2010-58
Bank-Firm Relationship and the Use of
Derivatives in Japan
Tadanori Yosano

I Wayan Nuka Lantara

BANK-FIRM RELATIONSHIP AND THE USE OFDERIVATIVES IN JAPANTADANORI YOSANO1I WAYAN NUKA LANTARA2

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we examine the association between bank-firm relationship andthe use of derivatives, in term of decision to use or not to use derivatives as wellas the extent of derivatives usage. We employ samples of non-financial
companies listed in NIKKEI 225 index from 2005-2009. Using probit
regression test, we find that bank-firm relationship and firm’s size positively
induce the decision to use derivatives. Meanwhile, using tobit regression test,
the result indicate that bank-firm relationship, firm’s size, leverage and dividend
yield positively influence the magnitude of derivatives usage. The findings ofour paper provide an empirical support for the hypothesis of Hakenes (2004)
which argues that bank-firm relationship will benefit firm not only as thesources to grant loan, but also as delegated risk manager which could assist thefirm in designing the appropriate hedging instrument.
Keywords: Bank-firm relationship, Derivatives, Hedging.

1. Background
There are three main motivations for using derivatives as follows: 1) hedge thefirms' market and currency exposure to risk 2) internal budgeting to enhance the firms'
performance metrics 3) market position speculation and attempts to gain excess returns
from the firm’s non-business activities. Stulz (2004) insists that firms use derivatives

1

Associate Professor of Accounting, Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Japan.
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia, and PhD Student of Graduate
School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Japan.

2primarily for hedging with reference to the finding of Guay and Kothari (2003). Guay
and Kothari show evidence that firms can reduce the market position volatility by 5%,interest rate exposure by 22% and the foreign exchange exposure by 11%. Therefore, wewould like to focus on the first motivation for hedging, specifically the factors that havethe possibility to influence the firm's decision to use derivatives to hedge against risk.
Previous empirical research has been conducted to assess the determinants that
can influence a firm's decision to use derivatives as a hedging strategy. Most of theprevious research 3 focuses on the firm's characteristics, such as the economies of scale(firm's size), financial cost variable (leverage and liquidity), growth opportunity (MBTV,
dividend payout), and control mechanisms (insider ownership, board of directors'
composition). However, there is still no empirical evidence exploring and supporting
other factors, such as the influence of the creditor (banks) in the firms’ derivative usage
decisions.
This study follows the Hakenes (2004) model concerning the association between
the bank-firm relationship and the firm's decision to use or not to use hedging instruments.
In his model, banks are argued as playing not only a traditional loan granter role, but alsoa delegated risk manager role because they are a source of consultation when firms are
threatened by bankruptcy. As a risk manager, banks help firms create a customized
hedging design. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that the better the bank-firm
relationship, the more likely the firm will be to hedge risk through derivatives. Hence,
this study is expected to present empirical evidence to support the connection between
bank-firm relationships and the use of derivatives.

3

See for instance: Alkeback and Algelin (1999), Bartram et al. (2009), Berkman and Bradburry (1996),
Borokovich et al. (2004), Brown et al. (2001), Guay and Khotari (2003), and Nguyen and Paff (2002).

2

Derivatives are increasingly used to mitigate risk for firms around the world.
According to the ISDA survey (2003), 92% of the world’s 500 largest companies use
derivative instruments to manage and predominantly hedge their risks. Among the 500
largest companies, 91% of the 89 Japanese companies reported to employ derivatives.
The most recent survey by ISDA (2009) even show that 100% of Japanese companies
included in the world’s 500 largest companies used derivatives.
If we focus on the sample firms that comprise the Nikkei 225, the derivative
usage level increased from 50% in 2005 to 63% in 2008 in reaction to an increase infirms’ risk exposure. Japanese firm risk exposure has dramatically increased since 2000.
The stock, credit, and currency market has had a great volatility especially since 2007
when the credit crisis was triggered by Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.
Japan is well known for their unique business system. One of the most specificcharacteristics of the Japanese economy is the close relationship between firms and banks.
In this system, the banks play two main roles: 1) as a primary lender, and 2) as theshareholder of the firm (Aoki and Patrick, 1994).
The widespread institutional ownership of Japanese companies is also interesting.
Prowse (1992) shows that the percentages of equity held by institutions in Japan are
67.3%, while only 37.7% in the U.S. In addition, in contrast to the situation in the U.S.,
financial institutions in Japan are commonly both major debt holders and equity-holders.
Chow and Chen (1998) argue that by playing double roles, lending institutions have twocontradictory effects on stockholder wealth. There will be a negative effect, because
lending institutions try to maximize the value of their debt holdings. On the other hand,3there is also a positive effect since they also control the activities of corporate managers
in the direction of long-term growth and profitability.
Japanese firms with specific shareholder characteristics can be categorized as two
main types: stable investors and market investors (Gerlach, 1992). Stable investors are
typically domestic institutions who own shares, because they want stable commercial
relationships rather than focusing on investment returns. Meanwhile market investors aremostly foreign institutions who are more motivated to gain returns. In 1999, stable
investors, represented by main banks, were in control of approximately 38% of the equity
in Japanese firms (NLI Research Institute, 2002).
Stable investors own shares as a means to stabilize commercial relationships
rather than to earn returns on investments (Clark, 1979; Gerlach, 1992). Therefore, whenstable investors assign outside directors, it is with the objective of protecting theircommercial relationships. Because a firm’s or a bank’s commercial relationship is
impacted by its cash flows, which are the result of its business strategies, outside
directors can stabilize a firm’s relationships by influencing its strategies (Prowse, 1992;
Gerlach, 1992; Kaplan and Minton, 1994).
Considering the unique characteristics of Japanese companies, this study
investigate the association between bank-firm relationships. Firstly, it is necessary to
determine whether or not firms use derivatives to hedge risky investment, and if so, towhat extent or magnitude are these derivatives relied upon. This study will investigate theassociation by using samples of non-financial Japanese companies listed in the NIKKEI
225 from 2005-2009. The study will also employ control variables, such as size, leverage,4

price to book value, dividend yield, and insider ownership, that have been tested byprevious researchers.

2. Objectives of the Study
Most of the previous researches studying the determinants for derivative usage
have tried to approach the subject from the many firm specific variables, such as
corporate governance structure, managerial ownership structure, and firm's financial
attributes like size, leverage, dividend yield, and market-to-book value. However, it
seems that the association between bank-firm relationships and the use of derivatives has
not yet been studied in the case of Japan.
One of the most unique characteristics of Japanese business is the relatively
strong connection between Japanese firms and Japanese banks, which function as bothlenders and equity holders. As one of the financing sources for firms, Japanese banks are
put into both a lender and stockholder position capable of a strong governing presencewith access to the firm's financial information. Therefore, it can very easily be assumed
that the banks are in a position to influence firm decisions, including the choice to use
derivatives. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the association between
bank-firm relationships and the use of derivatives within Japanese companies.

3. Related Literature and the Development of a Hypothesis
Firms need to manage risk appropriately in order to mitigate risk and improvetheir performance. According to Stulz (1996), the main rationale for risk management isto minimize the risk of huge losses which can lead the firm into bankruptcy. Therefore,
the application of risk management should increase with the value of the firm. Empirical5

studies indicate that hedging activities that use derivatives have a positive impact on the
firm's value.
Smith and Stulz (1985) argue that risk management increases a firm's value forthe following three reasons: (1) tax deductibility (2) mitigation of financial distress costs,
and (3) increased firm performance directly as a result of management aversion throughderivatives and mitigated risks. Froot et al. (1993) argue that the imperfections of thecapital market make external financing more expensive compared to internally generated
funds. Derivative usage shows investors that risk exposure is being controlled, whichtranslates into a strong bargaining power for raising funds from external financial
institutions.
Nguyen and Paff (2002) conducted an empirically based study with a sample
comprised of Australian companies to test various factors that might have an influence onderivative usage. Their findings indicate that some independent variables, such as
leverage (financial distress proxy) and size (financial distress and set up costs) have asignificant positive influence on the extent to which derivatives are used. The findings ofBrown (2001), Core et al. (2002), Guay and Kothari (2003) indicate that risk
management is influenced by the manager's non-diversified personal position. They
conclude that the larger the managerial ownership the greater the motivation for
managers to use derivatives to hedge against risk.
Meanwhile, the effect of a bank-firm relationship on a firm’s performance andrisk has been studied for years by many researchers (Fok, et al. 2004). Lenders haveseveral options for gathering borrower information. Banks can require potential
borrowers to submit loan applications which naturally will provide specific financial

6information. If the borrower's financial information is not reliable or insufficient to judge
their future potential, lenders will likely access the borrower's proprietary information
through their interpersonal relationship with the potential borrower4.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the bank-firm relationship. On thebright side, bank-firm relationships are expected to help lenders avoid high information
costs incurred from public debt offerings (Fama, 1985). Furthermore, Yosha (1995) also
argues that bank-firm relationships reduce the risk of information being leaked to rival
firms, and thereby keeping disclosure costs low which can be translated into improved
firm performance. Another advantage of bank-firm relationships is their monitoring
abilities. The more credit a bank offers, the greater the degree of bank supervision overborrowers. Bank monitoring can mitigate asset substitution and underinvestment
problems, while increasing the value of the firm.
Bank-firm relationships also allow firms to establish a good reputation, which canhelp reduce their capital cost and increase their available credit line. If the firm can createa tight relationship with a well reputed bank, then the firm has the opportunity to reduce
its capital cost and expand its credit availability. Sharpe (1990) and Boot (2000) suggestthat banks provide borrowers with valuable flexibility in loan renegotiations.
However, bank-firm relationships are also accompanied by some disadvantages.
Morck et.al (2000) explores bank-firm relationship in Japan in order to investigate thecost and benefit of relationship between main bank and firm. They argue that since mainbanks function as last resort lenders for firms, it will put the main bank to have greater

4

Elyasiani and Goldber (2004) found a heavy reliance on interpersonal relationships when they evaluatedthe potential borrower.

7

incentives to bail out the firms when they are financially distressed. This situation will bevery reluctant to trigger the moral hazard, which could put the firms into higher risk.
A variety of arguments have been advanced from a predominantly neo-classicalperspective suggesting that the bank-firm relationship in Japan is also inefficient. The
relationship between main bank and firms (or so called Keiretsu) entrench management
and generate competitive pressures on member firms. They also restrict the ability ofmember firms to access efficient open capital markets and open supply markets (Morckand Nakamura, 1999). Accordingly, the negative side of bank-firm relationshippresumably can put firms with higher risk. The higher the risk faced by firms will thentrigger the firm to use more derivatives to mitigate the risk.
One of the most controversial perspectives regarding the bank-firm relationshipis depicted by Hakenes (2004), who argued that bank-firm relationships traditionallyoccur when banks grant loans to firms, and thereby also taking on the risk of bankruptcy
for firms. Hakenes’s (2004) proposal calls for a model where the role of the bank is not
only as a lender to firms, but also as a delegated risk advisor and insurer. The double rolemeans that banks provide consultation for coping with financial hardships and custom
design hedging tools against risk facing firms. Following the Hakenes (2004) model, we
predict that the stronger the bank-firm relationship, the more likely the firm will be to use
derivatives as a hedging activity. Therefore, our first hypothesis of this study is asfollows:
H1: There is a positive association between the strength of the bank-firm relationshipand the use of derivatives.

8

Empirical research done by Berkman and Bradbury (1996), and Guay and Kothari(2003), plus survey research done by Prevost et al. (2000) conclude that larger companies
are more likely to use derivative over smaller companies. The main argument supporting
this phenomenon is the existence of economies-of-scale only available to large firms who
are more likely to use derivatives, because of their more dispensable budget. The cost touse derivatives is considered a fixed cost, and only larger companies tend to have asufficient amount of capital to cover the cost. Thus, the second hypothesis of this study is
as follows:
H2: There is a positive association between firm size and the use of derivatives.
Nguyen and Paff (2002) state that as leverage use increases so will the total riskthat threatens the company. The rise in risk levels also translates into an increase infinancial distress costs which fall onto investors’ shoulders. From an investor’s
perspective, a huge loss resulting from risk exposure is an extra cost that should havebeen hedged properly. One method of hedging against risk is through derivatives.
Berkman et al. (2002) state that all other things being equal, a high leverage ratio ishighly correlated with an increased probability that the firm will encounter financial
distress. As a result, highly leveraged firms are more motivated to use derivatives toreduce the risk of distress. Therefore, the increased leverage tends to boost the use ofderivatives, as stated in the following hypothesis:
H3: There is a positive association between firms leverage and their frequency using
derivatives.

9Mian (1996) and Nguyen and Paff (2002) use dividend yields as another signifierof increased derivative usage to create a hedging effect. They argue that if a firm chooses
a high dividend payout policy (relative to other firms in the same industry), then it showsthat the firm not under liquidity constraints and predicted to hedge more. A high dividend
yield is a signal of financial slack, and therefore, a high dividend yielding company ismore likely have the financial slack necessary to support derivative usage for hedging
risk. The hypothesized relationship between derivative usage and dividends is therefore
positive leading to the fourth hypothesis of our study:
H4: There is a positive association between dividend yields and the use of derivatives
within firms.
The value of a company can be reflected in the appreciation of its market value,
proxied by the price to book value (PBV). PBV is also a reflection of the firm’s growthpotential. Nguyen and Paff (2002) indicate that the higher the PBV of a company, thegreater their financial capability to undertake investment. Additionally, the findings of
Geczy, et al. (1997) indicate that the growth potential of sample Fortune 500 firms has apositive association to the use of derivatives. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis of this study
is as follows:
H5: There is a positive association between the price to book value and the use ofderivatives.
The findings of Brown (2001), Core et.al. (2002), and Guay and Kothari (2003)
indicate that risk management can be influenced by the managerial non-diversified bias,
but non-diversified investments expose the firm to high risk yet high return business..

10

Therefore, large managerial ownerships, where the manager's present and future wealth isdirectly attached to the company's performance, are generally motivated to use
derivatives as a hedging method converting a high risk-high return investment into a highrisk-low return opportunity. According to Stulz (1996), when managers hedge
excessively, the results will be inconsistent with the value maximization. Hence, the lasthypothesis of this study is as follows:
H6: There is a positive association between a firm’s proportion of managerial ownershipand their use of derivatives.

4. Research Methodology
The study uses a sample consisting of non-financial firms listed in the NIKKEI
225 June 2009. The NIKKEI 225 is the most frequently quoted average of Japaneseequities from selected companies in various industries. From the start, we excluded 21
companies of the total 225 companies listed in NIKKEI 225, because they belong to thefinancial sector. Consequently, we were left with 204 non-financial companies as asample for our study. We observed the 204 firm sample over five consecutive years(2005-2009) totaling 1,020 firm-year observations.
We chose to focus only on non-financial firms, because financial firms tend tohave different basic characteristics, such as the tendency to use derivatives for bothtrading and hedging. Since financial firms use derivatives for trading as well as hedging,
it becomes difficult to isolate the purpose for the derivatives, and henceforth, financial
firms have been excluded from our sample study. The data for this study is obtained fromthe NEEDS-Financial Quest 2.0 and AOL databases.

11

Two types of regression models were used to test the aforementioned hypotheses.
The first is the probit regression model, which is used to examine the empirical effect of
the bank-firm relationship with other independent variables on the decision to use
derivatives. In this model we used a dummy variable, where 1 equaled the company using
derivatives and 0 when they did not, for the dependent variable. Secondly, we also used
the tobit regression model to test the extent (magnitude) that the bank-firm relationshipwith other independent variables had on derivative usage. The extent (magnitude) towhich firms used derivatives in this study is indicated by: (1) the natural logarithm of thetotal value of derivatives, and (2) the ratio of the total value of derivatives scaled to thetotal market value of equity. The Probit and Tobit regression models can be expressed as
the following model:
DER = α + β1BANK + β2SIZE +β3LEV + β4DIV + β5MBR +β7MANOWN + ε
XDER = α + β1BANK + β2SIZE +β3LEV + β4DIV + β5MBR +β7MANOWN + ε
Where:DER =XDER=
BANK =
SIZE =
LEV =
DIV =
MBR =
MANOWN =α=β=ε=

Decision to use derivatives
The extent to which derivatives are used
Bank-firm Relationship
Firm’s size
Leverage ratio
Dividend yield
Market Price to Book ValueManagerial ownership
Intercept
Coefficient of parameters
Residual Error

Independent variables used in this study consist of bank-firm relationships
previously outlined in Hypothesis 1, and other control variables described in Hypotheses122-6, all of which are predicted to hold a certain amount of influence over derivative usage.
We use seven indicators as proxies for bank-firm relationships, which are as follows: (1)a dummy variable where one is equal to firms with multiple-bank-firm relationships(MBFR), and zero is equal to any otherwise situation; (2) the natural logarithm of thetotal number of banks (LNTB); (3) the ratio of total bank loans to total liabilities(TBLTL); (4) the ratio of main bank loans to total loans (MBLTL), (5) the ratio of mainbank loans to total liabilities (MBLTLS); (6) the percentage of the firms share owned by
the main bank (MBOWN); and (7) the total percentage of the firms share owned bybanks (TBOWN).
We also controlled certain variables, such as firm size (SIZE), the ratio of total
liabilities to total assets (LEV), the market-to-book ratio (MBR), and the extent of the
managerial ownership (MANOWN). In reviewing past empirical studies, these control
variables have been found to be as important as other test variable in explaining the useof derivatives. The following table organizes the variable definitions along with the
expected relationship between the dependent and independent variables:

Table 1
Definitions of Variables and Expected Outcomes
Variable
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Decision to use derivatives (DER)
Extent of derivative usage(XDER)

Expected
sign

Proxy

Dummy variable; 1 = firm lends moneyfrom more than one bank, and 0 =otherwise.
 Natural Logarithm of total value ofderivatives
 Total value of derivatives scaled to thetotal market value of equity

13

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
1. Multiple bank-firm
relationships (MBFR)
2. Natural logarithm of the total
number of banks (LNTB)
3. Total bank loans against total
liabilities (TBLTL)
4. Main bank loan against totalloans (MBLTL)
5. Main bank loan against total
liabilities (MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership(MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership(TBOWN)
8. Firm Size (SIZE)-

Dummy variable; 1=firm uses only one
main bank, and 0=otherwise.
Natural logarithm of total number of banks.

+

Ratio of total bank loans to total liabilities.

+

Ratio of main bank loans to total loans frombanks and other financial institutions.
Ratio of main bank loans to total liabilities.

+++

9. Leverage (LEV)+10 Dividend yield (DIV)+

11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)+

12. Managerial Ownership(MANOWN)+

Percentage of the firms share owned by themain bank.
Total percentage of the firms share owned
by banks.
Natural logarithm of the sum of the equity
market value and the debt’s book value.
Ratio of total liabilities scaled by total assets
Dividend per share divided by stock market
price.
Ratio of the market value equity to the bookvalue of equity.
Ratio of the number of shares held by firm
directors and officers to the total number ofshares issued.

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the entire sample, and the subgroups of derivative users and non-users. We utilized the Mann-Whitney test in order toexamine the difference between each independent variable’s mean value for derivative
users and non-users. The results indicate that the mean values for the derivative using
sample tend to be significantly more engaged with the main bank-firm relationshipcompared to non-derivative users. Derivative users also tend to have higher dividend
yields and market-to-book ratios than non-derivative users.

14

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and mean differences
Mean

SD Minimum Maximum

Meandifference

A. TOTAL SAMPLES (N=1,020)
1. Multiple bank-firm relationships(MBFR)
2. Number of bank-firm relationships(LNUM)
3. Total bank loans to total liabilities(BLTLS)
4. Main bank loans to total loans(MBLTLN)
5. Main bank loans to total liabilities(MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership (MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership (TBOWN)
8. Firm Size (SIZE)
9. Leverage (LEV)
10. Dividend yield (DIV)
11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)
12. Managerial ownership (MANOWN)
B. USER OF DERIVATIVES (N=571)
1. Multiple bank-firm relationships(MBFR)
2. Number of bank-firm relationships(LNUM)
3. Total bank loans to total liabilities(BLTLS)
4. Main bank loans to total loans(MBLTLN)
5. Main bank loans to total liabilities(MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership (MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership (TBOWN)
8. Firm Size (SIZE)
9. Leverage (LEV)
10. Dividend yield (DIV)
11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)
12. Managerial ownership (MANOWN)

0.03

0.18

0.00

1.00

-2.33**

1.52

0.85

0.00

3.85

-2.98*

0.09

0.10

0.00

0.54

-1.063

0.17

0.14

0.00

0.88

-12.98*

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.33

-6.37*

0.02
0.19
14.08
0.59
0.02
2.71
0.01

0.02
0.08
1.16
0.18
0.01
11.26
0.03

0.00
0.00
11.42
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.00

0.05
0.49
18.49
0.93
0.12
206.72
0.32

-0.08
-0.06
-9.97*-2.73*-1.37-0.05-5.36*

MeanSD

Minimum Maximum

0.04

0.21

0.00

1.00

0.65

0.30

0.00

1.57

0.09

0.09

0.00

0.53

0.21

0.14

0.00

0.85

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.33

0.02
0.20
14.39
0.60
0.02
3.20
.004

0.01
0.07
1.15
0.17
0.01
14.63
0.03

0.00
0.00
11.48
0.15
0.00
0.14
0.00

0.05
0.47
18.49
0.93
0.12
206.720.32

15

C. NON-USER OF DERIVATIVES(N=449)
1. Multiple bank-firm relationships(MBFR)
2. Number of bank-firm relationships(LNUM)
3. Total bank loans to total liabilities(BLTLS)
4. Main bank loans to total loans(MBLTLN)
5. Main bank loans to total liabilities(MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership (MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership (TBOWN)
8. Firm Size (SIZE)
9. Leverage (LEV)
10. Dividend yield (DIV)
11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)
12. Managerial ownership (MANOWN)

Mean

SD

Minimum Maximum

0.02

0.13

0.00

1.00

0.67

0.44

0.00

1.67

0.10

0.11

0.00

0.54

0.11

0.11

0.00

0.88

0.03

0.04

0.00

0.19

0.02
0.19
13.68
0.57
0.02
2.09
0.006

0.02
0.08
1.05
0.19
0.01
3.94
0.03

0.00
0.00
11.42
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.00

0.05
0.49
17.54
0.93
0.10
58.92
0.27

* Statistically significant at a 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Statistically significant at a 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Definition of variables is provided in Table 1.

5. Empirical Analysis
We performed the Crosstab test in order to investigate derivative usage patterns
according to the year during the sample period, and the specific industry aligned with thefirm. As shown in Figure 1 of Table 3, the participation rate in derivative usage increases
from 50% in 2005 to 62.3% in 2008, only to decrease to 60.8% by 2009. When we
observe the whole sample period (2005-2009), the average percentage of derivative users
is 56%.
Amongst all industries of the sample, the electrical machinery category makes thelargest contribution to the average of derivative users with a total of 29 firms (N=145).
Additionally, as can be seen in Table 3, three industries, including oil and coal product,
shipbuilding, precision instrument, and trading companies have the highest derivative16

usage rates (100% of the sub-sample). Meanwhile, industries with the least amount ofparticipation in derivatives (0%) are: mining, other land transports, and air transport.
Figure 1
Participation Rate of Derivatives Use 2005-2009
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2005-2009

Table 3
Crosstab of user and non-user of derivatives
User of derivatives

Non-user of derivatives

YEAR
2005 (N=204)
2006 (N=204)
2007 (N=204)
2008 (N=204)
2009 (N=204)
2005-2009 (N=1,020)

102 (50.0%)
105 (51.5%)
113 (55.4%)
127 (62.3%)
124 (60.8%)571 (56.0%)

102 (50.0%)
99 (48.5%)
91 (44.6%)
77 (37.7%)
80 (39.2%)
449 (44.0%)

36 (65.5%)
21 (60.0%)
4 (20.0%)34 (45.3%)
21 (52.5%)
15 (100.0%)
9 (90%)
22 (55.0%)

19 (34.5%)
14 (40.0%)
16 (80.0%)41 (54.7%)
19 (47.5%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
18 (45.0%)

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION
1. Foods (N = 55; 5.4%)
2. Textiles and Apparel (N = 35; 3.4%)
3. Pulp and Paper (N = 20; 2.0%)
4. Chemicals (N = 75; 7.4%)
5. Pharmaceutical (N = 40; 3.9%)
6. Oil and coal products (N = 15; 1.5%)
7. Rubber Products (N = 10; 1.0%)
8. Glass and Ceramics (N = 40; 3.9%)17

9. Steel Products (N = 25; 2.5%)
10. Nonferrous Metals (N = 60; 5.9%)
11. Machinery (N = 75; 7.4%)
12. Electric Machinery (N = 145; 14.2%)

13. Shipbuilding (N = 10; 1.0%)
14. Automotive (N = 45; 4.4%)
15. Precision Instruments (N = 30; 2.9%)
16. Other Manufacturing (N = 20; 2.0%)
17. Fishery (N = 10; 1.0%)
18. Mining (N = 5; 0.5%)
19. Construction (N = 40; 3.9%)
20. Trading Companies (N = 40; 3.9%)
21. Retail (N = 40; 3.9%)
22. Real Estate (N = 25; 2.5%)
23. Railway/Bus (N = 35; 3.4%)
24. Other Land Transport (N = 10; 1.0%)
25. Marine Transport (N = 15; 1.5%)
26. Air Transport (N = 5; 0.5%)
27. Warehousing (N = 5; 0.5%)
28. Communication (N = 25; 2.5%)
29. Electric Power (N = 15; 1.5%)
30. Gas (N = 10; 1.0%)
31. Services (N = 40; 3.9%)

15 (60.0%)32 (53.3%)
47 (62.7%)
100 (69.0%)
10 (100.0%)
28 (62.2%)
30 (100.0%)
10 (50.0%)
2 (20.0%)0 (0%)
19 (47.5%)
40 (100.0%)
10 (25.0%)
4 (16.0%)
5 (14.3%)
0 (0%)
10 (66.7%)
0 (0%)
3 (60.0%)
15 (60.0%)
7 (46.7%)
7 (70.0%)
15 (37.5%)

10 (40.0%)28 (46.7%)
28 (37.3%)
45 (31.0%)
0 (0%)
17 (37.8%)
0 (0%)
10 (50.0%)8 (80.0%)
5 (100%)21 (52.5%)
0 (0%)
30 (75.0%)
21 (84.0%)30 (85.7%)
10 (100%)
5 (33.3%)
5 (100%)2 (40.0%)
10 (40.0%)
8 (53.3%)
3 (30.0%)25 (62.5%)

5.1. The decision to use derivatives
Our first analysis focuses on which of the firm’s characteristics are influential on
the manager’s decision to use derivatives or not. We utilized a probit regression toqualify the influence of bank-firm relationships and other variables, and determine
whether or not the firm’s managers choose to use derivatives. We used a dummy variable
as the proxy of the dependent variable for derivative usage, where one represents aderivative user, and zero represents non-users.
Our results from the probit regression test are shown in Table 4. We found threebank-firm characteristics, amongst all 7 tested categories, with a significant sign of18

influence. We found a negative sign, at 1% significance level, for the number of banks(LNTB), a positive sign with a 10% significance level for the main bank loan against
total loans (MBLTL), and a positive sign for the main bank loans against total liabilities(MBLTLS) ratio at 5% significance level, all of which are in line with Hypothesis 1.
These three results strongly support the bank-firm relationship influence on derivative
usage first introduced by Hakenes (2004).
Other revealing variables that help to quantify derivative decision to use
derivatives are firm size (SIZE), dividend yield (DIV), and market-to-book ratio (MBTV).
As expected from hypothesis 2, firm size significantly induces the use of derivatives. In
other words, the larger the company, the more likely derivatives will be used to hedge
against risk. This result is consistent with the findings of Prevost et al. (2000), andNguyen and Paff (2003) who have previously concluded that larger companies are more
likely to use derivatives compared to smaller companies.
The results of the dividend yield are also in line with Hypothesis 4. Our results
indicate that the dividend yield has a positive association with the decision to use
derivatives; the higher the firm’s dividend yield, the greater the need for the firm toengage with derivatives. Our results are also consistent with the findings of Nguyen andPaff (2002) in Australia, although their findings were contradictory to their paper’s
hypothesis.
This result is more consistent with Mian's (1996) findings in the U.S., because healso found an inverse relationship between the market-to-book ratio and the use ofderivatives. We can infer from this study that Japanese manager, ironically, do not tend
to introduce derivatives as a hedging strategy when their company's growth potential is19highly valued in the market. This result suggests that the manager of a highly priced
company tends to be over-confident, and therefore, is less inclined to hedge a risky
investment through derivatives.
Table 4
Probit regression result
Dependent variables

Dummy Derivatives
Expected sign

Coefficientz-statistic

+

0.06
-0.12
-1.09

0.21
-1.84***
-1.53

+

5.10

5.99*

+

4.20

2.11**

+
+
+
+
+
+
+

-4.25
0.56
0.52
0.04
5.57
-0.01
-1.41

-1.33
0.98
9.84*
0.14
1.70***-1.97**-1.31

1. Multiple bank-firm relationship (MULTIB)
2. Number of bank-firm relationship (LNUM)
3. Total bank loan against total liabilities(BLTLS)
4. Main bank loan against total Loans(MBLTLN)
5. Main bank loan against total Liabilities(MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership (MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership (TBOWN)
8. Firms Size (SIZE)
9. Leverage (LEV)
10. Dividend yield (DIV)
11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)
12. Managerial ownership (MANOWN)
Number of observations
LR-Chi square
Pseudo-R2

1,020
179.76*0.24* Statistically significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Statistically significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed).
*** Statistically significant at 0.10 level (two-tailed).
Definition of variables is provided in Table 1.

5.2. The magnitude to which derivatives are used
Our second analysis focuses on the degree of influence each of the firm's
characteristics has upon the magnitude (frequency) of derivative usage. We employed thesame independent variables used in the probit analysis, in order to determine the extent towhich derivatives are used. However, we used two different dependent variables torepresent the magnitude of derivatives used, which are: (1) the natural logarithm of the20total value of derivatives (LNDR), and (2) the ratio of the total value of derivatives
against the total market value of equity (DRMV). Our data is considered to be censored,
because all non-derivative using samples are given an exact value of zero. Therefore, we
can use the tobit regression model, because it accommodates the dependent variable datacharacteristics.
The results of the tobit regression model are summarized in Table 5. They
indicate that, when we use the first proxy (LNDR) as the dependent variable, thecoefficients of the number of banks relationships (LNTB), and the main bank loan against
total loans ratio (MBLTL) show significant signs consistent with Hypothesis 1. They
indicate that when we used the second proxy (DRMV) while controlling the total bankownership with significant negative sign, the coefficient of the main bank loan against
total loans ratio (MBLTL) also has a significant sign consistent with Hypothesis 1.
Therefore, we can conclude that the main bank loan against total loans provides thestrongest explanation, amongst the seven tested bank-firm relationship variables, for thebank-firm relationship influence within our Japanese sample.
In regards to control variables, as shown in rows three to six of Table 5, theresults from both tobit regression tests, whose dependent variables are the LNDR and the
DRMV, support the positive predictions for the firm size (SIZE), leverage (LEV), anddividend yield (DIV) outlined in Hypotheses 2 thru 4. These hypotheses were consistent
with the results of our probit regression shown in Table 4. However, both the firm size
(SIZE) and dividend yield (DIV) have signs that are significant while, the leverage (LEV)
results are not. On the other hand, the result for the market-to-book ratio (MBTV) withrespect to Hypothesis 5 has an opposite or inverse sign contrary to our prediction, but is21

in line with our probit regression findings shown in Table 4. Lastly, we found a negative
coefficient for the managerial ownership variable when we used the DRMV dependent
variable, which is also not in line with Hypothesis 6. This result suggests that a Japanesemanager who owns a large portion of their company’s share is not strongly motivated tohedge risky investments. Therefore, we propose while taking into consideration our bankfirm relationship results that a stronger bank-firm relationship requires management
hedging. The higher the ownership of in-firm management, the lower the motivation tomeet the bank requirements for hedging.
Table 5
Tobit regression result

Dependent variables
1. Multiple bank-firm
relationship (MULTIB)
2. Number of bank-firm
relationship (LNUM)
3. Total bank loan to total
liabilities (BLTLS)
4. Main bank loan to total
Loan Ratio (MBLTLN)
5. Main bank loan to total
Liabilities Ratio (MBLTLS)
6. Main bank ownership(MBOWN)
7. Total bank ownership(TBOWN)
8. Firms Size (SIZE)
9. Leverage (LEV)
10. Dividend yield (DIV)
11. Market-to-book ratio (MBR)
12. Managerial ownership(MANOWN)
Number of observations
LR Chi square

Ln Total Value of
Derivative Value against the
Expected Derivatives (LnDER) Market Value of Equity (DVMVE)
sign-

Coefficient t- statistic
0.61 0.44

Coefficient t- statistic
0.03 0.78

-

-1.75

-2.07**-0.03 -1.18

+

-2.15

-0.61

0.05

+

24.61

12.17*

0.61 10.41*

+

10.99

1.31

-0.37 -1.54+-22.35-1.31-0.66 -1.32

+

3.37

1.05

-0.17 -1.82***

+
+
+
+

3.16
2.87
28.69
-0.06

12.77*
1.88***
1.69***-2.96*

0.05 6.37*
0.22 4.82*
2.45 4.98*-0.001 -1.88***

+

-8.04

-0.95

-0.43 -1.65***

1,020
386.95*

0.53

1,020
243.33*22

Pseudo-R2

0.08

0.54

* Statistically significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
** Statistically significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed).
*** Statistically significant at 0.10 level (two-tailed).
Definition of variables is provided in Table 1.

6. Concluding remarks
In this study, we investigated the association between bank -firm relationships
and the firm’s use of derivatives through two dimensions: (1) the decision to use
derivatives or not, and (2) the extent (magnitude) to which derivatives is used. Using asample of non-financial companies listed in the NIKKEI 225 index from 2005-2009, wewere able to evaluate our 6 hypotheses through two types of regression models: the probit
regression model and tobit regression model.
Our findings provide empirical evidence that a strong bank-firm relationshipresults in using more derivatives as a hedging strategy against risky investments, whichfurther supports the proposal originally introduced by Hakenes (2004). The Japanesebank-firm relationship encourages derivative usage that converts high risk yet high returninvestments into lower risk and high return investments. Even though derivatives costfirms a certain premium amount, derivative usage is preferred by the funding banks who
strive for a sustainable investment in order to recover both the principle and the interest
on a loan. The results show a strong association between the derivative usage rate and themain bank loan against total loans ratio, main bank loan against total liabilities, and afewer number of banks5, which proves our predictions correct. Our findings also showthat firm size, leverage, dividend yield, market-to-book ratio, managerial ownership aredetermining variables which also affect the derivative usage rate. In Japan, the latter two
5

A greater number of banks signify weaker bank-firm relationships. Bank-firm relationships are stronger
when the firm enters into loan-relationships with fewer banks.

23variables showed the contrasting signs compared to previous papers, which implies thefollowing: When a company’s growth potential is highly valued in the market, their
manager tends to be over-confident, and is less inclined to hedge a risky investment
through derivatives. The higher the management ownership of the firm, the more likelythat the level of motivation will not meet with bank requirements.
The causal association between bank-firm relationships and the use ofderivatives is a challenging issue for the risk management area. We have tried to use
several proxies as indicators for bank-firm relationships in this study in order to analyze
the multi-dimensional influence accurately.
[2010.11.4 1008]

REFERENCES
Aoki, M., Patrick, H.T., 1994. The Japanese main bank system: its relevance fordeveloping and transforming economics, Oxford University Press.
Alkeback, P., Hagelin, N., 1999, Derivative usage by non financial firms in sweden withan international comparison, Journal of International Financial Management andAccounting, 10, pp. 105-121.
Bartram, S.M., Brown, G.W. & Fehle, F.R., 2009, International evidence on financial
derivatives usage, Financial Management, 38, pp.185-206.
Berkman, H. and Bradbury, M.E., 1996, Empirical evidence on the use of derivatives,
Financial Management, 2, pp.5-13.
Berkman, H., Bradbury, M., Hancock, P. and Innes, C. 2002, Derivative financial
instrument use in Australia”, Accounting and Finance, 42, pp. 97–109.
Boot, A., 2000, Relationship banking: What do we know? Journal of Financial
Intermediation, 9, pp.7-25.
Borokhovich, Brunarski, Crutchley, and Simkins, 2004, Board composition and corporate
use of interest rate derivatives, Journal of Financial Research, 2, pp. 199–216
Brown, G., 2001, Managing foreign exchange risk with derivatives, Journal of Financial
Economics, 60, pp. 401-449.

24

Chow, E., 1998, The determinants of foreign exchange rate exposure: Evidence on
Japanese firms, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 6, pp.153-174.
Clark, R., 1979, The Japanese company. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Core, J.E., Guay, W.R., Kothari, S.P., 2002, The economic dilution of employee stock
options: diluted EPS for valuation and financial reporting, Accounting Review, 77,
627-653.
Elyasiani, E., and L.G. Goldberg, 2004, Relationship lending: a survey of the literature,
Journal of Economics and Business, 56, pp. 315–330
Fama, E. 1985, What’s different about banks?, Journal of Monetary Economics, 15,
pp.29–39.
Froot, K. A., D. S. Scharfstein and J. C. Stein, 1993, Risk management: coordinating
corporate investment and financing policies, Journal of Finance, 48, pp. 1629–1658.
Fok, R.C.W., Chang Y.C., and Lee., W.T., 2004, Bank-firm relationships and theireffects on firm performance around the asian financial crisis: evidence from Taiwan,
Financial Management, 2, pp.89-112.
Geczy, C. C., B. A. Minton and C. Schrand, 1997, Why firms use currency derivatives,
Journal of Finance, 52, pp. 1323–1354.
Gerlach, M. L. (1992), Alliance capitalism: the social organization of japanese business,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Guay, W. and Kothari, S.P., 2003, How much do firms hedge with derivatives?, Journalof Financial Economics, 70, pp.423-461.
Hakenes, H., 2004, Banks as delegated risk managers, Journal of Banking & Finance, 28,
pp.2399-2426.
ISDA, 2003, Over 90% of the world’s 500 largest companies use derivatives to help
manage their risks, according to new ISDA survey, accessed form
http://www.isda.org/ on May 15, 2009.
ISDA, 2009. ”Over 94% of the world's largest companies use derivatives to help Manage
their Risks, according to ISDA survey”, accessed form http://www.isda.org/ on May
15, 2009.
Kaplan, S. N. and Minton, B. A., 1994, Appointments of outsiders to japanese boards:
determinants and implications for managers, Journal of Financial Economics, 36, pp.
225–258.

25

Mian, S.L. 1996, Evidence on corporate hedging policy, Journal of Financial andQuantitative Analysis, 31, pp. 419–39.
Morck, R. and Nakamura, M., 1999, Banks and corporate control in Japan, Journal of
Finance, 54, pp.319-339.
Morck, R., Nakamura, M. and Shivdasani, A., 2000, Banks, ownership structure and firm
value in Japan, Journal of Business, 73, pp.539-566.
Nguyen, H. and Faff, R., 2002, On the determinants of derivative usage by Australiancompanies, Australian Journal of Management, 27, pp.1-24.
Nguyen, H., and R. Faff, 2003, Further evidence on the corporate use of derivatives inAustralia: The case of foreign currency and interest rate instruments, Australian
Journal of Management, 28, pp. 307 – 318.
NLI Research Institute, 2002, Kabushiki mochiai jokyo chosa (Survey on crossshareholdings). Tokyo: NLI Research InstitutePramborg, B., 2005, Foreign exchange risk management by Swedish and Korean non
financial firms: a comparative survey, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13, pp. 343366.
Prevost, A.K., L.C. Rose, and G. Miller, 2000, Derivatives usage and financial risk
management in large and small economies: A comparative analysis, Journal ofBusiness, Finance & Accounting, 27, pp. 733 – 759.
Prowse, S.D., 1992, The structure of corporate ownership in Japan, Journal of Finance,
47, pp. 1121–1140.
Sharpe, S.A, 1990, Asymmetric information, bank lending and implicit contracts: astylized model of customer relationships. Journal of Finance, 45, p.1069-1087..
Smith, C. W. and R. M. Stulz, 1985, The determinants of firms’ hedging policies,
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20, pp. 391–405.
Stulz, R., 1990, Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies. Journal of
Financial Economics, 26, pp.3-27.
Stulz, R.M., 1996. Rethinking risk management, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,
9, pp.8–25.
Stulz, R.M., 2004. Should we fear derivatives? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18,
pp.173-192.
Yosha, O., 1995, Informational disclosure costs and the choice of financing source.
Journal of Financial Intermediation, 4, pp.3-20.
26