Restricted Export Flexibility and Risk Management with Options and Futures



the optimal production is unaffected by these restrictions as well. Hence, the optimal
output is the same irrespective of whether the firm’s flexibility is restricted or not. This
is due to the fact that marginal revenue with respect to the exchange rate is independent
of the restrictions. That is why Broll and Wahl (1997) derive an equivalent result for a
fully flexible firm. In contrast to the production decision, the optimal hedge portfolio,
(H*, z*), depends on the restrictions as will become clear later.

Proposition 1 states that the distribution of the exchange rate does not affect optimal
production. This statement, however, has to be interpreted with care since it only holds
for a given call option premium
C . As is well-known from the option pricing literature,
an increase in the volatility of the exchange rate makes currency options more valuable
(see, e.g., Sercu and Uppal, 1995). Thus, it will result in an increase in the call option
premium C. Then, c
z(Q*) = Pd + Pf C and the convexity of the cost function imply that
the firm’s optimal output increases in C and, hence, in the volatility of the exchange rate.
This is summarized in the following statement.

Corollary 2 When currency call options with strike price Pd/Pf are available, the re-
stricted export flexible firm’s optimal output,
Q*, increases in the call option premium
C which in turn increases in the volatility of the exchange rate. It follows that the firm
produces more as the exchange rate becomes more volatile.

An immediate implication of Corollary 2 is that export volume and exchange rate
volatility should be positively related in countries where export flexibility prevails.
9

We now turn to the question of how the firm’s optimal production decision is affected
by the existence of exp ort flexibility. As shown by Benninga
et al. (1985), Kawai and
Zilcha (1986) and others, the optimal output of an export-inflexible firm, Q
i*nflex, which
is obliged to export its entire output is implicitly given by c
,(Q*nflex) = FPf. Comparing
this optimality condition and the one given in Proposition 1 yields c
z(Qi*nflex) = FPf <

9Together with the theoretical results of Franke (1991), Dellas and Zilberfarb (1993) and Broll and
Eckwert (1999), Corollary 2 might therefore explain the positive empirical relation between exchange
rate volatility and the volume of international trade found in a number of studies that are surveyed by
McKenzie (1999).

11



More intriguing information

1. Large Scale Studies in den deutschen Sozialwissenschaften:Stand und Perspektiven. Bericht über einen Workshop der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
2. Are Public Investment Efficient in Creating Capital Stocks in Developing Countries?
3. Making International Human Rights Protection More Effective: A Rational-Choice Approach to the Effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions
4. RETAIL SALES: DO THEY MEAN REDUCED EXPENDITURES? GERMAN GROCERY EVIDENCE
5. The name is absent
6. Update to a program for saving a model fit as a dataset
7. Draft of paper published in:
8. The Context of Sense and Sensibility
9. Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and its determinants in first 6 months of life: A prospective study
10. The bank lending channel of monetary policy: identification and estimation using Portuguese micro bank data
11. The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy
12. The name is absent
13. The name is absent
14. Towards a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa
15. The name is absent
16. Tourism in Rural Areas and Regional Development Planning
17. Kharaj and land proprietary right in the sixteenth century: An example of law and economics
18. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
19. The name is absent
20. Lumpy Investment, Sectoral Propagation, and Business Cycles