Tutorial Answers 6
1. Transaction Exposure. Fischer Inc., exports products from Florida to Europe. It
obtains supplies and borrows funds locally. How would appreciation of the euro
likely affect its net cash flows? Why?
ANSWER: Fischer Inc. should benefit from the appreciation of the euro, because it
should experience a strong demand for its products when the euro has more
purchasing power (can obtain dollars at a low price).
2. Transaction Exposure. Aggie Co. produces chemicals. It is a major exporter to
Europe, where its main competition is from other U.S. exporters. All of these
companies invoice the products in U.S. dollars. Is Aggie’s transaction exposure
likely to be significantly affected if the euro strengthens or weakens? Explain. If the
euro weakens for several years, can you think of any change that might occur in the
global chemicals market?
ANSWER: If the euro strengthens, European customers can purchase Aggie’s goods
with fewer euros. Since Aggie’s competitors also invoice their exports in dollars,
Aggie Company will not gain a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, the overall
demand for the product could increase because the chemicals are now less expensive
to European customers.
If the euro weakens, European customers will need to pay more euros to purchase
Aggie’s goods. Since Aggie’s competitors also invoice their exports in dollars, Aggie
Company may not necessarily lose some of its market share. However, the overall
European demand for chemicals could decline because the prices paid for them have
increased.
If the euro remained weak for several years, some companies in Europe may begin to
produce the chemicals, so that customers could avoid purchasing dollars with weak
euros. That is, the U.S. exporters could be priced out of the European market over
time if the euro continually weakened.
3. Hedging with Forward Contracts. Explain how a U.S. corporation could hedge net
receivables in Malaysian ringgit with a forward contract.
Explain how a U.S. corporation could hedge payables in Canadian dollars with a
forward contract.
ANSWER: The U.S. corporation could sell ringgit forward using a forward contract.
This is accomplished by negotiating with a bank to provide the bank ringgit in
exchange for dollars at a specified exchange rate (the forward rate) for a specified
future date.
The U.S. corporation could purchase Canadian dollars forward using a forward
contract. This is accomplished by negotiating with a bank to provide the bank U.S.
dollars in exchange for Canadian dollars at a specified exchange rate (the forward
rate) for a specified future date.
4. Currency Options. Relate the use of currency options to hedging net payables and
receivables. That is, when should currency puts be purchased, and when should
currency calls be purchased? Why would Cleveland, Inc., consider hedging net
payables or net receivables with currency options rather than forward contracts?
What are the disadvantages of hedging with currency options as opposed to forward
contracts?
ANSWER: Currency call options should be purchased to hedge net payables.
Currency put options should be purchased to hedge net receivables.
Currency options not only provide a hedge, but they provide flexibility since they do
not require a commitment to buy or sell a currency (whereas the forward contract
does).
A disadvantage of currency options is that a price (premium) is paid for the option
itself. The only payment by a firm using a forward contract is the exchange of a
currency as specified in the contract.
5. Currency Options. Can Brooklyn Co. determine whether currency options will be
more or less expensive than a forward hedge when considering both hedging
techniques to cover net payables in euros? Why or why not?
ANSWER: No. The amount paid out when using a forward contract is known with
certainty. However, the amount paid out when using currency options is not known
until the period is over (since the firm has the flexibility to exercise the option only if
it is feasible). Thus, the MNC cannot determine whether currency options will be
more or less expensive than forward contracts when hedging net payables.
6. Currency Diversification. Explain how a firm can use currency diversification to
reduce transaction exposure.
ANSWER: If a firm has net inflows in a variety of currencies that are not highly
correlated with each other, exposure is not as great as if the equivalent amount of
funds were denominated in a single currency. This is because not all currencies will
depreciate against the firm’s home currency simultaneously by the same degree.
There may be a partial offsetting effect due to a diversified set of inflow currencies.
If the firm has net outflows in a variety of currencies, the same argument would
apply.
7. Implications of IRP for Hedging. If interest rate parity exists, would a forward
hedge be more favorable, equally favorable, or less favorable than a money market
hedge on euro payables? Explain.
ANSWER: It would be equally favorable (assuming no transactions costs). If IRP
exists, the forward premium on the forward rate would reflect the interest rate
differential. The hedging of future payables with a forward purchase provides the
same results as borrowing at the home interest rate and investing at the foreign
interest rate to hedge euro payables.
[Note: In the real world, doing a money market hedge does involve transaction costs,
particularly having to cross the bid/ask for each of the four legs of the transaction. By
contrast, entering into a forward with a bank already packages all legs into a single
transaction. However, the bank will still quote a (single) bid/ask spread on the forward,
which may be cheaper or more expensive than doing the money market hedge, depending
on how liquid is the currency being hedged.]
8. Real[ised] Cost of Hedging. Would Montana Co.’s real[ised] cost of hedging
Japanese yen receivables have been positive, negative, or about zero on average over
a period in which the dollar weakened consistently? Explain.
ANSWER: During the weak dollar period, the yen appreciated substantially against
the dollar. Thus, the dollars received from hedging yen receivables would have been
less than the dollars received if the yen receivables were not hedged. This implies
that the real cost of hedging yen receivables would have been positive during the
weak dollar period.
[In the real world, this question is not as simple as it seems. Yen is a relatively low
yielding interest rate compared to USD (at least before the 2008 financial crisis!), which
means the forward sale of yen would be at a premium to initial spot. Subsequently, yen
would have strengthened, but the question is whether the amount it strengthens is greater
or lesser than the forward premium on the yen. ]
USD/¥
Whether there will be a realized gain/loss on the
forward hedge depends on whether the final spot
price (S1) is greater or lesser than the forward
price (F0):
F0
S1
S1 < F0 => realised profit from hedge
S1 > F0 => realised loss from hedge
S0
Note : This assumes you sell yen forward.
Time
9. Forward versus Options Hedge on Payables. If you are a U.S. importer of Mexican
goods and you believe that today’s forward rate of the peso is a very accurate
estimate of the future spot rate, do you think Mexican peso call options would be a
more appropriate hedge than the forward hedge? Explain.
ANSWER: If the forward rate is close to or exceeds today’s spot rate [???], the
forward hedge would be preferable because the call option hedge would require a
premium to achieve about the same locked-in exchange rate. If the forward rate was
much lower than today’s spot rate [???], the call option could be preferable because
the firm could let the option expire and be better off.
[The model answer seems a bit confusing or even wrong???
(The model answer seems to suggest you would prefer a higher forward rate to buy
MXN??? This does not really seem to make sense, if indeed this is the correct
interpretation of the answer given. )
If you are an importer -> you have future payables in MXN, assuming that is the
invoicing currency. Therefore, you are looking to buy MXN at the cheapest price
possible. Then it becomes a question of whether the price quoted on the forward is
acceptable (sufficiently cheap) to you! If it is acceptable, then you may just choose to use
the forward, to avoid paying an option premium.
If however the forward rate is not acceptable, then it becomes a matter of whether you
choose to leave the position open (unhedged) or to hedge your position using a call
option on MXN, which entails paying a premium. This really depends on how risk-averse
you are, and on how expensive the call options are.
Question – what is the significance of your belief that the forward accurately predicts the
future spot rate? It probably simply means that the forward is fairly priced, and that you
are not substantially worse off (lower expected value) if you choose to hedge with the
forward versus leaving the position unhedged, or vice-versa. Compare to the next
question. ]
10. Forward versus Options Hedge on Receivables You are an exporter of goods to the
United Kingdom, and you believe that today’s forward rate of the British pound
substantially underestimates the future spot rate. Company policy requires you to
hedge your British pound receivables in some way. Would a forward hedge or a put
option hedge be more appropriate? Explain.
ANSWER: A put option would be preferable because it gives you the flexibility to
exchange pounds for dollars at the prevailing spot rate when receiving payment.
[My analysis of the situation is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
]
You are receiving GBP, so you want the highest selling price for your future
GBP receivables.
You believe the forward substantially underestimates future spot price
[expected future spot price] of GBP. This means you are expected on average
to earn less USD from selling GBP forward, compared to if you did not hedge,
and simply converted at the prevailing future spot rate.
However, company policy requires you to hedge, therefore you cannot simply
leave the position open. Then it becomes a question of forward vs option
hedge.
Since you believe the forward is unfairly priced (i.e. pays you less USD than
the expected future spot rate), but you do not have the alternative to not hedge
at all, then you may choose to use the option provided it is fairly priced.
Problems
1. Assessing Transaction Exposure. Your employer, a large MNC, has asked you to
assess its transaction exposure. Its projected cash flows are as follows for the next
year:
Currency
Danish krone (DK)
British pound (£)
Total Inflow
DK50,000,000
£2,000,000
Total Outflow
DK40,000,000
£1,000,000
Current Exchange
Rate in U.S. Dollars
$.15
$1.50
Assume that the movements in the Danish krone and the pound are highly correlated.
Provide your assessment as to your firm’s degree of transaction exposure (as to
whether the exposure is high or low). Substantiate your answer.
ANSWER: The net exposure to each currency in U.S. dollars is derived below:
Foreign Currency
Danish krone (DK)
British pound (£)
Net Inflows in
Foreign Currency
+DK10,000,000
+£1,000,000
Current
Exchange Rate
$.15
$1.50
Value of Exposure
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
The krone and pound values move in tandem against the dollar. Both the krone and
the pound exposure show positive net inflows. Thus, their exposure should be
magnified if their exchange rates against the U.S. dollar continue to be highly
correlated.
2. Consolidated Exposure. Quincy Corp. estimates the following cash flows in 90 days
at its subsidiaries as follows:
Net Position in Each Currency Measured in
the Parent’s Currency (in 1000s of units)
Subsidiary
A
B
C
Currency 1 Currency 2
+200
–300
+100
–40
–180
+200
Currency 3
–100
–10
–40
Determine the consolidated net exposure of the MNC to each currency.
ANSWER:
The net exposure to Currency 1 is 120,000 units;
the net exposure to Currency 2 is –140,000 units;
the net exposure to Currency 3 is –150,000 units.
3. Money Market Hedge on Payables. Assume that Vermont Co. has net payables of
200,000 Mexican pesos in 180 days. The Mexican interest rate is 7% over 180 days
[Note – this is absolute or unannualised interest!], and the spot rate of the Mexican
peso is $.10. Suggest how the U.S. firm could implement a money market hedge. Be
precise.
ANSWER: If the firm deposited MXP186,916 (computed as MXP200,000/1.07) into
a Mexican bank earning 7% over 6 months, the deposit would be worth 200,000
pesos at the end of the six-month period. This amount would then be used to take
care of the net payables. To make the initial deposit of 186,916 pesos, the firm would
need about $18,692 (computed as 186,916 × $.10). It could borrow these funds.
[Note: This money market hedge type of question looks similar to, but is different
from, the covered interest arbitrage (CIA) types of question:
CIA:
Lend
currency B
Earn interest iB
Receive (long)
currency B
This is a synthetic
forward – receive
B, pay A
Borrow
currency A
Money
market
hedge
Lend
currency B
Pay interest iA
Earn interest iB
Owe (short)
currency A
Receive (long)
currency B
This is a synthetic
forward – receive
B, pay A
Borrow
currency A
Pay interest iA
You enter into a market forward in
the opposite direction to the
synthetic forward. Your arbitrage
profits come from the difference
between the synthetic forward price
versus the market forward price
A money-market hedge uses all the
components of CIA, except that
you do not enter into a market
forward. Instead, the synthetic
forward is used to hedge against
your payable/receivable in the
foreign currency!
Owe (short)
currency A
Note that in the hedging type of question, you do not need to find out which currency is
more profitable to borrow or lend, unlike the CIA type of question. This is because you
already know which currency you need to buy or sell forward, based on your receivable
or payable.
However, you may still need to calculate your effective cost from the money market
hedge, and be able to compare it to the price for an equivalent market forward rate, to
determine which is more attractive. ]
4. Real[ised] Cost of Hedging Receivables. Assume that Bentley Co. negotiated a
forward contract to sell 100,000 Canadian dollars in one year. The one-year forward
rate on the Canadian dollar was $.80. This strategy was designed to hedge
receivables in Canadian dollars. On the day the Canadian dollars were to be sold in
accordance with the forward contract, the spot rate of the Canadian dollar was $.83.
What was the real cost of hedging receivables for this U.S. firm?
Repeat the question, except assume that the spot rate of the Canadian dollar was $.75
on the day the Canadian dollars were to be sold in accordance with the forward
contract. What was the real cost of hedging receivables in this example?
ANSWER:
The nominal amount of hedged receivables = $.80(100,000) = $80,000. The nominal
amount of receivables if unhedged = $.83(100,000) = $83,000. The real cost of
hedging receivables = $83,000 – $80,000 = $3,000.
The nominal amount of hedged receivables = $.80(100,000) = $80,000. The nominal
amount of receivables if unhedged = $.75(100,000) = $75,000. The real cost of
hedging receivables is $75,000 – $80,000 = –$5,000. (note: negative cost suggest
gain from hedging)
5. Forward versus Money Market Hedge on Payables. Assume the following
information:
90-day U.S. interest rate = 4% [Note- absolute / unannualised interest]
90-day Malaysian interest rate = 3%
90-day forward rate of Malaysian ringgit = $.400
Spot rate of Malaysian ringgit = $.404
Assume that the Santa Barbara Co. in the United States will need 300,000 ringgit in
90 days. It wishes to hedge this payables position. Would it be better off using a
forward hedge or a money market hedge? Substantiate your answer with estimated
costs for each type of hedge.
ANSWER: If the firm uses the forward hedge, it will pay out 300,000($.400) =
$120,000 in 90 days.
If the firm uses a money market hedge, it will invest (300,000/1.03) = 291,262 ringgit
now in a Malaysian deposit that will accumulate to 300,000 ringgit in 90 days. This
implies that the number of U.S. dollars to be borrowed now is (291,262 × $.404) =
$117,670. If this amount is borrowed today, Santa Barbara will need $122,377 to
repay the loan in 90 days (computed as $117,670 × 1.04 = $122,377).
In comparison, the firm will pay out $120,000 in 90 days if it uses the forward hedge
and $122,377 if it uses the money market hedge. Thus, it should use the forward
hedge.
[Question – what is the effective forward price for the money market hedge?]
6. Forward versus Money Market Hedge on Receivables. Assume the following
information:
180-day U.S. interest rate = 8%
180-day British interest rate = 9%
180-day forward rate of British pound = $1.50
Spot rate of British pound = $1.48
Assume that Riverside Corp. from the United States will receive 400,000 pounds in
180 days. Would it be better off using a forward hedge or a money market hedge?
Substantiate your answer with estimated revenue for each type of hedge.
ANSWER: If the firm uses a forward hedge, it will receive 400,000($1.50) =
$600,000 in 180 days.
If the firm uses a money market hedge, it will borrow (400,000/$1.09) = 366,972
pounds, to be converted to U.S. dollars and invested in the U.S. The 400,000 pounds
received in 180 days will pay off this loan. The 366,972 pounds borrowed convert to
about $543,119 (computed as 366,972 × $1.48), which when invested at 8% interest
will accumulate to be worth about $586,569.
In comparison, the firm will receive $600,000 in 180 days using the forward hedge,
or about $586,569 in 180 days using the money market hedge. Thus, it should use the
forward hedge.
[Question – what is the effective forward price for the money market hedge?]
7. Hedging With Put Options. As treasurer of Tucson Corp. (a U.S. exporter to New
Zealand), you must decide how to hedge (if at all) future receivables of 250,000 New
Zealand dollars 90 days from now. Put options are available for a premium of $.03
per unit and an exercise price of $.49 per New Zealand dollar. The forecasted spot
rate of the NZ$ in 90 days follows:
Future Spot Rate
$.44
.40
.38
Probability
30%
50
20
Given that you hedge your position with options, create a probability distribution
for U.S. dollars to be received in 90 days.
ANSWER:
Possible Spot
Rate
Put Option
Premium
Exercise
Option?
$.44
$.40
$.38
$.03
$.03
$.03
Yes
Yes
Yes
Amount per
Unit
Received
Accounting
for Premium
$.46
$.46
$.46
Total
Amount
Received for
NZ$250,000
$115,000
$115,000
$115,000
Probability
30%
50%
20%
The probability distribution represents a 100% probability of receiving $115,000,
based on the forecasts of the future spot rate of the NZ$.
8. Hedging Payables with Currency Options. Malibu, Inc., is a U.S. company that
imports British goods. It plans to use call options to hedge payables of 100,000
pounds in 90 days. Three call options are available that have an expiration date 90
days from now. Fill in the number of dollars needed to pay for the payables
(including the option premium paid) for each option available under each possible
scenario.
Scenario
1
2
3
4
5
Spot Rate
of Pound
90 Days
from Now
$1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
Exercise Price
= $1.74;
Premium = $.06
Exercise Price
Exercise Price
= $1.76;
= $1.79;
Premium = $.05 Premium = $.03
If each of the five scenarios had an equal probability of occurrence, which option
would you choose? Explain.
ANSWER:
Scenario
1
2
3
4
5
Spot Rate
of Pound
90 Days
from Now
$1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
Exercise Price
= $1.74;
Premium = $.06
$171,000
176,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
Exercise Price
Exercise Price
= $1.76;
= $1.79;
Premium = $.05 Premium = $.03
$170,000
$168,000
175,000
173,000
180,000
178,000
181,000
182,000
181,000
182,000
Assuming equal probability of all scenarios, the expected value of payables would be
$177400, $177400 and $176600 respectively. Thus, indicating that the option with the
$.03 premium is slightly better than the other two options.
[Note: Under some scenarios above, you do not exercise the call option. In that case,
your effective cost of buying the pounds = $(spot rate 90 days from now +
premium)/pound. Work out which scenarios you do and do not exercise, and the
corresponding cost of buying the pounds].
9. Comparison of Techniques for Hedging Payables
Assume that Carbondale Co. expects to pay S$1 million in one year. The existing spot
rate of the Singapore dollar is $.60. The one-year forward rate of the Singapore dollar is
$.62. Carbondale created a probability distribution for the future spot rate in one year as
follows:
Future Spot Rate
$.61
.63
.67
Probability
20%
50
30
Assume that one-year put options on Singapore dollars are available with an
exercise price of $.63 and a premium of $.04 per unit. One-year call options on
Singapore dollars are available with an exercise price of $.60 and a premium of
$.03 per unit. Assume the following money market rates:
Deposit rate
Borrowing rate
U.S.
8%
9
Singapore
5%
6
Given this information, determine whether a forward hedge, money market hedge,
or a currency options hedge would be most appropriate. Then compare the most
appropriate hedge to an unhedged strategy, and decide whether Carbondale
should hedge its payables position.
ANSWER:
Forward hedge
Purchase S$1,000,000 one year forward:
This will cost $620,000 (1,000,000 × $.62) in one year time
Money market hedge
1. Need to invest S$952,381 (S$1,000,000/1.05 = S$952,381)
2. Need to borrow $571,429 (S$952,381 × $.60 = $571,429)
3. Will need $622,857 to repay the loan in one year ($571,429 × 1.09 = $622,857)
Thus the comparable cost of hedging in the money market would be $622,857
Call option hedge (Exercise price = $.60; premium = $.03)
Possible
Spot Rate
$.61
.63
.67
Option
Premium
per Unit
$.03
.03
.03
Exercise
Option?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Amount Paid
per Unit
(including
the premium)
$.63
.63
.63
Total
Amount
Paid for
S$1,000,000
$630,000
630,000
630,000
Probability
20%
50
30
Expected cost of payables using call option = $630,000.
Which hedging strategy is the most appropriate?
Comparison of above hedging strategies indicates that the forward hedge is the optimal
strategy in this case.
Should the firm hedge or not?
Unhedged Strategy
Possible
Spot Rate
$.61
.63
.67
Total
Amount Paid
for S$1000,000
$610,000
630,000
670,000
Probability
20%
50
30
The forward hedge is preferable to the unhedged strategy because there is an 80 percent
chance that it will outperform the unhedged strategy and may save the firm up to $50,000
(670,000 – 620,000).
Note: The expected cost of payables without hedging is $638,000 compared to $620,000
with forward hedge.
10 Comparison of Techniques for Hedging Receivables.
Assume that Carbondale Co. expects to receive S$500,000 in one year. The existing
spot rate of the Singapore dollar is $.60. The one-year forward rate of the
Singapore dollar is $.62. Carbondale created a probability distribution for the
future spot rate in one year as follows:
Future Spot Rate
$.61
.63
.67
Probability
20%
50
30
Assume that one-year put options on Singapore dollars are available, with an
exercise price of $.63 and a premium of $.04 per unit. One-year call options on
Singapore dollars are available with an exercise price of $.60 and a premium of
$.03 per unit. Assume the following money market rates:
Deposit rate
Borrowing rate
U.S.
8%
9
Singapore
5%
6
Given this information, determine whether a forward hedge, money market hedge,
or a currency options hedge would be most appropriate. Then compare the most
appropriate hedge to an unhedged strategy, and decide whether Carbondale
should hedge its receivables position.
ANSWER:
Forward hedge
By selling S$500,000 forward, Carbondale will receive $310,000 (500,000 × $.62) in
one year.
Money market hedge
1. Borrow S$471,698 (S$500,000/1.06 = S$471,698)
2. Convert S$471,698 to $283,019 (at $.60 per S$)
3. Invest the $283,019 at 8% to earn $305,660 by the end of the year
Thus, the comparable value of receivables is $305,660.
Put option hedge (Exercise price = $.63; premium = $.04)
Possible
Spot Rate
Option
Premium per
Unit
Exercise
Amount
Received per
Unit (also
accounting
for premium)
$.61
$.63
$.67
$.04
$.04
$.04
Yes
Yes or No
No
$.59
$.59
$.63
Total
Amount
Received for
S$500,000
$295,000
$295,000
$315,000
Probability
20%
50%
30%
Expected value of receivables using put option hedge = $301,000
Which hedge is most appropriate?
The forward hedge is superior to the money market hedge and has a 70% chance of
outperforming the put option hedge. Therefore, the forward hedge is the optimal hedge.
Unhedged Strategy
Possible Spot Rate
$.61
$.63
$.67
Total Amount Received for
S$500,000
$305,000
$315,000
$335,000
Probability
20%
50%
30%
Expected value of receivables without hedging = $319.000.
Should the firm hedge or not?
Considering that the expected value of receivables without hedging is more than the
optimal hedge (the forward hedge), it may be better to remain unhedged.
and/or
When comparing the optimal hedge (the forward hedge) to no hedge, the unhedged
strategy has an 80% chance of outperforming the forward hedge. Therefore, the firm
may desire to remain unhedged.
11. Expected Cost of Hedging Payables. Assume that Loras Corp. imported goods from
New Zealand and needs 100,000 New Zealand dollars 180 days from now. It is
trying to determine whether to hedge this position. Loras has developed the
following probability distribution for the New Zealand dollar:
Possible Value of
New Zealand Dollar in 180 Days
$.40
.45
.48
.50
.53
.55
Probability
5%
10%
30%
30%
20%
5%
The 180-day forward rate of the New Zealand dollar is $.52. The spot rate of the
New Zealand dollar is $.49. Develop a table showing a feasibility analysis for
hedging. That is, determine the possible differences between the costs of hedging
versus no hedging. What is the probability that hedging will be more costly to the
firm than not hedging? Determine the expected value of the additional cost of
hedging.
ANSWER:
Possible Spot
Rate of New
Zealand Dollar
$.40
$.45
$.48
$.50
$.53
$.55
Probability
5%
10%
30%
30%
20%
5%
Nominal Cost of
Hedging
100,000 NZ$
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
$52,000
Amount of U.S.
Dollars Needed to
Buy 100,000 NZ$
if Firm Remains
Unhedged
$40,000
$45,000
$48,000
$50,000
$53,000
$55,000
Cost of
Hedging
$12,000
$7,000
$4,000
$2,000
-$1,000
-$3,000
Above calculations show that there is a 75% probability that hedging will be more costly
than no hedge.
Alternatively, the expected RCH is = 5%($12,000) + 10%($7,000) + 30%($4,000) +
30%($2,000) + 20%(–$1,000) + 5%(–$3,000)
= $600 + $700 + $1200 + $600 – $200 – $150
= $2,750, which is positive, indicating that hedging is not advisable.