Multinational Financial Management 11th Edition by Alan C. Shapiro Solution manual
b. What is the relation between the effects of total risk on a firm's sales and costs and its desire to hedge foreign exchange risk?
Answer. Since total risk is likely to adversely affect firm value, by lowering sales and raising costs, any action taken by a firm that decreases its total risk will improve its sales and cost outlook, thereby increasing its expected cash flows. These effects help justify the range of corporate hedging activities designed to reduce total risk that MNCs engage in.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO APPENDIX 1A QUESTIONS
1. In a satirical petition on behalf of French candlemakers, Frederic Bastiat, a French economist, called attention to cheap competition from afar: sunlight. A law requiring the shuttering of windows during the day, he suggested, would benefit not only candlemakers but "everything connected with lighting" and the country as a whole. He explained: "As long as you exclude, as you do, iron, corn, foreign fabrics, in proportion as their prices approximate to zero, what inconsistency it would be to admit the light of the sun, the price of which is already at zero during the entire day!"
a. Is there a logical flaw in Bastiat's satirical argument?
Answer. No. Bastiat is precisely right. The objective of trade is to gain access to goods and services at lower quality-adjusted prices. The ultimate consequence is to make more efficient use of the world's resources and thereby increase worldwide production and consumption. Protectionism aims to prevent this end. If protectionism succeeds, world output and consumption are lower than they might otherwise be because resources are not being put to their highest valued use. In the example cited by Bastiat, protectionism will lead to a squandering of resources by replicating what the sun can do less expensively.
b. Do Japanese automakers prefer a tariff or a quota on their U.S. auto exports? Why? Is there likely to be consensus among the Japanese carmakers on this point? Might there be any Japanese automakers that are likely to prefer U.S. trade restrictions? Why? Who are they?
Answer. It depends. To understand why, it helps to recognize the consequences of these alternative trade barriers. Both tariffs and quotas will lead to higher prices to U.S. consumers of imported Japanese cars. With tariffs, however, most of this price increase will go to the U.S. government in the form of tariffs. Japanese companies (or their dealers), on the other hand, will collect most, if not all, of the higher prices associated with the scarcity of imported Japanese cars. Once the Japanese producers hit their quota limit, they have no incentive to compete with each other by cutting price because they cannot sell more cars than they already are. The net result is that the U.S. market will be extraordinarily profitable to Japanese automakers, which it was.
Since quotas tend to be allocated based on current sales, those automakers like Toyota and Nissan with large market shares would prefer quotas, whereas those automakers like Honda and Mitsubishi with smaller market shares would prefer tariffs. The reason for the latter's preference for tariffs is that efficient companies can eventually overcome the effects of tariffs by cutting costs and prices, whereas efficiency counts for nothing in the case of quotas. Regardless of the type of trade barrier imposed, U.S. automakers will raise their prices in line with higher import prices. However, U.S. automakers are likely to prefer quotas because quotas enable them to disguise the reason for higher U.S. car prices. Consumers would be much quicker to figure out the cause-effect relationship between higher tariffs and higher prices on U.S. and Japanese cars.
c. What characteristics of the U.S. auto industry have helped it gain protection? Why does protectionism persist despite the obvious gains to society from free trade?
Answer. The U.S. auto industry has received as much protection as it has for two key reasons. First, it is a large and powerful industry. Second, it is concentrated in several politically important states, such as Michigan and Illinois.
2. Review the arguments both pro and con on NAFTA. What is the empirical evidence so far?
Answer. NAFTA has helped increase international trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The results thus far indicate that NAFTA has created some jobs in both countries and cost some jobs. Indeed, the purpose of free trade is not to create jobs but to increase the purchasing power and choice of consumers. With respect to jobs, the effect of free trade is not to create jobs, but to create higher-paying jobs that replace lower-paying jobs. The number of jobs in an economy is independent of the presence or absence of trade. It has every thing to do with the incentives that people have to work, their productivity, and the costs to employers of hiring workers. What trade does is permit workers to hold jobs in those areas of the economy in which the nation has a comparative advantage. At the same time, trade destroys jobs in those goods and services in which the nation is at a comparative disadvantage.