This study examines the value effects of financial and operational hedging in a managed floating exchange rate regime with strict limitations on the trading of Malaysian Ringgit for a sample of 109 Malaysian multinationals from 2004–2018. Using Tobin’s Q as a proxy for company value, the two-step system GMM estimation results show that, on average, derivatives hedging creates a value premium range of 7.88–8.21 % in the short-run, and 18.81–19.80 % in the long-run. This value premium emerged both after controlling for non-operational foreign exchange profits (losses), and its two components: transaction and translation profits (losses). In contrast, foreign debt hedging, on average, creates a value discount range of 8.19–8.54 % in the short-run and 12.70–13.12 % in the long-run. No evidence shows value effect for operational hedging though. The positive value effect of derivatives hedging should motivate managers of Malaysian multinationals to hedge foreign currency exposure through derivatives and encourage policymakers to take steps in developing derivatives market and products. However, the negative value effect of foreign debt hedging indicates that it destroys value. This negative effect might reflect two potential causes; higher company risk due to FC debt financing, and improper hedging practices including high costs of hedging in the underdeveloped derivatives market. These potential causes need further empirical evaluations.

这项研究考察了2004年至2018年间109个马来西亚跨国公司的样本中，在有管理的浮动汇率制度中严格限制马来西亚林吉特交易的财务和运营对冲的价值影响。使用Tobin Q作为公司价值的代表，两步系统GMM估计结果表明，衍生品对冲平均而言在短期内创造了7.88–8.21％的价值溢价范围，在长期而言创造了18.81–19.80％的价值溢价范围。 -跑。该价值溢价是在控制了非营业性外汇利润（亏损）之后才出现的，它包括两个部分：交易和翻译利润（亏损）。相比之下，平均而言，外债对冲在短期内创造了8.19–8.54％的价值折扣范围，在长期内创造了12.70–13.12％的价值折扣范围。但是，没有证据显示运营套期保值的价值效应。衍生品对冲的正值效应应激励马来西亚跨国公司的经理人通过衍生品对冲外汇敞口，并鼓励政策制定者采取步骤发展衍生品市场和产品。但是，外债对冲的负值效应表明它破坏了价值。这种负面影响可能反映了两个潜在原因；由于FC债务融资以及不适当的对冲做法（包括在欠发达的衍生工具市场中进行高额对冲的成本），公司风险更高。这些潜在原因需要进一步的经验评估。外债对冲的负价值效应表明它破坏了价值。这种负面影响可能反映了两个潜在原因；由于FC债务融资以及不适当的对冲做法（包括在欠发达的衍生工具市场中进行高额对冲的成本），公司风险更高。这些潜在原因需要进一步的经验评估。外债对冲的负价值效应表明它破坏了价值。这种负面影响可能反映了两个潜在原因；由于FC债务融资以及不适当的对冲做法（包括在欠发达的衍生工具市场中进行高额对冲的成本），公司风险更高。这些潜在原因需要进一步的经验评估。