We examine the valuation effect of foreign currency (FC) debt financing, relative to local currency (LC) debt financing. Employing extensive data from Korean firms during 2002–2012, we document strong evidence that firms using FC debt financing have significantly lower values than firms using LC debt financing. Even during the pre‐global financial crisis period when the LC value appreciated, we find no evidence of a higher firm value associated with FC debt financing. Further analyses on the possible causes of the negative association of FC debt and firm value reject the conjecture of higher firm risk resulting from the usage of FC debt but lend empirical support for the inefficiency in hedging by Korean firms. While the heavy usages of currency derivatives by Korean firms with FC debt financing lead to lower firm risk, such usages fail to generate higher firm values mainly due to their inefficient and improper hedging with currency derivatives. Our empirical results remain robust to different model and sample specifications.
We offer new evidence that firm‐level determinants of foreign currency (FC) and local currency (LC) debt financing differ significantly. While LC debt financing is affected mainly by demand‐side borrower incentives, such as operating profitability, financing deficit, and depreciation expenses that reflect borrowers' capital needs, FC debt financing is affected mostly by supply‐side lender incentives, such as tangible assets, firm size, asset growth, and R&D expenses, which FC debt lenders consider in assessing the potential value of collateral, in addition to the widely‐reported export ratio. Our results remain robust in the presence of macro‐level factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.