Chapter 6: Hedging exposures with forward and futures contracts

Chapter objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 6.1. Measuring risk: volatility, CaR, and VaR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Section 6.2. Hedging when there is no basis risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Section 6.3. Hedging when the basis is not zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Section 6.3.1. The optimal hedge when there is a deterministic relation between
the futures price and the spot price
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Section 6.3.2. Hedging when the basis is random . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Section 6.3.3. The optimal hedge and regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Section 6.3.4. The effectiveness of the hedge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Section 6.4. Putting it all together in an example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Section 6.5. Hedging when returns rather than level changes are i.i.d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Section 6.6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Key concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Review questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Questions and exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 6.1. Plot of the Swiss franc exchange rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 6.2. Relation between cash position and futures price when there is a deterministic
relation between the futures price and the spot price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 6.3. Change in value of the hedged position as a function of the exchange rate
change and the size of the hedge h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 6.4. Relation between cash position and futures price changes when the futures
price changes are imperfectly correlated with the cash position changes. . . . . . 55
Figure 6.5. Regression line obtained using data from Figure 6.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 6.1. Market data for March 1, 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Technical Box 6.1. Estimating Mean and Volatility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Technical Box 6.2. Proof by example that tailing works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Technical Box 6.3. Deriving the minimum-variance hedge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Technical Box 6.4. The statistical foundations of the linear regression approach to
obtaining the minimum-variance hedge ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Literature note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Chapter 6: Hedging exposures with forward and futures

contracts

September 18, 2001

Ren M. Stulz 1998, 1999, 2001

Chapter objectives
In this chapter, you will:
1. Find out how to measure the risk of specific exposures to risk factors.
2. Understand optimal hedges with forward and futures contracts when a perfect hedge is possible.
3. Understand how to compute optimal hedges with futures contracts when there is basis risk.
4. Learn how to implement optimal hedging strategies.

Chapter 6, page 1

In this chapter, we investigate how we can use forward and futures contracts to minimize
risk. Export Inc. expects to receive 1 million Swiss francs in three months for computers it sold to
a Swiss firm. Because of this receivable, Export Inc.s cash flow in three months is risky. The source
of the risk is the Swiss franc exchange rate. We saw in the introduction that an identifiable source
of risk is called a risk factor, and a cash flows sensitivity to a risk factor is called its exposure to
that risk factor. Here, an increase in the dollar price of the Swiss franc of one penny in three months
increases the firms cash flow by 1M times $0.01, $0.01M. Consequently, the firms exposure to the
dollar price of the Swiss franc is 1M.
To determine whether and how to hedge this cash flow, Export Inc. first has to measure the
cash flows risk and then figure out how much of that risk it wants to bear. In Chapter 4, we
introduced value at risk (VaR) and cash flow at risk (CaR) as risk measures for firms. In this chapter,
we first show how to obtain volatility, CaR, and VaR measures for an exposure like the Swiss franc
exposure of Export Inc. We consider optimal hedges of a foreign currency position when risk is
measured by volatility, CaR, and VaR. We first assume Export Inc. can eliminate all risk resulting
from its Swiss franc exposure and wishes to do so. In this case, the optimal hedge is the hedge that
eliminates all risk when such a hedge is both feasible and costless.
Hedging decisions when no hedge eliminates all risk are more complicated, however. In this
case, the firm has to find out which hedge minimizes risk. We show how to find and implement this
hedge.

Section 6.1. Measuring risk: volatility, CaR, and VaR

Suppose Export Inc. on March 1, 1999, expects to receive 1M Swiss francs on June 1 of the
Chapter 6, page 2

same year. We assume for simplicity that there is no default risk on the part of the firms customer,
so there is no uncertainty as to whether the Swiss francs will be paid. Further, interest rates are
assumed to be constant. The only uncertainty has to do with the dollar value of the Swiss francs
when they are received. This is the risk factor.
The 1M Swiss francs is Export Inc.s only cash flow between March 1 and June 1. Suppose
that the firm incurs distress costs if this cash flow is low. We saw in Chapter 4 that an appropriate
risk measure in this case is cash-flow-at-risk. The CaR at the 5% level is the cash flow shortfall
relative to expected cash flow that has a 5% probability of being exceeded. To compute the CaR for
Export Inc., we need the probability distribution of the cash flow in three months.
Lets assume that the changes of the exchange rate are identically independently distributed
and that their distribution is normal. We use the abbreviation i.i.d. to denote random variables that
are identically independently distributed. If changes are i.i.d., past changes provide no information
about future changes. This means that a large increase in the exchange rate during one month tells
us nothing about the exchange rate change for the next month. With the assumption that changes are
i.i.d., we can estimate the mean and the variance of the changes using the tools provided in Box 6.1,
Estimating mean and volatility. Using monthly data for the dollar price of the Swiss franc from
March 1988 through February 1999, we obtain a mean monthly change of -$0.000115 and a variance
of 0.000631. Figure 6.1. shows a plot of the dollar price of the Swiss franc over the period used to
estimate the mean and variance of the exchange rate change.
With our assumptions, the variance for each period is the same, and the changes are
uncorrelated. To see what this implies for the variance over multiple future periods, lets look at the
variance of the exchange rate as of May 1 viewed from March 1. We use this two-month interval to
Chapter 6, page 3

make things easier to follow. Remember that we denote a spot price by S. The spot price of the Swiss
franc, its exchange rate, on May 1, is S(March 1), plus the change in March, S(March), and the
change in April, S(April). The variance of S(May 1) is therefore obtained as follows:

Var[S(May 1)] = Var[S(March 1) + S(March) + S(April)]

= Var[S(March)) + Var(S(April)) + 2Cov(S(March), S(April)]
= Var[S(March)) + Var(S(April)]
= 2Var[S(March)]

Var[S(March 1)] is equal to zero since we know the exchange rate on that day. We argued in Chapter
2 that assuming serially uncorrelated changes for financial prices is a good first assumption. We
therefore make this assumption here, so that Cov[S(March), S(April)] = 0. Finally, we assume
that the distribution of each change is the same, so that Var[S(March)] = Var[S(April)]. The
variance of the change in the exchange rate over two periods is twice the variance of the change over
one period. The same reasoning leads to the result that the variance of the exchange rate in N periods
is N times the variance of a one-period change to the exchange rate. Since the volatility is the square
root of the variance, it follows that the volatility of the exchange rate over N periods is N times the
volatility per period. This rule is called the square root rule for volatility:

Square root rule for volatility

If a random variable is identically independently distributed with volatility per period ), the volatility
of that random variable over N periods is ) x N.
Chapter 6, page 4

This rule does not work if changes are correlated because, in that case, the variance of the sum of
the changes depends on the covariance between the changes.
Lets now look at an horizon of three months. The monthly volatility is the square root of
0.000631, which is 0.0251197. To get the three-month volatility, we multiply the one-month
volatility by the square root of three, 0.0251197 x 3, which is 0.0435086. The volatility of the
payoff to the firm, the dollar payment in three months, is therefore $0.0435086 x 1M, or $43,508.6.
The expected change of the exchange rate over three months is three times the expected change over
one month, which is 3(-.000115) = -$0.000345.
Since the monthly exchange rate change is normally distributed, the sum of three monthly
changes is normally distributed also. We know that with the normal distribution, there is a
probability of 0.05 that a random variable distributed normally will have a value lower than its mean
by 1.65 times its standard deviation. Using this result, there is a 0.05 probability that the exchange
rate will be lower than its expected value by at least 1.65 x $0.0435086 = $0.0717892 per Swiss
franc. For Export, there is a 0.05 probability that it will receive an amount that is at least 0.0717892
x 1,000,000 = $71,789.20 below the expected amount. Suppose that the current exchange rate is
$0.75 and we use the distribution of the exchange rate we have just estimated. In this case, the
expected exchange rate is $0.75 - $0.00325, or $0.7496550. The expected cash flow is 1M x
$0.749655 = $749,655. If there is a 5% probability that the firms cash flow shortfall relative to its
expected value will exceed $71,789.20, this means there is a 5% chance the cash flow will be lower
than $749,655 - $71,789.20, or $677,865.80. The CaR is therefore $71,789.20. If Export wants its
cash flow to exceed $710,000 95% of the time, it now has taken too much risk because its target CaR
is $39,655, namely, $749,655 - $710,000.
Chapter 6, page 5

The calculations are similar for value-at-risk. Suppose that Export chose to compute its value
and was concerned about its change in value over the next day. In that case, value-at-risk would be
an appropriate risk measure. To compute the VaR, we require the market value of the long Swiss
franc position. The price of a 3-month discount bond in Swiss francs is 0.96 Swiss francs. Since an
increase in the price of the Swiss franc tomorrow by one penny increases the present value tomorrow
of the Swiss francs Export Inc. will receive on June 1 by 960,000*$0.01, or $9,600, Export has an
exposure of 960,000 Swiss francs over the next day. The price of one Swiss franc on March 1 is
$0.75, so the dollar value of the Swiss franc payoff on that day is 0.75 x 0.96 x 1M = $720,000. Over
the next day, the expected change in the exchange rate is trivial and can be ignored. Further, we
assume that interest rate uncertainty can be ignored. To get the volatility of the exchange rate change
over one day, we use the square root rule. Lets use 21 trading days per month. This means that the
volatility over one day is the square root of 1/21 times the monthly volatility. We therefore have a
daily exchange rate volatility given by (1/21) x 0.0251107, which is 0.0054816. The volatility over
the next day of the present value of the Swiss franc payment Export will receive on March 1 is
therefore 960,000 x 0.0054816 = $5,262.3. Lets assume that the daily change in the dollar price of
the Swiss franc is normally distributed. There is therefore a 5% chance that the position will lose at
least 1.65 x $5,262.3 or $8,683 over the next day.
Remember that a long forward position of one Swiss franc maturing on June 1 is equivalent
to a portfolio of a long position in a Swiss T-bill with face value of one Swiss franc maturing on June
1 and a short position in a dollar T-bill maturing on June 1 with face value equal to the forward price.
If interest rate changes can be neglected, the risk of a long forward position is therefore the risk of
a long position in a Swiss T-bill with face value equal to the number of Swiss francs purchased
Chapter 6, page 6

forward. When we compute Exports three-month CaR, we therefore also compute the CaR of a
three-month forward contract. When we compute Exports one-day VaR of Export, we also compute
the one-day VaR of a three-month forward contract.

Section 6.2. Hedging when there is no basis risk

Export has taken on too much risk. It has to figure out how to reduce its risk. We explore
how Export can eliminate risk using the forward market, the money market, and the futures market:
1. The forward contract and money market solutions. Export Inc. can use a forward
contract to hedge. A hedge is a short position in a hedging instrument put on to reduce the risk
resulting from the exposure to a risk factor. Suppose Export sells its exposure to the risk factor
forward. The hedge is a short position of 1M Swiss francs in a forward contract maturing on June
1. Denote the forward price today on a forward contract that matures in three months by F. The
forward contract is a derivative that pays F - S(June 1) per Swiss franc sold forward, so that Export
will have on June 1:

Cash position + payoff of forward position =

S(June 1) x 1M + [F x 1M - S(June 1) x 1M] = F x 1M

We can also compute the hedge for a one-unit exposure to a risk factor. Computed this way, the
hedge is called the hedge ratio. In this example, the hedge ratio is one because the firm goes short
one Swiss franc forward for each Swiss franc of exposure.
Consider now the impact of a forward hedge on our risk measures. Since the forward price
Chapter 6, page 7

is known today, there is no risk to the hedged position as long as there is no counterparty risk with
the forward contract. This makes the volatility of the hedged payoff equal to zero. Since the CaR is
1.65 times the volatility of the hedged payoff, the hedged payoff has a CaR of zero.
Define P(June 1) to be the price on March 1 of a T-bill with a face value of $1 maturing on
June 1. Assuming no counterparty risk, the dollar present value of the hedged Swiss francs is P(June
1) x F x 1M. Define P(March 2, June 1) to be the price on March 2 of a T-bill with one dollar face
value maturing on June 1. Since the value of the position is the present value of the hedged payoff,
this hedge makes the one-day VaR equal to zero as long as there is no uncertainty about the T-bill
price on March 2:

One-day VaR of hedged position

= 1.65 x Vol[Change in present value of hedged position over one day]
= 1.65 x Vol[P(June 1)F - P(March 2, June 1)F]
=0

For Export Inc., therefore, the same hedge makes the volatility, the CaR, and the VaR all equal to
zero (as long as interest rates are deterministic or interest rate risk is sufficiently small that it can be
safely ignored). This is because all three risk measures depend linearly on the volatility of the same
risk factor when the risk factor has a normal distribution. When the risk factor has a normal
distribution, minimizing the variance or the volatility will therefore also minimize the CaR and the
VaR, so that we can focus on minimizing just one of these risk measures.
Since you know from Chapter 5 that a long forward position can be replicated by a long
Chapter 6, page 8

position in the foreign currency bill with the same maturity as the forward contract and by a short
position in the domestic currenty bill, Export could hedge using money market instruments and
achieve the same result as when it hedges with the forward contract.
2. The futures solution. Export Inc. can use a futures contract to hedge. Suppose that there
is a futures contract with a maturity such that the Swiss francs are delivered on June 1. The delivery
date of this contract exactly matches the maturity of Export Inc.s exposure. While going short the
exposure eliminates all risk with the forward contract, this is not the case with the futures contract.
Futures contracts have a daily settlement feature, so the firm receives gains and losses throughout
the life of the contract. In Chapter 5, we saw that we can transform a futures contract into the
equivalent of a forward contract by reinvesting the gains at the risk-free rate whenever they occur,
and borrowing the losses at the risk-free rate as well. The appropriate risk-free rate is the rate paid
on a discount bond from the time the gain or loss takes place to the maturity of the contract. Since
a gain or loss made today is magnified by the interest earned, we need to adjust our position for this
magnification effect.
Lets assume for simplicity that interest rates are constant. A gain incurred over the first day
of the futures position can be invested on March 2 until June 1 if one wants to use it on June 1 to
offset a loss on the cash position at that date. The converse is so for a loss; we borrow and the
repayment offsets any gain. This means that over the next day the firm has to make only the present
value of the gain or loss that it requires on June 1 to be perfectly hedged. Therefore, the futures
position on March 1 has to be a short position of Swiss francs 1M x P (March 2, June 1), where
P(March 2, June 1) is the March 2 price of a T-bill with one dollar face value maturing on June 1.
P (March 2, June 1) is not known on March 1. So, the firm must use its forecast of the T-bill price
Chapter 6, page 9

on March 2. We take this price to be the T-bill price on March 1 a more precise approximation
would use the yield of the T-bill on March 1, but discount one dollar to be paid on June 1 back to
March 2 at that yield.
Remember that $1 invested in the discount bond on March 1 becomes 1/P(June 1) dollars on
June 1. Any dollar gained on March 1 can be invested until June 1 when the gain made the first day
plus the interest income on that gain will correspond to what the gain would have been on a futures
position of 1M Swiss francs:

Gain on June 1 from change in value of futures position on March 1

= Change in value of futures position on March 1/P(June 1)
= P(June) x 1M x Change in futures price of 1 SFR on March 1/P(June 1)
= Change in futures price of 1 SFR on March 1 x 1M

This change in the hedge to account for the marking to market of futures contracts is called tailing
the hedge. Remember that the forward hedge is equal to the exposure to the risk factor. To obtain
the futures hedge, we have to take into account the marking-to-market of futures contracts by tailing
the hedge. To tail the hedge, we multiply the forward hedge on each hedging day by the present value
on the next day (when settlement takes place) of a dollar to be paid at maturity of the hedge. The
tailed hedge ratio for a futures contract is less than one when the hedge ratio for a forward contract
is one. The March 1 price of a T-bill that matures on June 1 is $0.969388. Therefore, the tailed hedge
consists of selling short 969,388 Swiss francs for June 1, even though the exposure to the Swiss
franc on June 1 is 1M Swiss francs. Note now that on the next day, March 2, the gain on the futures
Chapter 6, page 10

position can be invested only from March 3 onward. Hence, tailing the hedge on March 2 involves
multiplying the exposure by the present value on March 3 of a dollar to be paid on June 1. This
means that the tailed hedge changes over time. For constant interest rates, the tailed hedge rises over
time to reach the exposure at maturity of the hedge.
When we use this procedure, the sum of the gains and losses brought forward to the maturity
of the hedge is equal to the change in the futures price between the time one enters the hedge and the
maturity of the hedge. Technical Box 6.2, Proof by example that tailing works, provides an example
showing that this is indeed the case.
If we tail the hedge, we can use a futures contract to create a perfect hedge. Tailing is often
neglected in practice, but ignoring tailing can lead to a large hedging error. For a hedge with a short
maturity, the present value of a dollar to be paid at maturity of the hedge is close to $1, so tailing
does not affect the hedge much and is not an important issue. An exposure that has a long maturity
is a different matter. Suppose a firm wants to hedge a cash flow that it receives in ten years. In this
case, the present value of a dollar to be paid at maturity of the hedge might be fifty cents on the
dollar, so that the optimal hedge would be half the hedge one would use without tailing. With a
hedge ratio of one, the firm would effectively be hedging more exposure than it has. This is called
overhedging.
Lets consider an example where overhedging occurs. Suppose that Export receives the 1M
Swiss francs in ten years and does not tail the hedge. Lets assume that the futures price is the same
as the ten-year forward price on March 1, which we take to be $0.75 for the sake of comparison, and
that the present value of $1 to be received in ten years is $0.50. Now suppose the Swiss franc futures
price increases tomorrow by 10 cents and stays there for the next ten years. Without tailing the
Chapter 6, page 11

hedge, Export goes short 1M Swiss francs on the futures market. In ten years, Export Inc. will
receive $850,000 by selling 1M Swiss francs on the cash market, but it will have incurred a loss of
10 cents per Swiss franc on its short futures position of 1M Swiss franc after one day. If Export
borrows to pay for the loss, in ten years it has to pay 0.10 x 1M x (1/0.50), or $200,000. Hence, by
selling short 1M Swiss franc, Export Inc. will receive from its hedged position $850,000 minus
$200,000, or $650,000, in comparison to a forward hedge where it would receive $750,000 in ten
years for sure. This is because its futures hedge is too large. The tailed hedge of 0.5 x 1M Swiss
francs would have been just right. With that hedge, Export Inc. would receive $750,000 in ten years
corresponding to $850,000 on the cash position minus a loss of $100,000 on the futures position (an
immediate loss of $50,000 which amounts to a loss of $100,000 in ten years).
The higher the exchange rate at maturity, the greater the loss of Export Inc. if it goes short
and fails to tail its hedge. Hence, the position in futures that exceeds the tailed hedge Export Inc.
should have taken represents a speculative position. Overhedging when one is long in the cash
market amounts to taking a short speculative position.
Note that the marking-to-market feature of the futures contract creates cash flow
requirements during the life of the hedge. With a forward hedge, no money changes hands until
maturity of the hedge. Not so with the futures hedge; money changes hands whenever the futures
price changes. One must therefore be in a position to make payments when required to do so. We
talk more about this issue in the next chapter.

Section 6.3. Hedging when the basis is not zero

We have been assuming there is a Swiss franc futures contract maturing when Export Inc.
Chapter 6, page 12

receives the Swiss franc cash payment. If so, the futures price equals the spot price on that date. This
is not true if the futures contract does not mature on June 1. Suppose there is no contract maturing
on June 1 available to Export, so it uses a futures contract maturing in August instead. With this
contract, Export would have a Swiss franc futures position after June 1 that would not be hedging
a cash flow exposure. After June 1, therefore, the futures position would create a currency risk for
Export and would no longer be a hedge. Consequently, Export Inc. would have to close its futures
position on June 1. Since Export receives the cash payment it hedges on June 1, the adjustment factor
for tailing the hedge is the price of a discount bond that matures on June 1, the maturity date of the
hedge, and not the price of a discount bond that matures when the futures contract matures. In this
case, assuming a tailed hedge, the payoff of the hedged position on June 1 is:

Payoff of cash position + Payoff of hedge

= 1M x S(June 1) - 1M x [G(June 1) - G(March 1)]
= 1M x G(March 1) + 1M x {S(June 1) - G(June 1)}

where G(March 1) is the futures price when the position is opened on March 1. The term in braces
is the basis on June 1. The basis is usually defined as the difference between the spot price and the
futures price on a given date.1
There is basis risk when the difference between the value of the cash position and the futures
price at maturity is random. With our example, there would be no basis risk if the futures contract
1

This is called more precisely the spot-futures basis. Authors also sometimes call the
basis the difference between the futures price and the spot price, which is called the futures-spot
basis.
Chapter 6, page 13

were to mature when Export receives the 1M Swiss francs since, in that case, the term in braces is
identically equal to zero and the value of the cash position is the futures price times 1M.
The absence of a contract with the matching maturity is not the only reason for the existence
of basis risk, however. For instance, airlines started to hedge fuel oil actively following the Gulf
War. Their hedging can make a large difference in their cash flow. For instance, when fuel prices
increased sharply in 2000, Delta gained $684 million on its hedges. There is no futures contract for
jet fuel. There are futures contracts for crude oil of various grades and locations and futures contracts
for heating oil. The difference between crude oil prices, heating oil prices, and jet fuel changes
randomly. Delta uses only heating oil contracts to hedge. Since the price of heating oil does not
change one for one with the price of jet fuel, Delta bears basis risk when it hedges.

Section 6.3.1. The optimal hedge when there is a deterministic relation between the futures
price and the spot price
When the spot price is a constant plus a fixed multiple of the futures price, we can create a
perfect hedge. In this case, the basis is known if the futures price is known. The method used to find
the hedge when the spot price is a linear function of the futures price will be useful when there is
basis risk also. Lets assume that the futures price and the spot exchange rate are tied together so that
for any change in the futures price of , the spot exchange rate changes exactly by 0.9 . This means
that if we know the change in the futures price from March 1 to June 1, we also know the change in
the spot exchange rate and the change in the basis (it is -0.1, since the change in the basis is the
change in the spot exchange rate minus the change in the futures price).
With our example, we can plot past changes in the spot exchange rate against past changes
Chapter 6, page 14

in the futures price. For simplicity, we assume that the changes have an expected value of zero, so
that they are also unexpected changes. If there is an exact linear relation between these changes, the
plot would look like Figure 6.2. Because the change in the spot exchange rate is always 0.9 times
the change in the futures price, all the points representing past observations of these changes plot on
a straight line. We use simulated data that satisfy the conditions of the example.
Export wants a hedge to protect against exchange rate surprises. It wants the unexpected
change in the value of its futures position to exactly offset the unexpected change in the value of its
cash market position. The value of Exports cash market position on June 1 is 1M x S(June 1).
Using our assumption about the relation between the futures price and the spot exchange rate, an
unexpected change of  in the futures price is associated with a change in the value of the cash
position of 1M x 0.9 x . The exposure of the cash position to the futures price is therefore 1M x
0.9 Swiss francs futures, or 900,000 Swiss francs futures, since a change in the futures price of 
is multiplied by 900,000 to yield the change in the cash position. Another way to put this is that the
change in value of the cash position is exactly equivalent to the change in value of a futures position
of 900,000 Swiss francs.
Suppose that Export goes short h Swiss francs on the futures market. In that case, the impact
of an unexpected change in the futures price of  changes the value of Exports futures position by h x . Because of the linear relation between the futures price and the spot exchange rate, a change
in the futures price of  correspond to a change in the spot exchange rate of 0.9 x . Therefore,
when the futures price changes by , the value of Exports cash position changes by 0.9 x 1M x .
The change of the value of the hedged position is the change in value of the cash position plus the
change in value of the hedge:
Chapter 6, page 15

Change in value of the hedged position = 0.9 x 1M x  - h x 

Figure 6.3. plots the value of the hedged position as a function of the change in the exchange rate
and of h. Panel A shows when the hedged position makes a gain because of changes in the exchange
rate, while Panel B shows when it makes a loss. Suppose h is 500,000. In this case, the net impact
of a one penny increase in the futures price is to increase the value of the cash position by 0.9 x 0.01
x 1M, or by $9,000, and to decrease the value of the futures position by -500,000 x 0.01, or $5,000,
for a net gain of the hedged position of $4,000. With h equal to 500,000, a decrease in the exchange
rate of one penny decreases the value of the cash position by $9,000, and increases the value of the
futures position by $4,000, so that a decrease in the exchange rate of one penny makes a loss for
Export. Panel A shows that the hedged position makes a gain when h is below 900,000, and the
exchange rate appreciates and makes a loss when h is above 900,000, and the exchange rate
depreciates. The only value of h where the hedged position never makes a gain is 900,000. Panel B
shows that the position makes a loss when h is below 900,000 and the exchange rate depreciates. It
makes a gain when h is above 900,000 and the exchange rate appreciates. The only value of h where
the hedged position never makes a loss is 900,000. Consequently, the only way Export does not lose
as the exchange rate changes is if it sells Swiss franc futures for 900,000 Swiss franc. In this case,
a change of the exchange rate always has offsetting effects on the value of the cash position and the
value of the futures position. This value of h is the solution obtained by requiring that the change in
the value of the hedged position is equal to zero regardless of the change in the exchange rate:

0.9 x 1M x  - h x  = 0
Chapter 6, page 16

With h = 900,000, the volatility of the payoff of the hedged position is zero, so a short
futures position equal to the exposure of the cash position to the futures price is the volatilityminimizing hedge. Since the exposure of Export to the futures price is 900,000, Export goes short
900,000 Swiss franc futures. We saw that Export has an exposure of 1,000,000 to the Swiss franc
on June 1. If Export goes short Swiss franc futures for an amount equal to its exposure to the spot
exchange rate instead of its exposure to the futures price, an increase in the futures price of one
penny would increase the value of the cash market position by 0.9 x 1M x 0.01 dollars, or $9,000,
and would decrease the value of the futures position by 1M x 0.01 dollars, or $10,000, so that the
value of the hedged position would fall by -0.1 x M x 0.01 dollars, or $1,000. That is, if the firm
goes short its exposure to the spot exchange rate on the futures market, the value of its hedged
position would depend on the futures price and would be risky. This is because in this example the
spot exchange rate does not move one for one with the futures price. The hedged position has no
risk, however, if the firm goes short its exposure to the futures price.
In the absence of basis risk, we can go short the exposure to the risk factor through a futures
contract whose payoff is perfectly correlated with the risk factor. In the presence of basis risk, we
cannot do this. We cannot go short the risk factor because there is no hedging instrument whose
payoff is exactly equal to the payoff of the risk factor. For Export, the risk factor is the Swiss franc
on June 1, but there is no way to sell the Swiss franc short on June 1. We have to do the next best
thing, which here works perfectly. Instead of going short our exposure to the risk factor, we go short
our exposure to the hedging instrument we can use. Here, the hedging instrument is the futures
contract. Our exposure to the futures price is 900,000 Swiss francs; our exposure to the risk factor
is 1M Swiss francs. Since we are using the futures contract to hedge, the best hedge is the one that
Chapter 6, page 17

makes our hedged position have an exposure of zero to the futures price. If the exposure of the
hedged position to the futures price were different from zero, we would have risk that we could
hedge since our hedged position would depend on the futures price.
The hedge ratio is the futures hedge per unit of exposure to the risk factor. The hedge ratio
for Export is 0.9. Writing the optimal hedge as a function of the hedge ratio, we have:

Optimal hedge = Optimal hedge ratio x Exposure to the risk factor

900,000 = 0.9 x 1M

Without basis risk, the optimal hedge ratio is 1. The hedge ratio depends only on the exposure to the
futures price of one unit of the Swiss franc. Therefore, the hedge ratio would be the same for any
firm hedging a Swiss franc exposure in the same circumstances as Export regardless of the size of
its exposure. In other words, if there was another firm with an exposure of 100M Swiss franc, that
firm could use the same hedge ratio as Export, but its hedge would be a short Swiss franc futures
position of 0.9 x 100M.

Section 6.3.2. Hedging when the basis is random

When there is basis risk, a hedge is more complicated since the change in the futures price
is randomly related to the change in the spot exchange rate. Lets assume again that the distribution
of changes in the spot exchange rate and the futures price is the same in the past as it will be over
the hedging period. We assume that the futures contract is the only hedging instrument available.
Now, when we plot past futures price changes against spot price changes, they do not plot right on
Chapter 6, page 18

a straight line as in Figure 6.2., but rather randomly around a line with a slope of 0.9 as shown in
Figure 6.4. (using simulated data). We assume instead that for each realization of the change in the
futures price, the change in the spot exchange rate is 0.9 times that realization plus a random error
that is not correlated with the futures price. This random error corresponds to the basis risk and is
the only source of uncertainty in the relation between the spot exchange rate and the futures price.2
This means we can no longer know for sure what the spot price will be, given the futures
price. The best we can do is to forecast the spot price given the futures price. Since the spot price is
0.9 times the futures price plus noise that cannot be forecasted, our best forecast of the spot price is
0.9 times the futures price. The forecasted exposure of Export to the futures price is therefore 0.9 x
1M, or 0.9 per unit of exposure to the risk factor. Exports volatility-minimizing hedge is to go short
the forecasted exposure to the hedging instrument. With this hedge, the unexpected change in the
cash position is expected to be equal to the unexpected change in the futures position plus a random
error that cannot be predicted and hence cannot affect the hedge.
Why, in the presence of basis risk, cant we find a hedge that reduces the volatility of the
hedged cash flow more than a hedge equal to the forecasted exposure of the cash position to the
futures price? The value of the hedged cash flow is equal to the value of the cash position plus the
payoff from the futures hedge. We therefore want to try to find a hedge that reduces the volatility of
the hedged cash flow more than the hedge consisting of going short the forecasted exposure of the
cash flow to the futures price. If we do not succeed, then we cannot improve on a hedge that goes

We are assuming a linear relationship between changes in the spot exchange rate and the
futures price, but the relation does not have to be linear. For instance, the basis could be smaller
on average when the futures price is high. We will see later how the analysis is affected when the
relationship is not linear.
Chapter 6, page 19

short the forecasted exposure. Let S be the change in the spot exchange rate and G be the change
in the futures price over the hedging period. The hedged cash flow per Swiss franc is therefore:

Hedged cash flow

= Cash market position on March 1 + Change in value of cash position + Hedge position payoff
= S(March 1) + [S(June 1) - S(March 1)] - h x [G(June 1) - G(March 1)]
= S(March 1) + S - h x G

We know that the change in the cash market position per Swiss franc is forecasted to be 0.9 times
the change in the futures price. Using this relation, we get an expression for the hedged cash flow
per unit of exposure to the Swiss franc:

Hedged cash flow when forecasted exposure of the Swiss franc to futures price is 0.9
= S(March 1) + 0.9*G + Random Error - h*G
= S(March 1) + (0.9 - h)*G + Random Error

Consequently, the hedged cash flow is risky for two reasons when the forecasted exposure of the
cash position to the futures price is known. First, as seen from the first term in the last line of the
equation, any difference between the hedge and the forecasted exposure of 0.9 makes the hedged
cash flow depend on the change in the futures price, G, so that its value can be predicted given the
change in the futures price. If the hedge ratio is less than 0.9, the hedged cash flow increases with
the futures price otherwise it falls with it. It is only when the hedge ratio is the forecasted exposure
Chapter 6, page 20

that the hedged cash flow does not depend on the change in the futures price. Second, the hedged
cash flow is risky because of basis risk. Basis risk means that the change in the spot price given the
change in futures price is not what we expected. In other words, it could be that the change in the
spot price from March 1 to June 1 is 1.1 times the change in the futures price. Since we hedged based
on a forecasted exposure of 0.9, our hedge ratio was too low because the spot exchange rate changed
more than we expected and therefore we went short too few Swiss francs.
We saw in Chapter 2 that to find the volatility of a sum of random variables we take the
square root of the variance of the sum of the variables. The volatility of the hedged cash flow per unit
exposure to the Swiss franc is therefore:

Volatility of hedged cash flow per unit exposure to the Swiss franc
= [(0.9 - h)2*Var(G) + Var(Random Error)]0.5

Remember that the volatility of k times a random variable is k times the volatility of the random
variable. Consequently, the volatility of Exports hedged cash flow is simply 1M times the volatility
of the hedged cash flow per unit of Swiss franc exposure. Because the random error is uncorrelated
with the change in the futures price, the two random variables, the change in the futures price and
the random error, are uncorrelated. Setting the hedge equal to the expected exposure to the futures
price of 0.9 x 1M, we eliminate the impact of the volatility of the futures price on the volatility of
the hedged cash flow. There is nothing we can do about the random error with our assumptions, so
the volatility of the hedged cash flow is equal to the volatility of the random error. Hence, going
short the forecasted exposure to the hedging instrument is the volatility-minimizing hedge ratio.
Chapter 6, page 21

It is more realistic to acknowledge that Export does not know the forecasted exposure of the
risk factor to the hedging instrument. It has instead to figure it out. All Export knows is that the
distribution of past changes in the spot exchange rate and the futures price is the same as the
distribution of these changes over the hedging period. Therefore, Export uses the past observations
in Figure 6.4. to find the optimal hedge.
To minimize risk, Export has to offset the impact of unexpected changes in the value of its
cash position. Export wants to find a position in futures so that the unexpected change in the value
of that position matches the unexpected change in the value of its cash position as closely as
possible. This turns out to be a sort of forecasting problem. Instead of forecasting both the change
in the futures price and the change in the value of the cash position between March 1 and June 1,
Export wants instead to forecast the change in the value of the cash position between March 1 and
June 1, given the change in the futures price in that period. Per unit of exposure to the risk factor,
this amounts to finding what value times the unexpected change in the futures price from March 1
to June 1 is the best forecast of the unexpected change in the value of the spot exchange rate for the
period in the sense that the forecasting error has the smallest volatility. The volatility-minimizing
hedge is then to go short h per unit of exposure to the risk factor. If the change in the futures price
is useless to forecast the change in value of the risk factor, then h is equal to zero and the futures
contract cannot be used to hedge the risk factor. This is equivalent to saying that for the futures
contract to be useful to hedge the risk factor, changes in the futures price have to be correlated with
changes in the risk factor.
We already know how to obtain the best forecast of a random variable, given the realization
of another random variable. We faced such a problem in chapter 2 when we wanted to know how
Chapter 6, page 22

the return of IBM is related to the return of the stock market. Using the S&P 500 as a proxy for the
stock market, we found that the return of IBM can be expected to be IBMs beta times the return of
the market plus a random error due to IBMs idiosyncratic risk. Beta is the forecast of the exposure
of the return of IBM to the return of the market. If past returns are distributed like future returns,
IBMs beta is the regression coefficient in a regression of the return of IBM on the return of the
market. To obtain beta using an ordinary least squares regression (OLS), we had to assume that the
return of IBM and the return of the S&P500 were i.i.d.
If the past changes in the spot exchange rate and the futures price have the same distribution
as the changes over the hedging period, the regression coefficient of the change in the spot price on
a constant and the change in the futures price over past periods is our best estimate of the exposure
and is the volatility-minimizing hedge. Export can therefore obtain the hedge ratio by estimating a
regression. Figure 6.5. shows the regression line Export obtains using the 100 observations of Figure
6.4. If we denote the change in the spot exchange rate corresponding to the i-th observation by S(i)
and the change in the futures price by G(i), Export Inc. estimates the regression:

S(i) = Constant + h x G(i) + (i)

(6.1.)

where (i) is the regression error or residual associated with the i-th observation. A negative value
of the residual means that if the futures price has fallen, the exchange rate has fallen by more than
predicted by the regression. Consequently, if we are short the futures contract and the futures price
falls, the gain we make on the futures contract is insufficient to offset the loss we make on our cash
position. Figure 6.5. shows the regression line obtained by Export using the 100 observations of
Chapter 6, page 23

Figure 6.4. The slope of this regression line gives Exports estimate of the exposure to the futures
price per Swiss franc, and hence its hedge ratio. If the expected changes are different from zero, this
affects only the estimate of the constant in the regression. The estimate of the constant will be
different from zero if the expected value of the dependent variable is not equal to the coefficient
estimate times the expected value of the independent variable. Consequently, the analysis holds just
as well if expected change is different from zero, but in that case the regression is misspecified
without a constant term. From now on, therefore, we do not restrict expected changes to be zero.
The volatility-minimizing hedge for one unit of exposure is the regression coefficient in a
regression of changes in the spot exchange rate on a constant and on changes in the futures price. The
formula for the volatility-minimizing hedge for one unit of exposure is therefore:

Volatility-minimizing hedge for one unit of exposure to the risk factor

h=

Cov( S, G)
Var( G)

(6.2.)

If the exposure to the risk factor is 1M, we can obtain the optimal hedge by multiplying the optimal
hedge per unit of exposure to the risk factor by 1M. Alternatively, we can regress changes in the
value of the firms cash position on the futures price changes. The numerator of the hedge formula
is Cov(1M x S, G) or 1M x Cov(S, G), which is the covariance of an exposure of 1M to the
risk factor with the futures price, and the denominator is unchanged. Hence, in this case, we would
get a hedge equal to 1M times the hedge per unit exposure.
The formula for the volatility-minimizing hedge ratio holds even if we cannot estimate a
Chapter 6, page 24

regression and if there is no linear relation between the change in the futures price and the change
in the spot exchange rate. This is because the volatility-minimizing hedge has to be such that the
hedged cash flow is to be uncorrelated with the change in the futures price over the hedging period.
To see this, suppose that Export picks a hedge ratio of 0.8 instead of 0.9. In this case, the hedge
position is too small. If the Swiss franc futures price falls by , Export loses 0.9 on its cash
position but gains only 0.8 on its futures position per Swiss franc of cash position. Hence, Export
loses money when the futures price falls and makes money when the futures price increases. To
reduce the volatility of its hedged cash flow, Export would therefore want to increase its hedge ratio.
If it increases its hedge ratio so that it exceeds 0.9, however, the opposite happens. In this case, it
expects to lose money when the futures price increases and to make money when the futures price
falls. The only case where Export does not expect to make either a gain or a loss when the futures
price unexpectedly increases is when it chooses the hedge ratio given by h in equation (6.2.). For all
other hedge ratios, the hedged cash flow is more volatile and is correlated with the futures price.
Lets see what a choice of h that makes the hedged cash flow uncorrelated with the change
in the futures price implies. To do this, we compute the covariance of the hedged cash flow per unit
of cash position with the futures price and set it equal to zero:

Cov[Hedged cash flow per unit of cash position, G]

= Cov[S - h*G + S(March 1), G]
= Cov[S, G] h*Var[G]

Setting the covariance equal to zero yields the same relationship as the hedge ratio in equation (6.2.),
Chapter 6, page 25

but we did not use a regression to obtain the hedge ratio this way. This volatility-minimizing hedge
ratio is the covariance of the change in the spot exchange rate with the change in the futures price
divided by the variance of the change in the futures price. As long as we know the distribution of the
change of the spot exchange rate and the change of the futures price over the hedging period, we can
compute the optimal hedge ratio because we can compute the covariance and the variance from the
distribution of the changes.
We can extend this result beyond exchange rates. To see this, note that we can write the
hedged cash flow as:

General formula for hedged cash flow

Hedged cash flow =
Cash position at maturity of hedge h x [Futures price at maturity of hedge - Futures price at origination of hedge]

(6.3.)

The covariance of the hedged cash flow with the futures price has to be zero. A non-zero covariance
creates risk because it implies that when the futures price changes unexpectedly, there is some
probability that the hedged cash flow does too. We can reduce this risk by changing the futures
position to eliminate the covariance. We can ignore the futures price at origination of the hedge since
it is a constant that does not affect the covariance. Consequently, we require that:

Cov[Cash position at maturity of hedge h x G(Maturity of hedge), G(Maturity of hedge)]

= Cov[Cash position at maturity of hedge, G(Maturity of hedge)] - h x Var[G(Maturity of hedge)]
Chapter 6, page 26

=0

where G(Maturity of hedge) denotes the futures price of the contract used for hedging at the maturity
of the hedge. Solving for the optimal volatility-minimizing hedge, we get:

General formula for volatility-minimizing hedge of arbitrary cash position

h=

Cov[Cash position at maturity of hedge, G(Maturity of hedge)]

Var[G(Maturity of hedge)]

(6.4.)

This is the classic formula for the volatility-minimizing hedge. To hedge an arbitrary cash position,
we go short h units of the hedging instrument. The hedge obtained in equation (6.2.) is a special case
of the hedge obtained in equation (6.4.). If the cash flow in equation (6.4.) is one unit exposure to
the Swiss franc, we get the hedge in equation (6.2.). Note that we make no assumption about
exposure being constant to obtain (6.4.). As a result, this formula holds generally for any random
cash flow we wish to hedge. Nor does equation (6.4.) assume that there is a linear relation between
the change in value of the cash position and the change in the futures price. The linearity assumption
is needed only if one wants to obtain the hedge from a regression of changes in the cash position on
changes in the futures price. This means that the formula for the hedge obtained in equation (6.4.)
is extremely general. Generality in a hedging formula is less important than the ability to implement
the formula, however. In the rest of this chapter, we focus on the implementation of the hedge ratio
when it is obtained from a regression. Technical Box 6.3., Deriving the minimum-volatility hedge,
Chapter 6, page 27

provides a mathematical derivation of the volatility-minimizing hedge.

Section 6.3.3. The optimal hedge and regression analysis

Does the length of the period over which we hedge matters? Suppose that Export B Inc.
receives 1M, but at some other time than Export. If Export hedges over three months and Export B
over some other period, can the two firms estimate their hedge ratios using the same regression and
use the same hedge ratio before tailing? The answer is yes as long as an unexpected futures price
change of  has the same impact on the forecast of the cash position change whatever the time
interval over which the unexpected futures price change takes place and whatever the sign or
magnitude of . This will be the case if the cash position change per unit is expected to be 0.9 times
the futures price change for any time interval over which the futures price change takes place in
other words, whether this time interval is one minute, two days, five weeks, or two months and
whether the futures price change is $1 or -$10. We call this the assumption of a constant linear
relation between futures price and cash position changes.
To ensure that we can apply linear regression analysis without additional qualifications, we
assume that over any time interval of identical length, the futures price changes are independently
identically normally distributed, that the cash position changes are independently identically
normally distributed, and that there is a constant linear relation between the futures price changes
and the cash position changes. We call this assumption the multivariate normal changes model.
Technical Box 6.4., The statistical foundations of the linear regression approach to obtaining the
minimum-variance hedge ratio, discusses conditions that lead to this assumption and what the
assumption implies.
Chapter 6, page 28

We implement the regression analysis to find the optimal hedge ratio for hedging a Swiss
franc cash position with a futures Swiss franc contract, assuming that the constant linear relation
assumption holds. To estimate the relation between futures price changes and cash price changes,
we can therefore use weekly changes over a period of time, the sample period. Lets assume that we
use the shortest- maturity contract to hedge. We denote by S(i) the change in the exchange rate for
period i and by G(i) the change in the futures price for the same period. Using periods of one week,
we regress the change in the spot exchange rate on the change in the Swiss franc futures contract of
shortest maturity for the period from September 1, 1997 to February 22, 1999, and obtain (t-statistics
in parentheses):

S(i) = Constant + h x G(i) + (i)

0.00

0.94

(0.03)

(32.91)

(6.5.)

(i) is the change in the exchange rate during the i-th week that is not explained by the regression
model. With equation (6.5.), if the Swiss Franc futures price unexpectedly increases by one cent in
one week, the Swiss franc spot exchange rate is expected to increase 0.94 cents. However, because
the model does not explain all the changes in the spot exchange rate, it could turn out that the Swiss
franc spot exchange rate increases by 0.96 cents that week, (i) would be 2 cents.
The regression coefficient for the futures price change is estimated with great precision. The
regression suggests that the futures price and the spot price move very closely together. To hedge
one unit of spot Swiss franc, one should short 0.94 Swiss francs on the futures market. With an
Chapter 6, page 29

exposure to the risk factor of 1M Swiss francs, Export Inc. should therefore short 940,000 Swiss
francs on the futures market.3
Note that the dependent and independent variables in the regression equation are changes.
While it might seem more direct to use the spot exchange rate and the futures price instead, this
could yield highly misleading results. The reason is that a random variable with i.i.d. changes follows
a random walk. While the changes have a well-defined mean, the random variable itself does not.
Neither the exchange rate level nor the futures price have a constant mean. The expected value of
a random variable with i.i.d. changes increases over time if the change has a positive expected value.
Since the random variable trends up, the longer the period over which we compute the average, the
higher the average. We might think that two random variables that follow random walks are
positively correlated because they happen to trend up over a period of time and hence move together,
even though their changes are uncorrelated. You might find, for example, that the average height of
U.S. residents and the U.S. national income per capita are correlated over long periods of time,
because both have positive time trends. Yet, the unexpected change in the national income per capita
for one year is uncorrelated with the unexpected change in height for that year.
To the extent that the relationship between unexpected changes in the Swiss franc spot
exchange rate and unexpected changes in the Swiss franc futures price is constant and changes are
i.i.d., whatever the measurement interval, we could use any measurement interval we want. Since
more observations allow us to estimate the relation between the two random variables more
precisely, we might want to use shorter measurement intervals days or even minutes. There is a
3

If you remember from Chapter 5 that the size of the Swiss franc contract is Swiss franc
125,000, please note that for the moment, we abstract from the details of the contract and assume
that we can short 940,000 Swiss francs.
Chapter 6, page 30

problem with using shorter intervals, however; price changes are always measured accurately.
Price data are noisy for a number of reasons. Market imperfections such as transaction costs
are one reason. If changes in price are small compared to the noise in the data, we end up getting
poor measures of the real relation. This means that using very short measurement intervals might
give poor results. At the same time, though, using a long measurement interval means that we have
few data points and imprecise estimates.
In highly liquid markets with small bid-ask spreads, it is reasonable to use daily data. In less
liquid markets, weekly or monthly data are generally more appropriate. Although we use weekly data
for the example in equation (6.5.), we would get almost the same estimate using daily data (0.91),
but the estimate would have been more precise the t-statistic using daily data is 52.48.

Section 6.3.4. The effectiveness of the hedge

Since the optimal hedge is the slope coefficient in a linear regression, we can use the output
of the regression program to evaluate the effectiveness of the hedge. The R2 of a regression tells us
the fraction of the variance of the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable
over the estimation period. The R2 of our IBM regression measures how much of IBMs return is
explained by the return of the market over the estimation period. If IBMs return is perfectly
correlated with the return of the market, the R2 is one. If the return of IBM is uncorrelated with the
return of the market, however, the R2 is zero.
To obtain the optimal hedge per unit of exposure to the Swiss franc, we regress the changes
of the spot exchange rate on the changes of the futures price:

Chapter 6, page 31

S(i) = a + h x G(i) + (i)

(i) corresponds to the basis risk that cannot be hedged. With the i.i.d. assumption, the distribution
of the changes does not depend on the period, so that we can write S for the exchange rate change
and G for the futures price change. Taking the variance of the exchange rate changes, we have:

Var[S] = h2Var[G] + Var[]

Since h is the hedge ratio, this equation states that the variance of the cash position is equal to the
variance of the hedge instrument plus the variance of the basis risk left over after going short futures
using the hedge ratio h. Hence, rearranging the equation, the variance of the hedged position over
the estimation period when the optimal hedge ratio is used is equal to the variance of the regression
residual in the regression of the spot exchange rate on the futures price:

Var[S] - h2Var[G] = (1 - R2)Var[S] = Var[]

This equation shows again that minimizing the variance of the forecasting error of the spot exchange
rate conditional on the futures price minimizes the variance of the hedged cash flow. The ratio
h2Var[G]/Var[S] equals R2. If the regression has an R2 of one, which would be the case of no
basis risk, the hedged position has no variance. If the R2 is equal to zero, though, the variance of the
hedged position equals the variance of the unhedged position.
In a regression with a single independent variable, the R2 equals the square of the correlation
Chapter 6, page 32

coefficient between the dependent variable and the independent variable. Consequently, the
effectiveness of the hedge is directly related to the coefficient of correlation between the cash
position and the futures contract used to hedge. A hedging instrument must have changes
uncorrelated with the changes in the value of the cash position, or it is useless. Since the volatility
is the square root of the variance, the square root of R2 tells us the fraction of the volatility of the
cash price explained by the hedging instrument.
The R2 measures the fraction of the variance of the cash position we could eliminate if we
use the optimal hedge during the estimation period. In the regression for the Swiss franc, equation
(6.5.), the R2 is equal to 0.934. This means that using the optimal hedge eliminates 93.4% of the
variance of the cash position, whatever the size of the exposure to the risk factor. Export Inc. would
have been able to eliminate 93.4% of the variance of its cash position if it had used the optimal
hedge during the estimation period.4
Note that the ratio of the variance of the hedged position and the variance of the unhedged
position is equal to 1 - R2. Taking the square root of the ratio gives us the ratio of the volatility of
the hedged position and the volatility of the unhedged position. Consequently, the volatility of the
hedged position as a fraction of the volatility of the unhedged position is the square root of 1 - R2.
Since R2 is 0.934, the square root of 1 - R2 is the square root of 1 - 0.934, or 0.26. Consequently, the

To check this, let Var[ S] be the variance for one unit of cash position. The hedged
variance is (1 - R2)Var[ S], so that the ratio of hedged variance to unhedged variance is 1 - R2.
Suppose now that the exposure is n units instead of one unit. This means that we have n identical
cash positions and n identical hedged positions. The variance of n times a random variable is n2
times the variance of the random variable. Therefore, the variance of the cash position is
n2Var[S] and the hedged variance for n units hedged is n2(1 - R2)Var[S]. The ratio of the
hedged variance to the unhedged variance is therefore 1 - R2 for an exposure to the risk factor of
n irrespective of the size of n.
4

Chapter 6, page 33

volatility of the hedged position is 26% of the volatility of the unhedged position. Through hedging,
we therefore eliminated 74% of the volatility of the unhedged position.
Remember that we have assumed that the joint distribution of the cash position changes and
the futures price changes does not change over time. The performance of the hedge during the
estimation period is thus a good predictor of the performance of the hedge over the hedging period.
In the case of the Swiss franc example, the optimal hedge ratio turns out to be about the same for the
hedging and the estimation periods. If we estimate our regression over the hedging period using
weekly changes, the regression coefficient is 0.94 also, and the R2 is 0.983. Using the hedge ratio of
0.94, we end up with a volatility of the hedged payoff of 0.00289 compared to a volatility of the
unhedged payoff of 0.02099. The hedge therefore eliminates 87% of the volatility of the unhedged
payoff or more than 98.3% of the variance. Consequently, the hedge performs well during the
hedging period, but not as well as during the estimation period.
It is important to understand that to hedge in the presence of basis risk, we exploit a statistical
relation between futures price changes and cash position changes. Consequently, the performance
of the hedge depends on the random error associated with this statistical relation. When R2 is high,
the volatility of the random error is low, so the cash position change must typically be close to its
predicted value conditional on the futures price change. As R2 declines, the volatility of the random
error proportionately increases, and large differences between the cash position change and its
predicted value are more likely. It may even become possible for hedging to do more harm than good
ex post. This is because, when the volatility of the random error becomes large, even though we
forecast a positive relation between futures price changes and spot exchange rate changes, ex post
the futures price might have risen and the spot exchange rate might have fallen. If this event occurs,
Chapter 6, page 34

Export makes losses both on its cash position and its futures position. Absent hedging, Export would
have made losses only on its cash position.
There are two different key reasons a hedge may perform poorly. One reason is that the
futures price explains little of the variation of the cash market price. This is the case with a low R2.
We could know the true exposure of the cash price to the futures price, yet have a low R2. With a low
R2, it is important to check whether other futures contracts would not be more helpful in hedging.
In Exports case, it is hedging a Swiss franc exposure with a Swiss franc contract. The R2 is very
high because the futures is on the same deliverable as the exposure, so that basis risk arises because
the maturity of the futures contract does not match the maturity of the exposure. Think back,
however, to the airline industry example. An airline has jet fuel exposure and is trying to hedge with
crude oil or heating oil contracts. If the R2 is low using one of these contracts, it might be higher
using the others. However, there is nothing in our derivation of the optimal hedge that precludes a
firm from using several different contracts to hedge. Often, it will have to. Some airlines use both
heating oil contracts and crude oil contracts to hedge jet fuel. We will see more on this in the next
chapter.
The other reason is that we estimate the hedge imprecisely, so the hedge is a short position
equal to the true exposure to the futures price plus an error. The precision of the estimate is given
by the t-statistic and the standard error of the estimate. In our example, the t-statistic is quite high,
so the standard error is very small. Since the t-statistic is the estimated coefficient divided by the
standard error, the standard error is 0.94 divided by 32.91, or 0.03 for the regression with weekly
data. There is a 5% chance that the true hedge ratio exceeds 0.97 by 0.014 x 1.65 or 0.022, and there
is a 5% chance that it is below 0.97 by more than 0.022. Alternatively, there is a 90% confidence
Chapter 6, page 35

interval for the true hedge ratio of (0.94 - 0.0495, 0.94 + 0.0495). When a hedge ratio is estimated
this precisely, the probability of going short when we would go long if we knew the true hedge ratio
is less than one in a trillion.
The probability of making the wrong choice rises as the precision of the estimate falls. A low
t-statistic (less than 2 by a rule of thumb) with a low R-square (less than 0.25 by a rule of thumb)
means that hedging is unlikely to be productive. To see this, note that if we are not hedged, the CaR
and VaR measures are the exposure times 1.65 the volatility of the changes in the exchange rate.
However, if we are hedged and there is some chance we have the wrong hedge ratio, then one has
to take into account the fact that with a hedge ratio of the wrong sign we make a bigger loss if the
exchange rate falls since we also lose on our hedge. This means that if the hedge ratio is wrong, we
have a bigger loss which translates into a larger CaR and VaR when we take into account the risk
of having the wrong hedge.
A hedge could fail for a more fundamental reason. If the multivariate normal changes model
does not hold for the changes of the cash price and the futures price, we could have precise estimates
of the statistical model over a period of time by chance but by the wrong statistical model. That
is, the relation between changes of the cash price and of the futures price may be completely different
during the hedging period. One possibility could be the situation we consider in Section 6.5.: returns
are i.i.d. while changes are not. Another possibility could be that the relation between the changes
in the cash price and changes in the futures price has changed over time. It is therefore always
important to check whether the relation we estimate holds throughout the estimation period. A good
way is to divide the estimation period into two subperiods and estimate the relation for each
subperiod. A relation that holds for only one subperiod is suspect.
Chapter 6, page 36

We can check that the relation between the Swiss franc spot exchange rate and the Swiss
franc futures price is stable over the sample period. We estimated the relation from September 1997
to February 1999 using weekly data. Our estimate of the regression coefficient for that period is 0.94.
If we divide the period into two subperiods of nine months, we get a coefficient of 0.96 with a tstatistic of 22.81 for the first subperiod, and 0.93 with a t-statistic of 23.09 for the second subperiod.
We have therefore no reason to be concerned that the relation is unstable or changes over time.

Section 6.4. Putting it all together in an example

Consider now Exports situation on March 1, 1999. Table 6.1. shows market data for that day
for the three types of hedging instruments we have discussed. It includes interest rate data, currency
market data, and futures data. Our exporter will receive the 1M Swiss francs on June 1. Foreign
exchange contracts have a two-day settlement period. This means that our exporter must enter
contracts that mature two days before June 1 so that it then delivers the Swiss francs on that day for
these contracts. Lets look at the various possible hedges:
1. Forward market hedg. The 3-month forward price is at $0.6902. Selling the Swiss francs
forward would therefore yield at maturity $690,200.
2. Money market hedge. Using Eurocurrency rates, the exporter could borrow for three
months the present value of 1M Swiss francs at the annual rate of 1 3/8 and invest these proceeds
in dollars at the rate of 4 15/16. Euro-rates are add-on rates, so the amount borrowed is 1M Swiss
francs minus the interest to be paid, which is 1 3/8 x 1/4 x Amount borrowed. So, we have:

Amount borrowed = 1M Swiss francs [(1 3/8 x 1/4)/100] x Amount borrowed

Chapter 6, page 37

Solving for the amount borrowed yields 996,574.3 Swiss francs. This amount in dollars is 0.6839
x 996,574.3 = $681,557.2. Investing this at the rate of 4 15/16% yields interest of $8,413.
Consequently, Export ends up with $681,557.2 + $8,413 = $689,970.2. This is slightly worse than
the $690,200 Export would get using the forward market.
This is unlikely to offer an arbitrage opportunity or even a profit opportunity, however. The
euro-rates are London rates and the foreign currency data are U.S. afternoon data. This mismatch can
be sufficient to create what might look like arbitrage opportunities. Another issue is that only one
foreign currency price is quoted for each maturity, which ignores the bid-ask spread on foreign
exchange.
3. Futures hedge. There are several different Swiss franc contracts traded at the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange. These contracts are all for 125,000 Swiss francs, but they have different
maturities. The available maturities are for the months of March, June, September, and December.
The maturing contract stops trading two business days before the third Wednesday of the contract
month, so that the June contract does not require delivery of Swiss francs on the day that Export gets
its Swiss franc payment. To hedge its exposure, Export could take a long position in the June
contract and close it when the exposure matures. The optimal hedge is to go short 0.94 contracts
before tailing. This means going short 940,000 Swiss francs, which corresponds to 7.52 contracts.
The June T-bill price is $98.8194, so the tailing factor is slightly more than 0.9881. The optimal
tailed hedge involves 7.44 contracts. Since Export must short a round number of contracts, it
chooses to go short 7 contracts.
Suppose Export could enter futures positions at the daily settlement price so that we can use
the daily settlement quotes for our example. The June futures price is 0.6908 on March 1, 1999. On
Chapter 6, page 38

May 27, 1999, the June contract settled at 0.6572. This means that the total settlement variation is
$33,600 on Exports futures position (-(0.6572-0.6908) x 8 x 125,000). On Thursday, May 27, 1999,
the spot rate for the Swiss franc is 0.6559.5 Hence, the cash position is equal to $655,900. Ignoring
the interest earned on the settlement variation, the value of the hedged position is $655,900 +
$33,600 = $689,500.
When the firm takes the futures position, it has to make margin deposits. In March 1999, the
initial margin required by the exchange was $2,160 for each contract. The broker Export would have
dealt with could have required a higher initial margin, but not a lower one. Consequently, Export
would need to make a deposit of at least roughly $24,000 to open the futures position. Since the
futures price drops over time, the firm would benefit from daily marking to market.
How would Export decide which instrument to use? In a world of perfect financial markets,
Export would go for the highest value of the hedged position, which in this case is the forward
contract. However, the fact that the three solutions yield slightly different values for the hedged cash
flow can only be the case if markets are not perfect. Those market imperfections that are material
will critically affect Exports decision. We will discuss market imperfections more in the next
chapter. However, three issues that we have already discussed will have to be considered by Export:

Credit risk. Suppose Export has significant credit risk. This will most likely make
the forward market hedge and the money market hedge impractical, since
counterparties will be concerned about Export Inc.s credit risk.

Demand for flexibility. Remember that futures contracts are traded on exchanges,

We are using Thursday instead of Friday because the Monday following is a holiday in

the U.S.
Chapter 6, page 39

so Export can get out of a futures position easily. If a firm foresees reasons it might
want to change the hedge, this will make the forward market hedge and the money
market hedge impractical as well.

Cost of risk. Futures hedges have basis risk. When risk is very expensive, perfect
hedges obtainable with forward contracts are more advantageous than futures
hedges.

The exposure of Export was constant. Suppose however that a firm, say Trading Inc., had an
exposure that could change in a couple of days, so that it focuses on hedging exposures over the
short run and has to be prepared to change its hedges quickly as exposures change. Would the
tradeoff between futures and forward contracts differ for that firm? Trading Inc. would be much
more concerned about its ability to trade out of derivatives positions. As we saw, it is much easier
to get out of a futures position than to get out of a forward position. Trading Inc. would have to be
concerned about the liquidity of the contracts in which it takes positions. Even though it is easy to
take futures positions, taking such positions in illiquid markets can be expensive because one has
to offer price concessions. Hence, Trading Inc. might focus on using short maturity contracts because
they tend to be much more liquid than other contracts.

Section 6.5. Hedging when returns rather than level changes are i.i.d.
So far, the analysis has assumed that the changes of the cash position and the changes of the
futures price have the same joint distribution over time and are serially uncorrelated. In the case of
increments to exchange rates, this made sense. There is little reason to believe that the expected
change in the exchange rate and the volatility of the exchange rate change systematically with the
Chapter 6, page 40

level of the exchange rate. In the case of changes in present values, as argued in Chapter 4, it is often
more appropriate to assume that returns rather than value changes are i.i.d. For instance, with the
CAPM, the expected return is constant as long as beta does not change. Hence, the expected dollar
change on a common stock increases as the price of a stock increases, so that stock price changes
are not i.i.d., but returns are, when the CAPM holds.
One simple way to check whether the assumption of i.i.d. level changes is appropriate is
through a simple experiment. Since, with the i.i.d. changes, the distribution of changes is always the
same, we can put changes in two bins: the changes that take place when the price or present value
is above the sample median and the other changes. The mean and volatility of changes in the two
bins should be the same if the i.i.d. changes model holds.
When the distribution of the returns and not the distribution of level changes is i.i.d., the
regression of the dollar changes of the cash position on the dollar increments of the hedging
instrument is misspecified. Remember that the regression coefficient in such a regression is the
covariance of the dollar increments of the cash position with the dollar increments of the hedging
instrument divided by the variance of the dollar increments of the hedging instrument. If returns and
not dollar changes are i.i.d., the covariance term in the regression coefficient depends on the value
of the cash position and on the price of the hedging instrument. Therefore, it is not constant. The
correct regression is to regress the returns of the cash position on the returns of the hedging
instrument, because, if returns are i.i.d., the covariance between the returns of the cash position and
the returns of the hedging instrument is constant. A regression of the returns of the cash position on
the returns of the hedging instrument gives us the optimal hedge ratio for a dollar of exposure.
Suppose we want to hedge $1M of IBM stock against market risk. The regression of IBM
Chapter 6, page 41

returns on market returns gives us IBMs CAPM beta, which is 1.1. IBMs beta is also the hedge
ratio per dollar of investment in IBM. This coefficient means that we need to be short the market for
$1.1 for each $1 we are long in IBM. This means that we must short the market for $1.1M. The
amount we have to go short the market is the product of the regression coefficient and the value of
the cash position we are hedging.
The general result for the hedge ratio when returns are jointly i.i.d. is:

Volatility-minimizing hedge when returns are i.i.d.

Define r(cash) to be the return on the cash position, and r(hedge) the rate of change of the price of
the hedging instrument. The volatility-minimizing hedge is:

Volatility - minimizing hedge of cash position =

Cov[r(cash), r(hedge)]
* Cash position (6.5.)
Var[r(hedge)]

Equation (6.5.) makes clear that the optimal hedge in this case depends on the size of the cash
position. As the cash position increases, the optimal hedge involves a larger dollar amount short in
the hedge instrument.
We already saw that when returns are i.i.d., the regression approach gives us an optimal
hedge for a cash position of one dollar. We have not addressed the issue of the measurement interval
of returns. Nothing is changed in the analysis if continuously compounded returns are i.i.d. Using
log changes in the regression analysis gives us the optimal hedge per dollar of cash position. The one
question that arises is whether using log changes instead of simple returns makes an important
difference in the computation of the optimal hedge. The answer is that generally it does not.
Chapter 6, page 42

Consider the following example. Mr. Big has a portfolio of $100 million invested in the
world market portfolio of the Datastream Global Index on September 1, 1999. He is pessimistic
about the return of his portfolio over the next month, but does not want to sell because of tax
consequences. To protect himself, he wants to hedge and has settled on a futures hedge. Since the
U.S. is the largest component of the world market portfolio, he decides to use the S&P 500 futures
contracts traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
To find out the optimal futures position, Mr. Big has to specify a regression. Since he has a
portfolio of securities, it makes sense to assume that returns are i.i.d. rather than value changes. He
therefore assumes that the log changes of the world market portfolio and the log changes of the
futures prices are i.i.d. Regressing the monthly log changes of the world market portfolio on a
constant and the log changes of the futures contract from January 1, 1991, to September 1, 1999,
Mr. Big finds that:

Log(World index) = c

+ Log(S&P 500) + 

-0.00235

(-1.05)

0.86057
(14.10)

The t-statistics are below the coefficients. The coefficients show that the world index is positively
related to the S&P 500. The coefficient on the S&P 500 is estimated precisely. The R-square of the
regressions is 0.6554. This means that if the hedging period is like the estimation period, Mr. Big
can eliminate 80.96% of the volatility of the return of the world market portfolio through his hedge.
Consider now implementing this hedge. Tailing is trivial in this case and can be ignored. The S&P
Chapter 6, page 43

contract is for 500 times the S&P 500. On September 1, 1999, the S&P 500 is at 1,331.06, so the
contract is for a position in the S&P 500 of $665,531.50. The regression coefficient for the S&P 500
is 0.86057. This means that one would like a position in the S&P 500 futures of $86,057,000 (i.e.,
0.86057 x $100M). A 1 percent increase in that position is $860,570. The expected increase in the
value of the portfolio if the S&P 500 increases by one percent is 0.86057 x $100M = $860,570 as
well.
To get the number of S&P 500 futures contracts, we divide $86,057,000 by 665,531.5. The
result is 129.306, which we round to 129 contracts. On October 1, the hedged portfolio is worth:

Initial cash portfolio

Change in value of cash portfolio

$100,000,000
-$1,132,026

($100M x (1059.4 - 1071.53)/1071.53)

Change in value of S&P 500 futures
-129.306 x 500 x (1281.81- 1331.06)

New portfolio value

$3,184,160

$102,052,134

Note that, in this case, in the absence of hedging Mr. Big would have lost more than $1M. Because
of the hedge, he ends up earning more than $2M. One might argue that this shows how valuable
hedging is since he can earn more than $2M instead of losing more than $1M. However, while
hedging helps Mr. Big avoid a loss, the fact that he earns that much on the hedged portfolio is
actually evidence of an imperfect hedge. Remember that if he hedges a portfolio of stocks
Chapter 6, page 44

completely, the hedged portfolio is a risk-free asset that earns the risk-free rate. On September 1,
1999, the risk-free rate would have been less than 0.5% a month, so that the risk-free return on the
hedged portfolio would have been less than $500,000. He therefore earned on the hedged portfolio
close to a million dollars because the hedged portfolio was not risk-free.
The world market portfolio includes markets that have little correlation with the U.S. To
improve the hedge, Mr. Big could therefore try to use additional futures contracts. The second largest
component of the world market portfolio is Japan. There is a futures contract traded on the Nikkei
index of Japanese stocks at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Mr. Big might consider using this
contract.
Consider now the situation of Mr. Big on October 1, 1999. If he wants to keep hedging, then
he has to reexamine his futures positions at that time. This is because his hedges were based on the
value of his investment the hedge ratios were per dollar invested so that when the value of his
investment changes, he has to change his hedges. He now has $102,052,134 invested in the world
market portfolio, assuming that he reinvests all the futures gains in the world market portfolio. To
hedge, assuming that the regression coefficients are still valid, he needs a position in the S&P 500
of 0.86057 x $102,052,134 = $87, 230,000. At that date, the S&P 500 is at 1,282.81, so the number
of contracts we would like is 87, 230,000/(1,282.81 x 500) = 135.998, which we round to 136
contracts. Hence, the S&P 500 position increases by seven contracts.
This example calls for readjusting the hedge every month. If the cash position and the futures
prices are highly volatile, one should adjust the hedge when significant changes occur.

Chapter 6, page 45

Section 6.6. Summary

In this chapter, we learned how to hedge with forward and futures contracts. We started with
a computation of the risk of an exposure to a risk factor using three risk measures, volatility, CaR,
and VaR. We showed that going short the exposure to a risk factor sets the volatility, the CaR, and
the VaR associated with an exposure equal to zero when a perfect hedge is feasible.
The difference between the cash market price and the futures price is called the basis. A
perfect hedge is possible if there is no uncertainty about the basis. However, to implement that
perfect hedge with futures contracts, one has to take into account the daily settlement feature of
futures contracts, which requires the hedged to be tailed. With tailing, the futures position is smaller
in absolute value than what it would be if the futures contract were exactly like a forward contract
by an interest rate factor corresponding to the price of a discount bond that matures when the hedge
matures.
In general, the basis is random because of market imperfections and because typically there
is no futures contract that matures exactly when the cash market exposure matures and where the
deliverable good is exactly the cash market good. When a perfect hedge is not feasible because of
basis risk and when the costs of hedging can be neglected, the optimal hedge is to go short the
exposure of the cash position to the futures price if transactions costs are not significant. This
optimal hedge is the minimum-volatility hedge. The exposure generally has to be estimated. When
the joint distribution of changes in the cash price and changes in the futures price is i.i.d., the
estimate of the exposure of the cash position to the futures price is the slope of a regression of the
changes of the cash price on the changes of the futures price. We examined the issues that arise in
implementing the minimum-volatility hedge in the context of an example involving hedging a Swiss
Chapter 6, page 46

franc cash position.

For financial assets, the joint distribution of cash price changes and futures price changes is
usually not i.i.d., but the joint distribution of returns is. In this case, the minium-volatility hedge is
obtained by multiplying the slope in a regression of cash returns on the rate of change of the futures
price by the size of the cash position. We saw how to implement such a hedge in an example
involving hedging the world market portfolio with an S&P 500 futures contract and a Nikkei futures
contract.

Chapter 6, page 47

Key concepts
Risk factor, exposure to a risk factor, exposure to a futures price, i.i.d., square root rule, minimumvariance hedge, basis, basis risk, tailing.

Chapter 6, page 48

Review questions
1. How do you compute the volatility of the exchange rate change over three months when you
know the volatility of the change over one month and the exchange rate changes are i.i.d.?
2. How do you compute the volatility of a foreign exchange exposure?
3. How do you compute the VaR of a foreign exchange exposure?
4. How do you compute the CaR of a foreign exchange exposure?
5. What is the impact of a perfect forward hedge on the CaR of a foreign exchange exposure?
6. When does tailing improve a futures hedge significantly?
7. What is the optimal hedge in the absence of basis risk?
8. What is the optimal hedge in the presence of basis risk?
9. How do you forecast exposure in the presence of basis risk?
10. What are the two key reasons why a hedge based on forecasted exposure might perform
poorly?
11. How do you estimate the effectiveness of a hedging strategy with past data?
12. How do you decide the number of contracts in your hedge when divisibility is an issue?
13. What are the advantages of a futures hedge over a forward hedge?
14. When is a forward hedge strategy preferable?

Chapter 6, page 49

Questions and exercises

1. Consider a firm that expects to sell 10 million barrels of oil at the cash market price in one
year.
It wants its CaR to be at most $5M. The price of a barrel is currently $15 with a one-year
standard deviation of $2. What is the CaR of the firm in the absence of hedging assuming that the
price change is distributed normally?

2. Consider now the situation where there is a forward contract that the firm can use to sell oil
forward. The forward price is $16 a barrel. How many barrels must the firm sell forward to
reduce its CaR to $5M?

3. Suppose now that there is a futures contract that matures exactly in one year that requires
delivery of the type of oil that the firm produces. The contract is assumed to be perfectly divisible
for simplicity. The interest rate for a one-year discount bond is 10%. Interest rates are assumed to
be constant. How many barrels must the firm sell today on the futures market to minimize its
CaR?

4. With the assumptions of question 3, assume now that the firm sells 10 million barrels on the
futures market with delivery in one year and does not change its position over the year. How does
the interest rate affect the firms CaR?

5. Suppose now that the futures contract requires delivery of a different grade of oil than the one
Chapter 6, page 50

the firm produces, but maturity of the contract is in one year. What information would you need
to compute the volatility-minimizing hedge for the firm?
6. You are told by a consultant that the slope of a regression of the change in the price of the oil
the firm produced on the change in the price of the oil that is delivered with the futures contract
is 0.9 with a t-statistic in excess of 10. What would be your minimum-volatility hedge before
tailing? How would tailing affect that hedge?

7. The R-square in the regression discussed in question 6 is 0.85. What can you learn from this
number?

8. Suppose now that there is no futures contract that matures in exactly one year. There is,
however, a futures contract that matures in 18 months. A regression of changes in the cash
market price of the oil the firm produces on the changes in the futures price of the contract that
matures in 18 months using past history yields a slope of 0.8 with an R-square of 0.6. How many
barrels should the firm sell on the futures market if it wants to minimize its CaR?

9. Does your answer to the previous question change if you are told that the deliverable grade of
oil for the contract that matures in 18 months is not the grade of oil that the firm produces?

10. How would the optimal hedge derived in question 8 change over time?

11. What could go wrong with the optimal hedge derived in question 8?
Chapter 6, page 51

Figure 6.1. Plot of the Swiss franc exchange rate.

Swiss Franc dollar price (Mar. 1988 ~ Feb. 1999)

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55

98

Se

p-

97

-9
ar

p-

-9

ar

Se

96
p-

Se

95

-9

ar

p-

-9
ar

Chapter 6, page 52

Se

94

Se

p-

93

-9
ar

p-

-9
ar

Se

92
p-

Se

91

-9

ar

p-

-9
ar

Se

90

-9

p-

ar

Se

89

-8

p-

ar

Se

8
-8

p-

ar

Se

88

0.5

Figure 6.2. Relation between cash position and futures price when there is a deterministic
relation between the futures price and the spot price.
In this example, the change in the cash price is 0.9 times the change in the futures price. We have
100 observations. These observations are generated assuming that the change in the futures price

Unexpected change in
cash price

has an expected value of zero and a standard deviation of one.

4
2
0
-4

-2

-2

-4
Unexpected change in futures price

Chapter 6, page 53

Figure 6.3. Change in value of the hedged position as a function of the exchange rate
change and the size of the hedge h.

Change in value
of hedged
position

Exchange rate change

Hedge size
Panel A. Exchange rate changes and hedges for which Export makes a gain.

Change in value
of hedged
position
Exchange rate change

Hedge position
Panel B. Exchange rate changes and hedge sizes for which Export Inc. makes a loss.

Chapter 6, page 54

Figure 6.4. Relation between cash position and futures price changes when the futures
price changes are imperfectly correlated with the cash position changes.
In this example, the change in the cash price is 0.9 times the change in the futures price plus a
normally distributed random error with expected value of zero and standard error of 0.5. We have
100 observations. These observations are generated assuming that the change in the futures price

Unexpected change in
cash price

has +n expected value of zero and a standard deviation of one.

4
2
0
-4

-2

-2

-4
Unexpected change in futures price

Chapter 6, page 55

Figure 6.5. Regression line obtained using data from Figure 6.4.
The regression in this figure is estimated using the data from Figure 6.2. The changes in cash
price are regressed on a constant and the change of the futures price.

Cash price change

3
2
1
0
-3

-2

-1

-1 0

-2
-3
Futures price change

Chapter 6, page 56

Table 6.1. Market data for March 1, 1999.

This is a summary of the market data that the exporter discussed in this
chapter would have considered to decide how to hedge. The data is
obtained from the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times of March
2, 1999.
Panel A. Spot and forward exchange rates for SFR
Maturity
price
spot
0.6839
1-m forward
0.6862
3-m forward
0.6902
Panel B. Futures contracts
Maturity
Open
March
0.6907
June
0.6973
September
0.6995

Panel C. Treasury bill data

Maturity
Days to
Maturity
4-Mar-99
2
11-Mar-99
9
1-Apr-99
30
8-Apr-99
37
3-Jun-99
93
10-Jun-99
100

Maturity
Overnight
7 days
1 month
3 months

High
0.6923
0.6974
0.6995

Low
0.6840
0.6902
0.6980

Settlement
0.6845
0.6908
0.6974

Bid

Ask

Ask Yield

4.50
4.52
4.51
4.49
4.59
4.56

4.42
4.44
4.47
4.45
4.57
4.54

4.48
4.51
4.55
4.53
4.69
4.66

Panel D. Euro-rates
US$ Bid
US$ Ask
SFR Bid
4 15/16
5 1/32
1 1/8
4 27/32
4 31/32
1 3/16
4 27/32
4 31/32
1 5/32
4 15/16
5 1/16
1 7/32

Chapter 6, page 57

SFR Ask
1 5/8
1 9/32
1 5/16
1 3/8

Technical Box 6.1. Estimating Mean and Volatility

Suppose that we have T different observations of past changes and want to forecast the change
and its volatility for T+1. Lets use the notation S(i) = S(i+1) - S(i). With this notation, the
expected change is simply the average of the changes over the estimation period:

(B6.1.1.)

Suppose we use as our estimation monthly quotes of the dollar price of the Swiss franc from
March 1988 through February 1999. The mean of the monthly change in the exchange rate over
the estimation period is -0.000115. Over the estimation period, the Swiss franc depreciated
against the dollar. The expected variance of the change T + 1 is:

(B6.1.2.)

Note that the estimate of the variance differs from the average of the squared deviations of the
changes from their mean. Since we have T squared deviations, the average would divide the sum
of the squared deviations by T. Instead, here we divide the sum by T - 1 to avoid a bias in the
estimate of the variance. As the number of observations gets large, it makes little difference
whether we divide by T or T - 1. In the case of the Swiss franc, we have 131 observations, so the
adjustment is 131/(131 - 1). The historical variance is 0.000626 and the variance after the
adjustment is 0.000631.

Chapter 6, page 58

Technical Box 6.2. Proof by example that tailing works.

Lets make sure that tailing works to create a perfect hedge when the futures contract
matures at the same time as the exposure by using a three-period example. We have three dates:
1, 2, and 3. The futures contract matures at date 3. At that date the futures price equals the spot
market price since it is the price determined at date 3 to buy the foreign currency at that date. The
futures price is $2 at date 1. It goes to either $3 or $1 at date 2 and stays there at date 3. For
simplicity, the spot price and the futures price are assumed to be the same. A discount bond that
pays $1 in one period costs $0.909 at date 1 and at date 2. We are trying to hedge an exposure of
100 units.

A) Futures hedge without tailing. We go short 100 units at date 1 on the futures market.
There are two possible outcomes with equal probability: (1) the futures price falls to $1 at date 2,
and (2) the futures price increases to $3 at date 2. Suppose first the futures price falls to $1 at date
2. We make a profit of $100 on the futures market that we get to invest at the risk-free rate. We
earn $10 of interest, so that at date 3 the futures profit is $110. At date 3, the spot price is $1. We
lost $100 on the cash market since our position was worth $200 at date 1 but is worth only $100
at date 3. Our hedged position at date 3 is worth $100 plus $110, or $210. Suppose that instead
the futures price goes to $3 at date 2. We lose $100 on the futures contract. To bring all the cash
flows to date 3 to compute the value of the hedged position at that date, we have to borrow $100
at date 2. At date 3, we have to repay $110, but we made a profit of $100 on the cash market. As
a result, our hedged position at date 3 is worth $300 - $110, or $290. The variance of our hedged
position is 0.5 x (290 - 300)2 + 0.5 x (310 - 300)2, or 100.
Chapter 6, page 59

B) Futures hedge with tailing. The tailing factor is 0.909. We therefore sell short 90.9
units at date 1. At date 2, if the futures price is $1, we gain $90.9, which we invest for one period
to get $100 at date 3. At date 3, the value of our hedged position is the sum of our $100 cash
market position and our $100 futures gain, for a total of $200. At date 2, the tailing factor is 1,
since we will not be able to invest profits we make on our futures position at date 3 because it is
the end of the hedging period. Therefore, at date 2, we increase our short position to 100
contracts. If the futures price is $2 at date 2, we lose $90.9. We borrow that amount at date 2 and
have to repay $100 at date 3. Therefore, at date 3, our hedged position is worth a $300 cash
market position and a $100 futures loss, for a total of $200. Since our hedged position always has
the same value at date 3, it has no variance.

In this example, the hedge position with a hedge that is not tailed is risky, while the hedged
position with a tailed hedge has no risk. The risk of the position that is not tailed comes from the
fact that at date 1 we do not know whether we will make a gain at date 2 and hence have interest
income at date 3 or make a loss at date 2 and hence have to pay interest at date 3.

Chapter 6, page 60

Technical Box 6.3. Deriving the minimum-variance hedge.

The minimum-variance futures hedge given by equation (6.4.) can be obtained directly by
minimizing the variance of the hedged payoff at maturity. Consider hedging an exposure with a
futures contract. We know that the payoff of the hedged position is equal to the value of the cash
position at maturity, Cash, plus the payoff of the hedge. With a futures contract, the payoff of the
hedge is given by minus one times the product of the size of the short futures position, h, and of
the difference between the futures price at maturity of the hedge and the futures price at
origination of the hedge. The payoff of the futures hedge is the difference between the futures
price at maturity of the hedge and the futures price at initiation of the hedge. Since the futures
price at initiation of the hedge is given, the variance of the hedged cash position depends only on
the hedged cash position at maturity of the hedge using a hedge h is:

Variance of payoff of hedged position = Var(Cash hG)

= Var(Cash) + h2Var(G) 2hCov(Cash position, G)

We can compute how a change in h affects the variance of the hedged position by taking the
derivative of the function with respect to h:

By setting this derivative equal to zero, we obtain the hedge ratio that minimizes the variance of the
hedged position:
Chapter 6, page 61

Remember that h is the optimal hedge ratio before tailing, so that the number of units we need to
short on the futures market is h times the current value of a discount bond that pays $1 at maturity
of the hedge.

Chapter 6, page 62

Technical Box 6.4. The statistical foundations of the linear regression approach to obtaining
the minimum-variance hedge ratio.
We first need to find a period in the past when the joint distribution of the changes in the cash
price and in the futures price is the same the joint distribution we expect in the hedging period. This
period does not have to be the immediate past. It might be that the immediate past is unusual,
perhaps a period of unusual turbulence that is not expected to repeat itself soon. In this case, one
would not use data from this immediate past period.
We then require that the joint distribution of the changes in the cash price and the changes
in the futures price is such that we can estimate their relation using linear regression. It is a property
of jointly normally distributed variables that their changes are linearly related.* A linear relation
between changes holds under more general conditions.
To be able to use our hedge using ordinary least squares, or OLS, the distribution of the
changes over time must satisfy some important conditions. S(i) is the cash price change over the
i-th period, and G(i) is the futures price change over the i-th period. We assume that S(i) and

G(i) are jointly normal for any i. To use ordinary least squares, we require that:

A1) The distribution of the cash price change is i.i.d.

A2) The distribution of the futures price change is i.i.d.
A3) Cov[S(i), G(i)] = Constant, for all is.
A4) Cov[S(i), G(j))] = 0, where j denotes the j-th period, for all i g j.

These assumptions require that the cash price change for a given period be uncorrelated with the cash
Chapter 6, page 63

price change and the futures price change for any other period. When two or more random variables
each are normal i.i.d., and in addition satisfy assumptions (A3) and (A4), the multivariate normal
changes model applies to them.
We can use regression analysis to find the relationship between the cash price changes and
the futures price changes. We would like to know, however, how the hedge ratio depends on the
length of the period of time over which the hedge is maintained and on the interval over which
changes are measured.
We assume that the multivariate normal changes model holds using daily changes. We want
to see whether it also holds from the perspective of Export Inc. which hedges over three months. The
change in a cash price over any period longer than one day is just the sum of the daily changes, and
the same is true for the change in the futures price. We know that the sum of normally distributed
random variables follows a normal distribution. Consequently, if the cash price changes follow a
normal distribution over days, the change in the cash price over any period of time is the sum of
these changes and hence is also normally distributed. The same applies to futures price changes.
Lets look more closely at the implications of these assumptions for the distributions over
a period of time. If the expected cash price change is the same over any day, the expected cash price
change over N days is simply N times the daily expected cash price change. Let Var[S(one day)] and
Var[G(one day)] be the variance of the one-day change of the exchange rate and the variance of the
one-day change of the futures price. The change of the spot exchange rate over N trading days is then
distributed normally with a variance equal to N times the variance of the one-day spot exchange rate
change, or N x Var[S(one day)]. The same applies for the variance of the change in the futures price.
The square root rule can be used to get the volatilities over N days since the changes are independent.
Chapter 6, page 64

Lets now look at the covariance between the changes of the spot exchange rate and the
futures price over N days. Define S(i) to be the change over day i and S(N days) the change over
N days. The covariance over the N trading days is:

Cov[ S(N days), G(N days)]

N

i =1

i =1

= Cov[ S(i), G(i)]

Note now that Cov(S(i), G(j)) is equal to zero because changes are independent over nonoverlapping periods. Further, since the changes are i.i.d., their distribution is the same for each day.
Consequently:

i =1

i =1

Cov[ S(i), G(i)]

N

= Cov[S(i),G(i)]
i =1

=N x Cov[S(i),G(i)]
=N x Cov[S(j),G(j)]

We already know that the variance computed over N daily changes is N times the variance over one
daily change. Consequently, the hedge ratio over N days is:

N x Cov[S(i), G(i)]
N x Var[G(i)]
Cov[S(i), G(i)]
=
Var[G(i)]
Hedge ratio =

Chapter 6, page 65

It follows from this that the hedge ratio is the same over any hedging period as long as our
assumptions are satisfied. This is a far-reaching result, because it tells us that the estimate of the
hedge ratio is not affected by the measurement interval or by the length of the hedging period when
the multivariate normal changes model applies. If our assumptions hold, therefore, how we estimate
the hedge ratio is not dictated by the length of the hedging period. We should not expect to find a
different estimate for the hedge ratio if we use daily or weekly data.
Hence, Export Inc. and firms with different hedging periods can estimate the hedge ratio
using the same regression and can use the same hedge ratio. We can estimate the hedge ratio
increases as we have more observations, but the regression approach yields an unbiased estimate of
the hedge ratio, whatever the measurement interval.

* Any statistics textbook that discusses the multivariate normal distribution generally has this result.
See, for instance, Mood, Graybill, and Boes (1974).

Chapter 6, page 66

Literature note
The method of using regression ratios to hedge was first proposed by Johnson (1960) and
Stein (1961). Much recent work has addressed the issue of how to estimate the minimum-variance
hedge when the i.i.d. assumption does not hold. See Cechetti, Cumby, and Figlewski (1988) and
Baillie and Myers (1991) for approaches that use econometric techniques that take into account
changes in the joint distribution of the cash market price and the hedging instrument. See Kawaller
(1997) for a discussion of tailing. The airline example comes from Delta wins on fuel, by
Alexandra Ness, Risk, June 2001, p. 8.

Chapter 6, page 67