IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/n13412/285774.html

How Does “Cost Risk”Influence Producers' Decision to Hedge?

Author

Listed:
  • Andrade, Elisson de
  • Mattos, Fabio

Abstract

Several studies have investigated transaction costs in futures trading and found that optimal hedge ratios tend to be smaller in their presence. However, those studies consider transaction costs deterministically, i.e. hedgers know the exact amount of transaction costs when the hedge is placed. The current research relies on the notion that some transaction costs are uncertain when the producer decides to place a hedge. The uncertainty originates from the fact that some costs, such as margin deposits and taxation, depend on the trajectory of futures prices during the hedging period. The objective of the paper is to investigate how the uncertainty associated with transactions costs can influence producers’ decision to hedge. In addition, a broader range of costs involved in hedging operations will be introduced. Two main results emerge from this study. First, consistent with previous studies, introduction of transaction costs in futures trading leads to smaller hedge ratios. Second, allowing for uncertainty in transaction costs does not seem to have a larger impact on hedge ratios. In fact, the introduction of stochastic transactio

Suggested Citation

  • Andrade, Elisson de & Mattos, Fabio, 2012. "How Does “Cost Risk”Influence Producers' Decision to Hedge?," 2012 Conference, April 16-17, 2012, St. Louis, Missouri 285774, NCR-134/ NCCC-134 Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:n13412:285774
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.285774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/285774/files/confp14-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.285774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergio H. Lence, 1995. "The Economic Value of Minimum-Variance Hedges," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 353-364.
    2. Chamberlain, Gary, 1983. "A characterization of the distributions that imply mean--Variance utility functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 185-201, February.
    3. Albanese, Claudio & Tompaidis, Stathis, 2008. "Small transaction cost asymptotics and dynamic hedging," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(3), pages 1404-1414, March.
    4. Fleten, Stein-Erik & Lindset, Snorre, 2008. "Optimal hedging strategies for multi-period guarantees in the presence of transaction costs: A stochastic programming approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(3), pages 1680-1689, March.
    5. Harold Demsetz, 1968. "The Cost of Transacting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 82(1), pages 33-53.
    6. Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-430, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elisson Andrade & Fabio Mattos & Roberto Arruda de Souza Lima, 2018. "New Insights on Hedge Ratios in the Presence of Stochastic Transaction Costs," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Mattos, Fabio & Garcia, Philip & Nelson, Carl, 2008. "Relaxing standard hedging assumptions in the presence of downside risk," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 78-93, February.
    3. Lajeri-Chaherli, Fatma, 2003. "Partial derivatives, comparative risk behavior and concavity of utility functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 81-99, August.
    4. Gelles, Gregory M. & Mitchell, Douglas W., 1999. "Ordering utility functions based on mean-seeking behavior," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 317-328.
    5. Mullally, Conner & Boucher, Steve & Carter, Michael, "undated". "Encouragement Designs and Heterogeneous Effects in Agricultural Insurance: Challenges for Impact Evaluations in Agricultural Insurance Interventions," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 271511, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Meyer, Jack, 1988. "Two Moment Decision Models And Expected Utility Maximization: Some Implications For Applied Research," Regional Research Projects > 1988: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 20-23, 1988, Savannah, Georgia 272846, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    7. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2011. "Portfolio allocation and asset demand with mean-variance preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 179-193, February.
    8. Thomas Eichner, 2008. "Mean Variance Vulnerability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 586-593, March.
    9. Zhang, Duo, 2008. "Non-convex optimal portfolio sets and constant relative risk aversion," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 551-555.
    10. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2009. "Multiple Risks and Mean-Variance Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1142-1154, October.
    11. Mullally, Conner & Boucher, Stephen R. & Carter, Michael R., 2010. "Perceptions and Participation: Mistaken Beliefs, Encouragement Designs, and Demand for Index Insurance," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61002, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Xu Guo & Andreas Wagener & Wing-Keung Wong & Lixing Zhu, 2018. "The two-moment decision model with additive risks," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(1), pages 77-94, February.
    13. Eichner, Thomas, 2011. "Portfolio selection and duality under mean variance preferences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 146-152, January.
    14. Schuhmacher, Frank & Auer, Benjamin R., 2014. "Sufficient conditions under which SSD- and MR-efficient sets are identical," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 756-763.
    15. Fatma Lajeri-Chaherli, 2016. "On The Concavity And Quasiconcavity Properties Of ( Σ , Μ ) Utility Functions," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 287-296, April.
    16. Chen, Hsiao-Chi & Liu, Shi-Miin, 2016. "Should ports expand their facilities under congestion and uncertainty?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 109-131.
    17. Frank Schuhmacher & Hendrik Kohrs & Benjamin R. Auer, 2021. "Justifying Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection when Asset Returns Are Skewed," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7812-7824, December.
    18. Bilancini, Ennio & D’Antoni, Massimo, 2012. "The desirability of pay-as-you-go pensions when relative consumption matters and returns are stochastic," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 418-422.
    19. Eichner, Thomas & Wagener, Andreas, 2012. "Tempering effects of (dependent) background risks: A mean-variance analysis of portfolio selection," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 422-430.
    20. David A. Peel & Davind Law, 2009. "An Explanation of Optimal Each-Way Bets based on Non-Expected Utility Theory," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 3(2), pages 15-35, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:n13412:285774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/nccc134/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.