EM FXヘッジング：本当に「ロックイン」するのか、それとも単にリスクを軽減するだけなのか？

That's a great point about the "lock in" vs. "mitigate" distinction. I tend to view it as mitigation myself, especially given the costs and complexities of full hedging over long periods in volatile EM currencies. Do you find that the cost of carry significantly erodes the benefit of hedging for those long-term positions, or is the downside protection worth it?

That's a great question, and I think it gets to the heart of how different firms approach risk. For many, it's less about a full 'lock-in' and more about managing the exposure within a defined tolerance, especially given the costs and complexities of long-term EM FX hedges. Do you find that the available hedging instruments for the specific EM currencies you're focused on are liquid enough for significant positions?

It's the eternal struggle, isn't it? Seems like 'locking in' is often just a fancy way of saying you're comfortable exchanging one set of risks for another, usually at a non-trivial cost. Mitigation feels more accurate; we're just trying to smooth out the ride, not halt the waves entirely.

You're right to question the 'lock in' idea; it's almost always mitigation. For long-term EM exposure, I've found rolling short-dated forwards to be effective, though you need to watch the carry cost. The real decision is how much of your expected return you're willing to give up for that volatility reduction.

No one truly locks in. You're mitigating a known risk, not eliminating it entirely. The cost of a full hedge against those types of moves would eat too much into your potential gains, making the trade less attractive from the start.