Exchange rate exposure : do size and foreign operations matter?

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of firm size and foreign operations on the exchange rate exposure of UK non-financial companies from January 1981 to December 2001. Design/methodology/approach – The impact of the unexpected changes in exchange rates on firms’ stock returns is examined. In addition, the movements in bilateral, equally weighted (EQW) and trade-weighted and exchange rate indices are considered. The sample is classified according to firm size and the extent of firms’ foreign operations. In addition, structural changes on the relationship between exchange rate changes and individual firms’ stock returns are examined over three sub-periods: before joining the exchange rate mechanism (pre-ERM), during joining the ERM (in-ERM), and after departure from the ERM (post-ERM). Findings – The findings indicate that a higher percentage of UK firms are exposed to contemporaneous exchange rate changes than those reported in previous studies. UK firms’ stock returns are more affected by changes in the EQW, and US$ European currency unit exchange rate, and respond less significantly to the basket of 20 countries’ currencies relative to the UK pound exchange rate. It is found that exchange rate exposure has a more significant impact on stock returns of the large firms compared with the small and medium-sized companies. The evidence is consistent across all specifications using different exchange rate. The results provide evidence that the proportion of significant foreign exchange rate exposure is higher for firms which generate a higher percentage of revenues from abroad. The sensitivities of firms’ stock returns to exchange rate fluctuations are most evident in the pre-ERM and post-ERM periods. Practical implications – This study provides important implications for public policymakers, financial managers and investors on how common stock returns of various sectors react to exchange rate fluctuations. Originality/value – The empirical evidence supports the view that UK firms’ stock returns are affected by foreign exchange rate exposure.

Why critical pedagogy and popular education matter today

Few today doubt that English Higher Education (HE), like the wider world in which it is located, is in crisis. This is, in part, an economic crisis, as the government response to the current recession seems to be that of introducing the kind of neoliberal ‘shock doctrine’ (Klein 2007) or ‘shock therapy’ (Harvey 2005) that previously resulted in swingeing cuts in public services in Southern nations. Our aim in producing this volume is that these contributions help develop a collective response to the seeming limits of these conditions. We view the strength of these contributions in part as providing palpable evidence of how we and our colleagues are acting with critical hope under current conditions so that we might encourage others to work with us to build, together, more progressive formal and informal education systems that address and seek to redress multiple injustices of the world today.

A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

OBJECTIVES: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. RESULTS: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.