hedging Policies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20 (4): 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulz, Rene M. 1984. Optimal Hedging Policy. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 19: 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahir, I.M., and A.R. Razali. 2011. The Relationship Between Enterprise Risk Management and Firm Value: Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences 1 (2): 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, P.L., W.G. Shenkir, and T.L. Barton. 2002. Enterprise Risk Management: Pulling it All Together. Altamonte Springs, FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, M. 2011. Where ERM Goes. Regulation will Follow. Risk Management 58: 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2017. Data retrieved March 11, 2017, from World Development Indicators Online (WDI) database.

  • Young, R., and E. Jordan. 2008. Top Management Support: Mantra or Necessity? International Journal of Project Management 26 (7): 713–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yurtoglu, B.B. 2000. Ownership, Control and Performance of Turkish Listed Firms. Empirica 27: 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gamze Ozturk Danisman

  2. Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK

    Pelin Demirel

Authors
  1. Gamze Ozturk Danisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pelin Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gamze Ozturk Danisman.

Appendix 1: interview questions

Appendix 1: interview questions

1. Do you conduct risk management activities at your company? What kind of risk management activities do you perform and what are their objectives?

 (a) How do you manage your financial risks? Do you use financial derivative instruments?

 (b) Do you implement Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) activities? If so, when did you start performing ERM at your company?

 (c) How do you manage your operational risks?

2. Could you explain the organizational structure of risk management function at your company? Which department is responsible for what type of activities? How are they followed up and supervised?

3. Could you explain the motives behind different types of corporate risk management activities held in your company? How about other Turkish companies and other emerging markets? Would the motives differ for developed markets?

4. Do you think investors in Turkey consider the risk management activities of Turkish companies in their investment decisions?

5. How do you disclose the risk management activities held by your company? What are the legal requirements for risk management disclosures? What differences do you see in the risk management disclosures between Turkey and the developed countries?

6. What do you think should be done to improve the corporate risk management functions in Turkey?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danisman, G.O., Demirel, P. Corporate risk management practices and firm value in an emerging market: a mixed methods approach. Risk Manag 21, 19–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-018-0040-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-018-0040-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation