MANAGING MARKET PRICE RISKS OUTSIDE OF PURCHASE CONTRACTS

|4-4-2017 | Sjoerd Schneider |

 

As commodity prices have become more volatile over the past decade, many procurement departments have been feeling the need to somehow manage market price risks. The most frequently used strategy to mitigate commodity price risks by such departments is using physical purchase contracts: fixing prices over a long term horizon. However, there are more subtle and dynamic ways to manage price risks, which can lead to significant savings and tactical advantages. These can be achieved when dedicated market price specialists get involved.

Market price risks

Product specialists and buyers are well aware of all specifics concerning their products but are often not skilled in managing market price risks. Nevertheless it often happens that they are the ones in charge of mitigating market price risks in the form of negotiating the pricing paragraphs within purchase contracts.

There are several reasons why having buyers in charge of mitigating price risks merely through purchase contracts is not optimal:

  1. Buyers often don’t have the expertise to assess whether the premium charged for fixing prices is decent
  2. Buyers don’t have the right overview of company-wide commodity risks. When one buyer micro manages his exposures within purchase contracts that does not mean overall risks are managed optimally
  3. The counterparty in a physical deal might know that the buyer doesn’t have other means of fixing prices. This leads to a weakened negotiating position regarding the overall contract.

Mitigate FX risk

To draw the parallel to a traditional treasury issue: when a European company is a buyer of American machinery and services, would it be the buyer fixing the USD rate with the suppliers’ sales team for just that deal? That would not be the optimal strategy to mitigate FX risk. Hence the same counts for commodity price risks. Hedging through the supplier (let alone by the buyer) should never be the only available option. Literally having more options on the table to mitigate price risks than just asking suppliers for long term fixed prices gives substantial benefits:

  • Flexibility:
    • being able to hedge at any moment, without having to request or consult the supplier
    • after a price decrease it might be interesting to fix prices for a much longer term than purchase contracts usually stretch
  • Savings:
    • not paying too much premium to the supplier for executing hedges or for taking over price risks
    • having a larger pool of potential suppliers as there is no longer a requirement for them to sell at fixed prices

Conclusion

Companies of any size should investigate how large their potential savings could be and how much the increased flexibility will help them. The advantages should outweigh the time and manpower that need to be invested.

Sjoerd Schneider

Founder of Insposure

 

 

 

 

More articles from this author:

Commodity price risks deserve a spot within treasury management

 

Commodity price risks deserve a spot within Treasury Management

| 26-09-2016 | Sjoerd Schneider |

artikel2609

Market price risks traditionally managed by a central Treasury department cover company-wide interest rates and currency risks. Commodity price risks have many of the same characteristics, however only few companies manage these risks within Treasury. Shouldn’t commodity price risks also be addressed by a central Treasury department?

Commodities are typically handled and processed throughout multiple departments, resulting in their price risks also being run in many different sections and locations. These risks are consequently almost always initially managed locally. When production companies centralize their Procurement departments, central management of price risks often follows within a few years.

The question for production companies without a dedicated Trading department is whether commodity price risk management belongs to Procurement or to central Treasury? Treasury classically lacks insight knowledge of commodities, but does have a company-wide view on price risks. In contrast, Procurement is far better informed on commodities but less on market prices. In any case, either part of the company will need to invest in building expertise.

Many mid-sized and large production companies I have spoken to in recent years have chosen to add risk management to their Procurement department. The main reason is keeping know-how of commodities close to the associated (purchase) contracts. The main drawback of this construction on the other hand is that these price risks are managed in a different place and possibly with a different strategy than interest rate and currency risks.

Managing highly correlated comparable risks in separate departments will lead to sub-optimal behavior: inefficiency, incorrect risk (VaR) numbers, inferior hedges and possibly even contrary hedges. For example, a separate approach to a USD position and a Copper position for a EUR based company would result in different hedges than a combined centrally managed approach. That is why, from a portfolio perspective, I strongly recommend funneling all market price risks to one central Treasury department. Diversification effects will be fully appreciated when all positions are managed as one portfolio. To be successful it is essential to create continuous interaction between the treasurers and purchasers: Treasury shall need to be much more embedded in the business than they are accustomed to.

When all price risks are managed centrally and internal collaboration is optimized, the company shall reap its rewards by having one single source of full insight into its exposures and by being able to swiftly manage all of them. This will lead to enhanced risk management and lower overall transaction costs.

sjoerdschneider150x150

 

Sjoerd Schneider

Founder of Insposure