Reference no: EM131374251

Caterpillar has long been one of America's major exporters. The company sells its construction equipment, mining equipment, and engines to some 200 countries worldwide. As a leading exporter, Caterpillar's fate has often been tied to the value of the U.S. dollar. In the 1980s, the U.S. dollar was strong against the Japanese yen. This gave Komatsu, Japan's premier manufacturer of heavy construction equipment, a pricing advantage against Caterpillar. Undercutting Caterpillar's prices by as much as 30 percent, Komatsu grabbed market share in the United States and other markets.

For Caterpillar, it was a difficult time. At one point the company was losing a million dollars a day and battling a hostile labor union that was opposed to job restructuring designed to make the company more competitive. The company seemed to be yet another example of a declining business in America's Rust Belt. Fast forward to the mid-2000s, and Caterpillar was thriving. Much had changed over the previous two decades. Caterpillar had reached deals with its unions and invested in state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities.

Its productivity, once abysmal, was now among the best in the industry. Sales, exports, and profits were all rising. There was a worldwide boom in spending on infrastructure, and Caterpillar was reaping the gains, producing record amounts of equipment. Plus, the U.S. dollar, which for years had been strong, weakened significantly during the mid-2000s. This reduced the price of Caterpillar's exports, when translated into many foreign currencies. At this point, Caterpillar was exporting more than half of the output of its key U.S. factories near Peoria, Illinois. Then in 2008, the dollar started to strengthen again. Even though the American economy was stumbling into a financial crisis that would usher in a steep economic recession, foreigners invested strongly in U.S. assets, particularly Treasury bills.

Their demand for dollars to purchase these assets pushed up the value of the dollar on the foreign exchange markets. The hunger of foreigners for dollars was based on a belief that even though things were bad in America, they were probably going to be even worse in many other developed economies, and the U.S. government at least would not default on its bonds, making U.S. Treasury bills a safe haven in an economic storm. Analysts fretted that the stronger dollar would hurt Caterpillar's financial performance because the prices of its exports were rising when converted into many foreign currencies. The reality, however, was somewhat different. As 2008 progressed, the strong dollar started to negatively impact Caterpillar's revenues, but it had a favorable effect on Caterpillar's costs.

Over the previous two decades Caterpillar had dramatically expanded its network of foreign manufacturing operations. While still a major exporter, some 102 of its 23 7 manufacturing facilities were now located outside of North America, many in countries such as China, India, and Brazil that were expanding their infrastructure spending. Although the revenues generated by these operations in local currency, when translated back into dollars, declined as the dollar strengthened, the costs of these operations also fell, since their costs were also priced in local currencies, which reduced the impact on profit margins.

Also, although Caterpillar's export revenues from the United States started to fall, because the company now sourced many of its inputs from foreign producers, the price it paid for those inputs also fell, which again moderated the impact of the strong dollar on earnings. Through its globalization strategy, Caterpillar has been able to reduce the impact of fluctuations in the value of the dollar on its profits.

Case Discussion Questions
1. In the 1980s a stronger dollar hurt Caterpillar's competitive position, but in 2008 a stronger dollar did not seem to have the same effect. What had changed?

2. How did Caterpillar use strategy as a "real hedge" to reduce its exposure to foreign exchange risk? What is the downside of its approach?

3. Explain the difference between transaction exposure and translation exposure using the material in the Caterpillar case to illustrate your answer.