Überhöhte Sicherungsprämien und ineffiziente Hedging-Strategien

Definition

Articles on base metal hedging stress that hedging should stabilise budgets, not be used to ‘win a market bet’, and that instrument choice (forwards, swaps, options, caps, collars) and tenor critically affect cost.[1][2] In practice, many mid‑tier metals wholesalers in Australia lack quantitative tools and rely on dealer guidance or rules of thumb, leading to: - systematic over‑hedging (hedging 100% of forecast volumes that later do not materialise), - use of expensive outright call/put options where cheaper collars or swaps would suffice, - hedging tenors that do not match physical flows, causing repeated roll‑costs. For a company hedging AUD 50–100 million of metals exposure annually, a 1–2% unnecessary premium or roll cost equates to AUD 500,000–2,000,000 p.a. in excess risk‑management spend (logic based on typical option premium ranges and roll costs relative to notional exposure). Financial institutions emphasise that optimised hedging can materially reduce cost while maintaining protection.[4][5]

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian metals wholesalers 🇦🇺 waste AUD 1,000,000+ annually on unnecessary options premiums and mis‑timed hedges. Data‑driven hedge optimisation and automation of strategy execution reduces this spend by 20–40%.

Affected Stakeholders

Chief Financial Officer, Head of Procurement, Treasury/Risk Manager, Commodity Trading Desk

Related Business Risks