The DOI matches its Crossref record.
RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT
Abstract
This paper presents a theory of corporate risk management that attempts to go beyond the “variance‐minimization” model that dominates most academic discussions of the subject. It argues that the primary goal of risk management is not to dampen swings in corporate cash flows or value, but rather to provide protection against the possibility of costly lower‐tail outcomes–situations that would cause financial distress or make a company unable to carry out its investment strategy. (In the jargon of finance specialists, risk management can be viewed as the purchase of well‐out‐of‐the‐money put options designed to limit downside risk.) By eliminating downside risk and reducing the expected costs of financial trouble, risk management can also help a company to achieve both its optimal capital structure and its optimal ownership structure. For, besides increasing corporate debt capacity, the reduction of downside risk also encourages larger equity stakes for managers by shielding their investments from “uncontrollables.” The paper also departs from standard finance theory in suggesting that some companies may have a comparative advantage in bearing certain financial market risks–an advantage that derives from information acquired through their normal business activities. Although such specialized information may lead some companies to take speculative positions in commodities or currencies, it is more likely to encourage “selective” hedging, a practice in which the risk manager's “view” of future price movements influences the percentage of the exposure that is hedged. But, to the extent that such view‐taking becomes an accepted part of a company's risk management program, it is important to evaluate managers' bets on a risk‐adjusted basis and relative to the market. If risk managers want to behave like money managers, they should be evaluated like money managers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Godfrey, P. C. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.18378878 · Cited by 2,839
Environmental risk management and the cost of capital
Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.678 · Cited by 1,530
Financialization of commodity markets
Cheng, I.-H., & Xiong, W. (2014) · Annual Review of Financial Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-financial-110613-034432 · Cited by 810
Does hedging affect firm value? Evidence from the US airline industry
Carter, D. A., Rogers, D. A., & Simkins, B. J. (2006) · Financial Management · doi:10.1111/j.1755-053x.2006.tb00131.x · Cited by 389
Metadata
- Authors
- Stulz, R. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Corporate Finance
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 8-25
- ISSN
- 1078-1196 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6622
- OpenAlex
- W2020295374
- Cited by
- 1,192
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 62.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1996.tb00295.x
- The paper
- Stulz, R. M. (1996). RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1996.tb00295.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.