Working Paper 287
Underhedging Foreign
Currencies With a Swap:
The FAS 133 Controversy
Bob Jensen at Trinity University
This case was inspired, in part, by a speaker that I lined up for a module in a FAS 133 workshop that I chaired in New York City in December of 1999. His name is Martin Klein from the Lehman Brothers office in New York City. You can listen to a segment of his presentation by clicking on the hotlink below:
Martin Klein from Lehman Brothers Audio Clip KLEIN10.mp3
This case and answer derivations are best viewed in an Excel workbook file 287wp.xls that can be downloaded from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/
Links to my other online FAS 133 cases are given in http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
Definitions and other helpers are given at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm
This is Bob Jensen's answer file. | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign Currency Hedge of Fixed-Rate Interest-Bearing Foreign Debt | ||||||||||||||||
XYZ Company's existing DM obligation | ||||||||||||||||
On July 1, 20X1, XYZ Company has an obligation to make eight remaining interest payments | ||||||||||||||||
in German marks at DM600,000 per quarter on a DM20 million outstanding note payable. The | ||||||||||||||||
fixed-interest rate is 12.00% per annum or 3.00% per quarter. David Burns, the | ||||||||||||||||
the CFO of XYZ, worries that the the German mark will grow stronger against the U.S. dollar, | ||||||||||||||||
leading to foreign currency losses in both the DM600,000 payments and the $20 million pay off. | ||||||||||||||||
XYZ enters into a currency swap with ABC Bank | ||||||||||||||||
On July 1, 20X1, ABC Bank enters into a two-year pay-fixed German DM 10.25%, receive-fixed | ||||||||||||||||
US$ 10.22%. The swap dealer that negotiates the swap and guarantees payments | ||||||||||||||||
takes 5 basis points (0.05%) such that the ABC receives US$ 10.22% of 10.27% owed by XYZ, and | ||||||||||||||||
XYZ receives only DM 10.20% from the 10.25% owed by ABC. Hence, XYZ owes $256,750 | ||||||||||||||||
on the swap each quarter and receives DM510,000 in return. The swap is actually | ||||||||||||||||
net settled using the spot currency exchange rate at the end of each quarter. | ||||||||||||||||
One of the purposes of this case is to analyze underhedging versus overhedging of swaps | ||||||||||||||||
that are not perfect matches for hedging. This case is does not have a matched hedge, | ||||||||||||||||
because the 8% hedged item note rate is not equal to the 10.2% swap receivable leg of | ||||||||||||||||
the hedging swap. To be a matched hedge, both interest rates would have to be equal. | ||||||||||||||||
Suppose we define the swap receivable rate as (R+U), where R is the rate of the hedged | ||||||||||||||||
item and U is the underhedged or overhedged rate. For example, when (R+U)=.1020, then | ||||||||||||||||
a note rate of R=0.1020 implies that this is a "matched hedge" with U=0. However, if R=0.0800, | ||||||||||||||||
there is an overhedging of U=0.022 or 2.20%. Conversely, if R=0.1200, there the hedged item | ||||||||||||||||
the hedged item is underhedged by 0.1020-0.1200 = -0.0180 or -1.80%. | ||||||||||||||||
When the hedged item is underhedged, some FX risk remains, because not all of the | ||||||||||||||||
hedged item is protected from fluctuations in foreign currency rates. When the hedged | ||||||||||||||||
item is overhedged, then there is also foreign exchange risk of receiving too many | ||||||||||||||||
German marks relative to the note's interest rate. Under FAS 133, all changes in the | ||||||||||||||||
swap value can be charged to Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) only if there is no | ||||||||||||||||
overhedging. If there is overhedging the proportion of the changes in value of the swap | ||||||||||||||||
must be charged to current earnings rather than OCI. When u>0, that proportion | ||||||||||||||||
is U/(R+U). | ||||||||||||||||
At the beginning of the swap, notional amounts are exchanged such that ABC receives | ||||||||||||||||
DM20 million and pays XYZ $10 million in US dollars. When the swap is terminated, | ||||||||||||||||
ABC receives its $10 million back and returns the DM20 million to the XYZ Company. XYZ | ||||||||||||||||
in turn, uses this DM20 million to pay off its existing debt in German marks on June 30, 2003. | ||||||||||||||||
In summary, XYZ company declares the swap with ABC Bank as a foreign currency hedge | ||||||||||||||||
against its existing obligation. Since only DM510,000 is received each quarter under the swap, the swap | ||||||||||||||||
leaves XYZ DM90,000 short of a matched hedge needed for DM600,000 payments | ||||||||||||||||
Assume the following ex post outcomes with respect to XYZ Company's books: | ||||||||||||||||
Ex Post | Loan | XZY Net | Swap's | XYZ | ||||||||||||
Spot DM/$ | Payment | Swap | Estimated | Accrued | ||||||||||||
Quarter | Rate | in DM | Cash Flow | Value | Interest | |||||||||||
07/01/01 | 2.0000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||||||||
09/30/01 | 2.0225 | 600000 | ($4,587) | ($3,891) | $0 | |||||||||||
12/31/01 | 2.0150 | 600000 | ($3,648) | $4,996 | ($100) | |||||||||||
03/31/02 | 1.9875 | 600000 | ($146) | $5,972 | $128 | |||||||||||
06/30/02 | 1.9750 | 600000 | $1,478 | $9,770 | $153 | |||||||||||
09/30/02 | 1.9685 | 600000 | $2,331 | $16,782 | $251 | |||||||||||
12/31/02 | 1.9480 | 600000 | $5,057 | $11,737 | $431 | |||||||||||
03/31/03 | 1.9325 | 600000 | $7,157 | $7,646 | $301 | |||||||||||
06/30/03 | 1.9300 | 600000 | $7,499 | $0 | $0 | |||||||||||
Assume that the FX hedge is perfectly effective for whatever portion | ||||||||||||||||
of the loan is being hedged. | ||||||||||||||||
1 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
1 | If XYZ Company does not enter into the swap with ABC Bank, what | |||||||||||||||
1 | interest rate risk and foreign currency risks are faced by XYZ? | |||||||||||||||
1 | ||||||||||||||||
1 | There is no interest rate risk, because its DM20 million outstanding loan has a | |||||||||||||||
1 | fixed 12.00% rate of interest. However, since the interest is payable in German | |||||||||||||||
1 | marks, there is a foreign currency risk in that the amount of dollars needed to | |||||||||||||||
1 | acquire the German marks for each payment may vary with the DM/$ FX rate. | |||||||||||||||
1 | Also there is a huge foreign exchange risk on the DM20 million that must be | |||||||||||||||
1 | repaid at maturity of the loan. | |||||||||||||||
1 | ||||||||||||||||
1 | Since the DM20 million note is at a fixed rate, there is a fair value risk in that | |||||||||||||||
1 | the value of the note will vary inversely with movements in interest rates. | |||||||||||||||
1 | XYZdid not hedge fair value with this swap since all legs of the swap are at fixed | |||||||||||||||
1 | interest rates. | |||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||
2 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||
2 | If XYZ Company swaps with ABC Bank, is this a cross-currency hedge for XYZ Company? | |||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||
2 | No! Both legs of the hedge have a fixed rate of interest. For a cross-currency | |||||||||||||||
2 | hedge, one of the legs must have a variable (floating) rate. You can read | |||||||||||||||
2 | about cross-currency hedges under "Foreign Currency Hedges" in Bob Jensen's | |||||||||||||||
2 | FAS 133 and IAS 39 Glossary at the website shown below: | |||||||||||||||
2 | http://www.trinity.edu/ACCT5341/speakers/133glosf.htm#F-Terms | |||||||||||||||
2 | ||||||||||||||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||
3 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
3 | ABC Bank is taking on a FX risk by by agreeing to send an uncertain amount of | |||||||||||||||
3 | German marks to XYZ Company each quarter. Why might ABC Bank want to | |||||||||||||||
3 | enter into such a swap? | |||||||||||||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||
3 | ABC Bank might be hedging an investment that returns quarterly cash flows | |||||||||||||||
3 | in German marks. The swap, thereby, hedges some or all of the FX risk of | |||||||||||||||
3 | investment. | |||||||||||||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||
3 | ABC Bank may have better credit standing in Germany than in the U.S. As a | |||||||||||||||
3 | result of the swap, ABC Bank may have obtained its best possible | |||||||||||||||
3 | loan in U.S. dollars. | |||||||||||||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||
3 | Of course ABC Bank might also be speculating that the German mark is | |||||||||||||||
3 | going to weaken against the dollar. It is more likely, however, that ABC | |||||||||||||||
3 | Bank has one of the other reasons mentioned above. | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
4 | If the DM20 million debt has a fixed rate of 12.00%, has XYZ Company underhedged | |||||||||||||||
4 | or overhedged its FX risk with the specified swap with ABC Bank? How much | |||||||||||||||
4 | was lost or gained by not having a matched hedge (assuming no added speculation)? | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Make a table showing the extent of underhedging or overhedging each quarter | |||||||||||||||
4 | ex post after the incurred DM/$ foreign exchange rates are know for certain. | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Recall that there are two types of FX risk involved. The huge FX risk of having | |||||||||||||||
4 | DM20 million marks available at the debt's maturity date is perfectly hedged by | |||||||||||||||
4 | the swap. The quarterly interest payments of DM600,000 under the 12.00% loan | |||||||||||||||
4 | rate, however, are underhedged since the swap only returns DM510,000 to XYZ. | |||||||||||||||
4 | That leaves DM90,000 German marks in the payment that are subject to FX | |||||||||||||||
4 | risk. | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | The amount of underhedging is DM90,000 = DM600,000-DM510,000. This translates | |||||||||||||||
4 | into a$19,142 opportunity loss from not having a matched hedge of $34,282. | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Actual | Interest Expense | ||||||||||||||
4 | 0.1200 | 0.1200 | 12.00% | 12.00% | Under or | |||||||||||
4 | Ex Post | Unhedged | Hedged | Note | Swap Hedge | Received | Matched | Overhedged | Underhedged | (Over) | ||||||
4 | Spot DM/$ | Interest | Interest | Interest | Rec. Leg | 0.1027 | Swap | Due to | Due to | Hedged | ||||||
4 | Quarter | Rate | in DM | in DM | in DM | Fixed Rate | Swap Rec. Leg | Swap Rec. Leg | Swap in $ | Swap in $ | Amount | |||||
4 | 07/01/01 | 2.0000 | ||||||||||||||
4 | 09/30/01 | 2.0225 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $252,163 | $252,163 | $0 | $44,499 | $44,499 | |||||
4 | 12/31/01 | 2.0150 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $253,102 | $253,102 | $0 | $44,665 | $44,665 | |||||
4 | 03/31/02 | 1.9875 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $256,604 | $256,604 | $0 | $45,283 | $45,283 | |||||
4 | 06/30/02 | 1.9750 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $258,228 | $258,228 | $0 | $45,570 | $45,570 | |||||
4 | 09/30/02 | 1.9685 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $259,081 | $259,081 | $0 | $45,720 | $45,720 | |||||
4 | 12/31/02 | 1.9480 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $261,807 | $261,807 | $0 | $46,201 | $46,201 | |||||
4 | 03/31/03 | 1.9325 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $263,907 | $263,907 | $0 | $46,572 | $46,572 | |||||
4 | 06/30/03 | 1.9300 | 90000 | 510000 | 600,000 | 0.1020 | $264,249 | $264,249 | $0 | $46,632 | $46,632 | |||||
4 | $2,069,140 | $2,069,140 | $0 | $365,142 | ####### | |||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Case Hedge | Hypothetical | Overhedging | 0.1200 | 12.00% | Interest Expense | ||||||||||
4 | 12.00% | Matched Hedge | of | Proportion | Change in | Swap Value | 12.00% | 0.00% | 10.20% | 12.00% | Under or | |||||
4 | Ex Post | With a | With a | 10.20% | Overhedged | Swap's | (Overhedged) | With a | Without | Amount | Amount | (Over) | ||||
4 | Spot DM/$ | 10.20% | 12.00% | Versus | Due to | Estimated | Due to | 10.20% | The | Saved by | Saved by | Hedged | ||||
4 | Quarter | Rate | Swap Rec. Leg | Swap Rec. Leg | 0.1200 | Swap in % | Value | Swap in $ | Swap Rec. Leg | Swap | Swap | Matched Swap | Amount | |||
4 | 07/01/01 | 2.0000 | $0 | |||||||||||||
4 | 09/30/01 | 2.0225 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | ($3,891) | $0 | $296,663 | $296,663 | ($4,587) | $39,913 | $44,499 | |||
4 | 12/31/01 | 2.0150 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | $8,887 | $0 | $297,767 | $297,767 | ($3,648) | $41,017 | $44,665 | |||
4 | 03/31/02 | 1.9875 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | $976 | $0 | $301,887 | $301,887 | ($146) | $45,137 | $45,283 | |||
4 | 06/30/02 | 1.9750 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | $3,799 | $0 | $303,797 | $303,797 | $1,478 | $47,047 | $45,570 | |||
4 | 09/30/02 | 1.9685 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | $4,020 | $0 | $304,801 | $304,801 | $2,331 | $48,051 | $45,720 | |||
4 | 12/31/02 | 1.9480 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | ($2,054) | $0 | $308,008 | $308,008 | $5,057 | $51,258 | $46,201 | |||
4 | 03/31/03 | 1.9325 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | ($4,090) | $0 | $310,479 | $310,479 | $7,157 | $53,729 | $46,572 | |||
4 | 06/30/03 | 1.9300 | 10.20% | 12.00% | 0.00% | 0.0000 | ($7,646) | $0 | $310,881 | $310,881 | $7,499 | $54,131 | $46,632 | |||
4 | Interest on note = | $2,434,282 | $2,434,282 | $15,140 | $380,282 | $365,142 | ||||||||||
4 | Swap loss (gain) = | ($15,140) | ($380,282) | ####### | ||||||||||||
4 | Change in RE = | $2,419,142 | $2,054,000 | ####### | ||||||||||||
4 | Deviation of the actual hedge from matched hedge = | ($365,142) | ||||||||||||||
4 | Matched hedge outcome = | $2,054,000 | if the hedged note rate = | 10.20% | instead of | 12.00% | ||||||||||
4 | (Note that just because the hedge is not matched, does not make it ineffective under FAS 133 definitions of ineffectiveness.) | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Thus, in hind sight the German mark strengthened against the dollar, and | |||||||||||||||
4 | the hedge saved XYZ Company $15,140. A matched swap would have | |||||||||||||||
4 | generated another $19,142 to fully hedge all DM600,000 per quarter. | |||||||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||||||||
4 | Of course, if the German mark had weakened, XYZ Company would have | |||||||||||||||
4 | lost on the swap. | |||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||
5 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
5 | Since this is not a matched hedge of each DM600,000 interest payment, what | |||||||||||||||
5 | paragraphs in FAS 133 allow for the hedged portion to receive cash flow | |||||||||||||||
5 | accounting treatment and use OCI for changes in fair value of the swap? | |||||||||||||||
5 | Is FAS 133 Paragraph 461 a problem in this respect? | |||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||
5 | Paragraph 18(d)(3) is the key paragraph that dictates use of OCI in this case. | |||||||||||||||
5 | However, FAS 133 is silent with respect to hedging a portion of a single item | |||||||||||||||
5 | (as opposed to a portfolio of items) can be hedged in part rather than in whole. | |||||||||||||||
5 | Paragraph 461 does not appear to be a problem in this case since every part | |||||||||||||||
5 | of the DM20 million debt shares the same rate and maturity. Paragraph 461 | |||||||||||||||
5 | is more concerned with a bundling of instruments having different maturity | |||||||||||||||
5 | dates or or other terms that impact upon risk and return. | |||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||
5 | If would seem that the wording of Paragraph 462 extends by analogy to the | |||||||||||||||
5 | case at hand in which the swap and the original note have the same maturity | |||||||||||||||
5 | dates and all proportions of the DM20 million loan have the same terms. | |||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||
6 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
6 | Record the DM 20 million loan as if it commenced on July 1, 20X1, and then | |||||||||||||||
6 | record all interest payments, swap payments, interest accruals, and the adjustment | |||||||||||||||
6 | of the swap to fair value each quarter. For the interest accruals, simply multiply | |||||||||||||||
6 | the swap balance (value) at the end of the previous period by 2.55% = 10.2%/4. | |||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||
6 | Hint: If the loan interest payments are underhedged, assume all the change in | |||||||||||||||
6 | the swap's value can be charged to Other Comprehensive Income (OCI). However, | |||||||||||||||
6 | if there is an overhedge, the overhedged proportion of changed swap value must | |||||||||||||||
6 | be charged to current earnings (Interest Expense and Revenue) rather than OCI. | |||||||||||||||
6 | Be able to reason why this is the case. | |||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
7 | = Question Number | |||||||||||||||
7 | Examine the summary sheets in Paragraphs 117 and 137 in FAS 133. Then | |||||||||||||||
7 | prepare a similar summary sheet for the XYZ Company journal entries. | |||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
7 | The answers are shown in the Excel Spreadsheet. | |||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
7 | ||||||||||||||||
7 |
This case and answer derivations are best viewed in an Excel workbook file 287wp.xls that can be downloaded from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/