We provide new evidence on the determinants of corporate derivatives use by studying how markets respond to announcements of changes in derivatives positions by gold-mining firms. Announcements of increases or decreases in derivatives positions are associated with, respectively, negative or positive reactions in equity prices for both the announcing firm and other gold-mining firms, and, respectively, negative or positive reactions in the gold market. The reactions in the gold market and stock market (both firm and industry) are significantly more positive or negative, respectively, when firms explicitly state that they are decreasing or increasing derivatives positions due to changes in their market views of future gold prices. We help bridge an important gap in the literature by providing evidence consistent with some firms possessing credible private information that underlies changes in their derivatives positions, despite the absence of documented shareholder benefits created by firms that engage in selective hedging. Our findings also provide support for distress-cost minimization as a rationale for corporate derivatives use.

We examine whether managerial overconfidence can help explain the observed discrepancies between the theory and practice of corporate risk management. We use a unique dataset of corporate derivatives positions that enables us to directly observe managerial reactions to their (speculative) gains and losses from market timing when they use derivatives. We find that managers increase their speculative activities using derivatives following speculative cash flow gains, while they do not reduce their speculative activities following speculative losses. This asymmetric response is consistent with the selective self-attribution associated with overconfidence. Our time series approach to measuring overconfidence complements cross-sectional approaches currently used in the literature. Our results show that managerial overconfidence, which has been found to influence a number of corporate decisions, also affects corporate risk management decisions.

We show how a high degree of commonality in investor liquidity shocks can diminish incentives for intermediaries to keep markets open and lead to market collapse, even without information asymmetry or news affecting fundamentals. We motivate our model using the perpetual floating-rate note market where two years of explosive growth – in which issues by high quality borrowers were placed with institutional investors and traded in a liquid secondary market – were followed by a precipitous collapse when market intermediaries withdrew due to large order imbalances. We shed new light on the trade-off between ownership concentration and market liquidity.

We study the mutual relationships between institutional ownership, analyst following and share prices. We show that the pressure on firms to set lower share prices to attract analysts is attenuated by institutional monitoring. Our theory refutes the assumed causal relation between share price and institutional ownership, attributed to the share price–liquidity relation, and we show empirically that share prices and institutional ownership are positively related after controlling for liquidity. Our study provides a rationale for why better firms generally maintain higher share price levels, and offers new insights into the puzzling empirical linkages observed between nominal share price levels and firm fundamentals.

The widespread practice of managers speculating by incorporating their market views into firms’ hedging programs (“selective hedging”) remains a puzzle. Using a 10-year sample of North American gold mining firms, we find no evidence that selective hedging is more prevalent among firms that are believed to possess an information advantage. In contrast, we find strong evidence that selective hedging is more prevalent among financially constrained firms, suggesting that this practice is driven by asset substitution motives. We detect weak relationships between selective hedging and some corporate governance measures but find no evidence of a link between selective hedging and managerial compensation.