In this paper (box 1 page 24): https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Bulletins/2000/2000mar63-1brookeshargreaveslucaswhite.pdf
It is argued that the forward rate that a corporation receives from entering a forward contract (let's call it $F$) is the same as the implied forward rate from issuing foreign debt (let's call it $\hat{F}$).
Under the assumption that CIP holds, I disagree.
In particular, assume a european corporation that wants to hedge a future exposure (for example coming from future dollar receipts) by buying euros forwards. Then the direct way to do this would be to enter a forward contract and receive euros at the forward rate, $F$; where according to CIP, $F$ is given by:
$F = S \frac{(1+i_{euro})}{(1+i_{dollar})}$
where $S$ is the spot exchange rate (in terms of euros per dollar) and $i_{euro}$ is the interest rate in euro and $i_{dollar}$ is the interest rate in dollar). Because the corporation is presumably entering a transaction with a bank and it is posting a margin collateral, the interest rates could be assumed to be equal to the LIBOR rates.
The paper argues that $F$ can be derived synthetically: the corporation could issue a zero coupon dollar bond, swap the notional in euro at spot $S$ and invest it at the euro rate. The implied forward rate $\hat{F}$ would then be equal to $F$.
My objection is that in this latter case the interest rate at which the corporation is borrowing in dollars must be different from the USD LIBOR rate; in particular I expect that it would reflect a spread due to a risk premium specific to the corporation issuing the dollar bond.
My conclusion is therefore that $\hat{F} < F $ and hence that it would be cheaper for the corporation to hedge the FX exposure by entering into a forward contract.