How Do Canadian Banks That Deal in Foreign Exchange Hedge Their Exposure to Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the daily hedging and risk-management practices of financial intermediaries in the Canadian foreign exchange (FX) market. Results reported in this paper suggest that financial institutions behave similarly when managing their market risk exposure. In particular, dealing banks do not fully hedge their spot market risk. The results reported support arguments by Stulz (1996) and Froot and Stein (1998) that the amount of hedging will depend on a firm's comparative advantage in bearing risk. While the extent of hedging is found to depend on market volatility and the magnitude of their risk exposure, the uniqueness of the dataset employed in this paper allows for an explicit test of the various sources of comparative advantage that dealing banks in the FX markets have in their role as market-makers. Private information via customer order flow, guaranteed access to liquidity, and the capital-allocation structure of a dealer's financial institution are potential sources of comparative advantage to dealing banks in the FX market. A model with private information and an imperfectly competitive environment is provided to illustrate hedging when informed agents in a multiple security market behave strategically. Empirical results suggest that dealing banks only selectively hedge speculative positions taken in the spot market in the forward market. Findings also suggest that dealing banks share in the risk exposure of the spot market's net position without simultaneously hedging this risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".