Basis Risk Analysis and Countermeasures for Enterprises’ Commodity Price Risk Management by Using Futures Hedging Strategy -- A Case Study of “Metallgesellschaft” Hedging Failure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v15i.9403Keywords:
Basis risk, futures market, hedging, risk management, commodity price risk.Abstract
As the international economic situation was risingly unsteady and turbulent, many enterprises have come up to make use of the futures market to minimize commodity price fluctuation risks, however, not a few suffering massively high hedging losses. These events has showed that numbers of enterprises had a lack of incisivel comprehension of the basis risk of hedging and made no fully preparation on how to control and erode losses in time as soon as the basis transfers deviated from expection. This article intends to make an in-depth discussion on basis risk through the analysis of the well-known huge losses case of the Metallgesellschaft and put forward effective and logical countermeasures, for enterprises grasping potently of basic risk resisting financial damage. In short, in order to lesson the high financial loss which exceeds the expectation caused by the unusual basis, the enterprises must establish a reasonable and supportive hedging risk assessment and optimal protective stop-loss scheme.
Downloads
References
Franklin R. Edwards, Cindy W. Ma. Futures & Options, New York McGrawHill, 1992. [The “basis” is the difference between the price of the instrument that is being used to hedge (in the case of MGRM, near-month futures and swaps) and the price of the instrument or commitment that is being hedged (forward sales in the case of MGRM.) “Basis risk” is the volatility of the basis. All hedgers, by definition, choose to assume basis risk as a trade-off for eliminating the price risk they would have if they did not hedge, presumably because the basis risk is less than the price risk.]
See affidavit of W. Arthur Benson v. Metallgesellschaft Corp. (and others), U.S.D.C Maryland, Civil Action No JFM-94-484 (October 13, 1994). MGRM’s markups were the same regardless of the length of the contracts. Critics have argued that higher mark-ups should have been used for longer-term contracts, perhaps because of increasing credit risk. See Special Audit Report of MG A.G. prepared by C&L Treuarbeit and Deutsche Revision and Wollert-Elmendorff, Frankfurt, Germany (January 20, 1995).
You Jiu Chen. Review of International crude Oil Price Trends in 1993 and Outlook of Oil Price Trends in 1994. Issues of International Trade, 1994, (04): 23-30+59.
Edwards F R, M. S. Canter. The Collapse of Metallgesellschaft: Unhedgeable Risks, Poor Hedging Strategy, or Just Bad Luck? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1995.
Hanping Xiao. Review of international crude oil price trend since 2002 and outlook for 2006. International Oil Economy, 2005, (11): 18-23+70-71.
Qiugen Zeng. The Basis Risk and Countermeasures of Commodity Price Hedging -- Based on the Case of Zhongsheng Grain and Oil and Jiangxi Copper Industry Hedging Losses. Finance and Accounting Newsletter, 2006.
Culp C L, Henke S. Derivative dingbats. International Economy (Jul/Aug), 1994, 12(15): 54-55.
Culp C L, Miller M. Risk Management Lessons from Metallgesellschaft. Mimeo. 1994.
Culp C L, Miller M. Auditing the auditors. Risk 1995, 8(4): 36-40.
Verleger P K. Was Metallgesellschaft's use of petroleum futures part of a rational corporate strategy? Journal of Energy Finance and Development, 1999.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






