CH-9 Measuring and Managing Translation and Transaction Exposure – Foundations of Multinational Financial Management : Book Guide

CHAPTER 9 MEASURING AND MANAGING TRANSLATION AND TRANSACTION EXPOSURE This chapter introduces the concept of accounting exposure and describes the various alternatives available to measure accounting exposure and to manage it. A key point is the wide disparity in results possible for similarly situated firms when using different measures of translation exposure. Although the material is fairly mechanical, financial officers of MNCs should understand how companies measure exposure, at least for reporting purposes. When it comes to managing accounting exposure, companies have a number of different alternatives. Before deciding on which hedging alternatives to use, however, companies must first decide what they are trying to accomplish through their hedging programs. Key Points on Measuring Accounting Exposure 1. Accountants are concerned with the appropriate way to translate foreign-currency denominated items on financial statements to their home currency values. If currency values change, translation gains or losses may result. 2. Four principal translation methods are available: the current/noncurrent method, the monetary/ nonmonetary method, the temporal method, and the current rate method. 3. The past and present mandated translation methods are FASB 8 and FASB 52, respectively. 4. Regardless of the translation method selected, measuring accounting exposure is conceptually the same. It involves determining which foreign-currency denominated assets and liabilities will be translated at the current (post change) exchange rate and which will be translated at the historical (rechange) exchange rate. The former items are considered to be exposed, while the latter items are regarded as not exposed. Translation exposure is just the difference between exposed assets and exposed liabilities. 5. By far the most important feature of the accounting definition of exposure is the exclusive focus on the balance sheet effects of currency changes. This focus is misplaced since it has led firms to ignore the more important effect that these changes may have on future cash flows. Key Points on Managing Accounting Exposure 1. Hedging cannot provide protection against expected exchange rate changes. Firms ordinarily cope with anticipated currency changes by engaging in forward contracts, borrowing locally, and adjusting their pricing and credit policies. However, there is reason to question the value of much of this activity. Several empirical studies indicate that forward rates provide an unbiased estimate of future spot rates. Furthermore, according to the IFE, interest differentials between currencies equal anticipated currency devaluations or revaluations. This proposition is also supported by empirical research. What this means is that gains or losses on contractual flows in hard currencies (those likely to revalue) will be offset by low interest rates and on soft currencies (those likely to be devalued) by higher interest rates. In fact, no other results would be consistent with the existence of a well informed market with numerous participants as is represented by the international financial community. Persistent differences between forward and future spot rates, for instance, would provide profitable opportunities for speculators. However, the very act of buying or selling forward to take advantage of these differences would tend to bring about equality between hedging costs and expected currency changes. It is good business sense, of course, to factor expected exchange rate changes into pricing and credit decisions, since this is very relevant information and helps the company make better marketing and purchasing decisions. But because this is a zero sum game, these trade-term adjustments can only be profitable at the expense of others. To consistently gain excess profits by making trade-term adjustments, one must consistently deal with less knowledgeable people. Certainly, though, a policy predicated on the continued existence of naive customers or suppliers is unlikely to be viable for very long in the highly competitive and well informed world of international business. The real value to a firm of factoring currency change expectations into its pricing and credit decisions is to prevent others from profiting at its expense. The basic value of hedging, therefore, is to protect a company against unexpected exchange rate changes. But because such changes are unpredictable, they are impossible to profit from. Of course, to the extent that a government does not permit interest and/or forward rates to fully adjust to reflect market expectations, a firm with access to these financial instruments can expect, on average, to gain from currency changes. Nevertheless, the very nature of these imperfections severely limits a firm’s ability to engage in such profitable financial operations. 2. A policy of continual hedging will not reduce fluctuations in earnings caused by currency changes. It is true that a U.S. company selling to French customers, for example, can fix the dollar value of its franc revenues for the next three months or so, perhaps up to one year. For anything beyond that, however, the firm faces exchange risk, even if it plans on using the forward market consistently, since it must eventually roll these forward contracts over. Several studies have shown that the volatility of rates in the forward and spot markets, as measured by the standard deviation, is about the same. Furthermore, the foreign currency cash flows received by an MNC will themselves be affected by exchange rate changes. Specifically, currency changes will impact the competitive environment and cost structure faced by the firm, which in turn affects the firm’s foreign currency revenues and costs. The net result is that repeated forward hedging can do little to reduce the variability of future dollar cash flows caused by exchange rate changes. Although the occasional exporter can avoid unprofitable transactions by looking at the forward rate and selling in the home market if it is too low, the committed exporter or MNC has no such recourse. Instead, it must undertake the necessary restructuring of its marketing and production activities because its very existence depends on the continuation of these foreign sales. A policy of continued hedging transfers fluctuations in reported income due to translation gains or losses into earnings variations caused by changes in interest and forward rates. While this distinction may be important to a financial executive whose boss is concerned with exchange gains or losses, it is unlikely to be of consequence to the firm’s shareholders. SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO “CHRYSLER SHARES ITS CURRENCY RISK WITH MITSUBISHI” MINI-CASE 1. Show how the dollar cost to Chrysler of an engine changed over the range ¥240/$ to ¥100/$. Answer: According to the case, from ¥240 to ¥220 to the dollar, Mitsubishi would absorb the entire cost of an exchange rate change. Within the range ¥220/$ to ¥190/$, Chrysler and Mitsubishi split the cost of exchange rate shifts evenly. In the range ¥190/$ to ¥130/$, Chrysler bore 75% of the costs of exchange rate shifts; below ¥130/$, Chrysler had to absorb the entire cost. These contractual terms translate into the following contractual exchange rates, where x is the contractual rate and e is the actual rate: e = ¥240 to ¥220: x = ¥240 e = ¥220 to ¥190: x = ¥240 – (¥220 – e)/2 or 240 < x < 225 e = ¥190 to ¥130: x = ¥240 – (¥220 – ¥190)/2 – 0.75 x (¥190 – e) or 225 < x < 180 e = ¥130 to ¥100: x = ¥240 – (¥220 – ¥190)/2 – 0.75 x (¥190 – ¥130) – (¥130 – e) or 190 < x < 150 Given that the price of a V6 engine was contractually set at ¥270,000, the price of an engine to Chrysler would be 270,000/x. This formula translates into the following engine prices, p, for Chrysler: e = ¥240 to ¥220: x = ¥240 and p = $1,125 e = ¥220 to ¥190: 240 < x < 225 and $1,125 < p < $1,200 e = ¥190 to ¥130: 225 < x < 180 and $1,200 < p < $1,500 e = ¥130 to ¥100: 190 < x < 150 and $1,500 < p < $1,800 2. Show how Mitsubishi’s yen revenue per engine changed over the range ¥240/$ to ¥100/$. Answer: At any given exchange rate, Mitsubishi’s yen revenue equals Chrysler’s dollar price times the actual exchange rate; that is, it equals p * e (or pe). As such, Mitsubishi’s yen revenue varied as follows: e = ¥240 to ¥220: p = $1,125 and 247,500 < pe < 270,000 e = ¥220 to ¥190: $1,125 < p < $1,200 and 228,000 < pe < 247,500 e = ¥190 to ¥130: $1,200 < p < $1,500 and 195,000 < pe < 228,000 e = ¥130 to ¥100: $1,500 < p < $1,800 and 180,000 195,000 3. Suppose at the time of a new engine shipment, the exchange rate was ¥150/$. What was the dollar cost to Chrysler per engine? What was Mitsubishi’s yen revenue per engine? Answer: Using the formulas above, the exchange rate would be set at ¥195 and Chrysler’s dollar cost per engine would be $1,384.62 (270,000/195). This dollar figure would translate into revenue to Mitsubishi of ¥207,692.31 (150 * 1,384.62). SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO DKNY MINI-CASE Spot rate: Mex$10.93/$ Forward rate (30 days): Mex$11.03/$ 30-day put option on dollars at Mex$ 10.83/$: 1% premium 30-day call option on dollars at Mex$ 11.03/$: 3% premium U.S. dollar 30-day interest rate (annualized): 7.5% Peso 30-day interest rate (annualized): 15% DKNY owes Mex$7 million in 30 days for a recent shipment from Mexico. It faces the following interest and exchange rates: 1. What hedging options are available to DKNY? Answer: DKNY could use a forward market hedge, money market hedge, or call option on the Mexican peso (a put option would be worthless as DKNY needs to buy, not sell, pesos to make its peso payment). 2. What is the hedged cost of DKNY's payable using a forward market hedge? Answer: In other words, what dollar cost of the payable can DKNY lock in using the forward contract? By buying pesos forward, DKNY can lock in a dollar cost of $634,632.82 (7,000,000/11.03). 3. What is the hedged cost of DKNY's payable using a money market hedge? Answer: DKNY can hedge its payable by borrowing the dollar equivalent of the present value of the Mex$7 million payable, which equals Mex$6,913,580 (7,000,000/1.0125), converting the dollars to pesos at the current spot rate and investing the proceeds at the 1.25% monthly peso interest rate (15%/12). Mex$6,913,580 translates to $632,532.48 at the current spot rate of Mex$10.93/$ (Mex$6,913,580/10.93). This investment is financed by borrowing these dollars at the monthly rate of 0.625% (7.5%/12). At the end of 30 days, DKNY will pay off this dollar loan. The cost of doing so is $636,485.8 ($632,532.48 * 1.00625). The result from this money market hedge is the equivalent of buying forward the Mex$7 million at a forward rate of Mex$10.99 (7,000,000/636,485.8). From the standpoint of the treasurer, this is a worse rate than could be realized directly in the forward market. 4. What is the hedged cost of DKNY’s payable using a put option? Answer: By buying a peso put option, DKNY can lock in a cost of $652,757 – the sum of the 1% put premium of $6,404.4 (0.01 * 7,000,000/10.93) plus the $646,352.7 (7,000,000/10.83) cost of buying pesos through the put option at a rate of Mex$10.83/$. (Notice that a put option on dollars with peso receipt is exactly the same as a call option on pesos. Hence, the terms can be used interchangeably as long as you bear in mind which currency is being bought and which is being sold.). Although it looks as if the put option costs $16,272 more than the forward contract, these costs are not strictly comparable, because the put option gives DKNY the option to buy pesos in the spot market in 30 days if the spot rate of the dollar at that time exceeds the exercise price of Mex$10.83/$. Hence, the $652.757 cost is the maximum cost of using a put option. Conversely, with a forward contract, DKNY must buy pesos at Mex$11.03/$ even if the spot rate at time of settlement is lower at, say, Mex$11.22/$. The value of this option accounts for the 1% premium that DKNY must pay to acquire the put option. 5. At what exchange rate is the cost of the put option just equal to the cost of the forward market hedge? to the cost of the money market hedge? Answer: The answer to this question depends on recognizing that at any exchange rate less than Mex$11.03/$, the forward contract will always be less expensive than the put option by the amount of the put premium, or $6,404, plus the additional cost of buying pesos at a rate of less than Mex$ 11.03/$. For a spot rate in 30 days, S30, greater than Mex$10.83/$, the put option will not be exercised and so DKNY’s cost of hedging its payable via the peso put option will be just the put premium plus the cost of buying pesos in the spot market, or $6404 + 7,000,000/S30. At the same time, since the forward contract must always be settled, the cost of hedging the payable with a forward contract will always be $634,632. To find the exchange rate at which the cost of using the put option just equals the cost of using the forward contract, we set these two figures equal: $6404 + 7,000,000/S30 = $634,632 or S30 = 7,000,000/628,228 = Mex$11.143/$ 6. How can DKNY construct a currency collar? What is the net premium paid for the currency collar? Using this currency collar, what is the net dollar cost of the payable if the spot rate in 30 days is Mex$10.75/$? Mex$11.03/$? Mex$11.25/$? Answer: DKNY can create a currency collar by simultaneously buying an out-of-the-money put option and selling an out-of-the-money call option of the same size. In effect, the purchase of the put option is financed by the sale of the call option. Specifically, DKNY can buy a put option on dollars at Mex$10.83/$ and sell a call option on dollars at Mex$11.03/$. The net premium paid is actually a receipt of funds in the amount of $12,987, the difference between the $6,404 (0.01 * 7,000,000/10.93) paid for the put option and the $19,391 (0.03 * 7,000,000/10.83) received from the sale of the call option. If the spot rate in 30 days is Mex$10.75/$, DKNY will exercise its put option and pay $646,353 to buy pesos at a rate of Mex$10.83. At the same time, the buyer of the call option will allow its option to sell Mex$7,000,000 to DKNY at a price of Mex$11.03 to expire unexercised. The net dollar cost of the payable, therefore, is $626,962, the difference between the $646,353 paid for the pesos and the $19,391 net option premium received. At a spot rate of Mex$11.03/$, DKNY will allow its option to buy pesos to expire unexercised as will the holder of the call option to buy Mex$7 million at a price of Mex$11.03. DKNY’s net dollar cost of hedging its payable, including receipt of the $10,769 net option premium, will be $615,241 ($634,632 - $19,391). This figure also equals the net cost to DKNY of hedging its payable if the 30-day spot rate is Mex$11.25/$ because similar dynamics will hold – DKNY will not exercise its option but will end up buying pesos at a price of Mex$11.03/$ anyway because of the call option. That is, at a spot rate of Mex$11.25/$, DKNY will allow its option to buy pesos to expire unexercised but it will be forced by the holder of the call option to buy Mex$7 million at a price of Mex$11.03/$, or $634,632 (7,000,000/11.03). Hence, DKNY’s net dollar cost of hedging its payable, including receipt of the $19,391 net option premium, will be $615,241. 7. What is the preferred alternative? Answer: The preferred alternative would ordinarily be the forward contract because it precisely targets the risk and is less expensive than the money market hedge. However, we have seen from the answer to part e that the cost of the currency collar, even at its maximum, will be less expensive than the forward contract ($626,962 versus $634,632). 8. Suppose that DKNY expects the 30-day spot rate to be Mex$11.25/$. Should it hedge this payable? What other factors should go into DKNY’s hedging decision? Answer: The key question here is where DKNY’s comparative advantage lies. Does it lie in making and selling designer clothes or does it reside in trying to outguess apparently sophisticated financial markets? If the former, which I am sure most would agree with, DKNY should stick to its knitting (literally) and leave the speculation to financial institutions specifically organized for that purpose. Remember, to profit from speculative activity, your opinion not only has to differ from the market’s, it also has to be more correct. Hence, the related question is: What are the odds that DKNY knows something that the financial markets don’t and that DKNY is right? I would guess these to be long odds indeed. SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO CHAPTER 9 QUESTIONS 1. What is translation exposure? Transaction exposure? Answer: Translation exposure equals the difference between exposed assets and exposed liabilities. A foreign currency asset or liability is exposed if it must be translated at the current exchange rate. Transaction exposure equals the net amount of foreign-currency denominated transactions already entered into. On settlement, these transactions may give rise to currency gains or losses. 2. What are the basic translation methods? How do they differ? Answer: The basic translation methods are the current/noncurrent method, monetary/nonmonetary method, temporal method, and current-rate method. The current/noncurrent method treats only current assets and liabilities as being exposed. The monetary/nonmonetary method treats only monetary assets and liabilities as being exposed. The temporal method translates assets and liabilities valued at current cost as exposed and historical cost assets and liabilities as unexposed. The current rate method treats all assets and liabilities as exposed. 3. What factors affect an MNC’s translation exposure? What can the company do to affect its degree of translation exposure? Answer: The factors affecting an MNC’s translation exposure under FASB 52 include the currency of the primary economic environment in which the company (or its affiliate) does business, the currency in which it invoices its sales, the currency in which it negotiates to buy, the currency denomination of its borrowings, the currency denomination of the securities in which it invests surplus cash, and the location of its customers. This list suggests the actions that a company can take to affect its degree of translation exposure: borrow, invest, and invoice both sales and purchases in the local currency. It also has some degree of control over which customers to serve – foreign or domestic – but this decision should be based on economic profitability rather than its impact on translation exposure. 4. What alternative hedging transactions are available to a company seeking to hedge the translation exposure of its German subsidiary? How would the appropriate hedge change if the German affiliate's functional currency is the U.S. dollar? Answer: As mentioned in the text, the parent has three available methods for managing its translation exposure: (1) adjusting fund flows, (2) entering into forward contracts, and (3) exposure netting. Direct funds adjustment methods include pricing exports in hard currencies and imports in a soft currency, investing in hard currency securities, and replacing hard currency borrowings with local currency loans. The indirect methods include adjusting transfer prices on the sale of goods between affiliates; speeding up or slowing down the payment of dividends, fees, and royalties; and adjusting the leads and lags of inter subsidiary accounts. The standard techniques for responding to anticipated currency changes are summarized in Exhibit 9.1. The translation exposure would change if the functional currency were the U.S. dollar. For example, U.S. dollar transactions with the German sub would be considered exposed if the DM were the functional currency; by contrast, U.S. dollar transactions are exposed if the DM is the functional currency. 5. To eliminate all risk on its exports to Japan, an MNC decides to hedge both its actual and anticipated sales. What risk is the MNC exposing itself to? How could this risk be managed? Answer: The company faces uncertainty as to what its future yen sales revenue will be. This uncertainty stems from quantity risk, the risk that those future sales will not materialize, and price risk, the uncertainty as to the yen prices it can expect to realize in Japan. If it uses forward contracts to hedge its uncertain future yen sales revenue, it faces the risk that it will over hedge, winding up with yen liabilities not offset by yen assets. The company can protect itself by using forward contracts to hedge the certain component of its expected future yen sales then hedging the remainder of its projected sales revenue with currency options. 6. Instead of its previous policy of always hedging its foreign currency receivables, Sun Microsystems has decided to hedge only when it believes the dollar will strengthen. Otherwise, it will go uncovered. Comment on this new policy. Answer: Sun is engaging in selective hedging, which is really speculation. Sun faces the risk that it will be unhedged when foreign currencies weaken and be hedged when they strengthen. The purpose of hedging is to reduce risk, not to boost profits. 7. Your bank is working with an American client that wishes to hedge its long exposure in the Malaysian ringgit. Suppose it is possible to invest in ringgit but not borrow in that currency. However, you can both borrow and lend in U.S. dollars. 7.a. Assuming there is no forward market in ringgit, can you create a homemade forward contract that would allow your client to hedge its ringgit exposure? Answer: To hedge its ringgit exposure, your bank’s American client should short the ringgit. This strategy would entail buying a forward contract from your bank. To create this forward contract, the bank needs to borrow ringgit, sell the proceeds spot for dollars, and invest the dollars. Unfortunately, since the bank can’t borrow ringgit, it cannot create the needed forward contract. 7.b. Several of your Malaysian clients are interested in selling their U.S. dollar export earnings forward for ringgit. Can you accommodate them by creating a forward contract? Answer: You can create the necessary forward contract by borrowing U.S. dollars, converting them to ringgit, and investing the ringgit until the forward contract you sell your Malaysian clients matures. 8. Eastman Kodak gives its traders bonuses if their selective hedging strategies are less expensive than the cost of hedging all transaction exposure. What are the problems with this bonus plan? Answer: The danger is that Kodak’s traders will take inappropriate risks to earn their bonuses. Specifically, they are being incented to engage in selective hedged, which runs the risk of leaving Kodak unhedged when the dollar is rising and being hedged when the dollar is falling. 9. Many managers prefer to use options to hedge their exposure because doing so allows them the possibility of capitalizing on favorable movements in the exchange rate. In contrast, a company using forward contracts avoids the downside but also loses the upside potential. Comment. Answer: Options are clearly more valuable than forward contracts for the reasons stated in the question. However, this does not mean that options are preferable to forward contracts. The reason has to do with cost. Options are more expensive than forward contracts at the same forward rate or exercise price. One must trade off the added benefits of options against their higher costs. To the extent that these derivative markets are efficient – and the evidence suggests they are – the expected net present value of entering into either of these contracts is zero. The appropriate use of these derivatives is to hedge foreign exchange risk, not to speculate on future exchange rate movements. As explained in the chapter, one should match the derivative against the type of risk being hedged: Known risks should be hedged with forward contracts and contingent risks with options. 10. In January 1988, Arco bought a 24.3% stake in the British oil firm Britoil PLC. It intended to buy a further $1 billion worth of Britoil stock if Britoil was agreeable. However, Arco was uncertain whether Britoil, which had expressed a strong desire to remain independent, would accept its bid. To guard against a possible a pound appreciation in the interim, Arco decided to convert $1 billion into pounds and place them on deposit in London, pending the outcome of its discussions with Britoil’s management. What exchange risk did Arco face and did it choose the best way to protect itself from that risk? Answer: The exchange risk faced by Arco was that it had a contingent pound liability (the cost of its possible purchase of Britoil) offset by a fixed pound asset (the deposit). If the deal went through, Arco would know exactly how many dollars its bid will cost, namely, $1 billion. But if the deal fell apart (which it did), Arco would have a large bank account in London with an uncertain dollar value. Hedging that deposit would not eliminate exchange risk because if the deal went through Arco would not know at the time of its offer how many dollars it would take to buy $1 billion worth of shares at today’s exchange rate. (This analysis leaves aside the issue of fluctuations in the dollar price of Britoil shares.) Note that it doesn’t make sense to convert dollars into pounds and then hedge those pounds. Assuming IRP holds, Arco might as well have deposited dollars. The solution for Arco is to buy a call option on $1 billion worth of pounds at the current spot exchange rate. This limits Arco’s downside risk to the call premium, while enabling it to capitalize on an appreciation in the value of the pound. 11. Sumitomo Chemical has one week in which to negotiate a contract to supply products to a U.S. company at a dollar price fixed for one year. What advice would you give Sumitomo? Answer: This problem is identical to that faced by Weyerhaeuser in the text example. The general rule on credit sales overseas is to convert between the foreign currency price and the dollar price using the forward rate, not the spot rate. With a sequence of payments to be received at several points in time, the foreign currency price should be a weighted average of the forward rates for delivery on those dates. Here, Sumitomo should decide on the yen price that it would set and then convert that yen price into a dollar price using the forward rate or an average of forward rates, depending on whether it will be paid all at once or in installments. 12. U.S. Farm Raised Fish Trading Co., a catfish concern in Jackson, Mississippi, tells its Japanese customers that it wants to be paid in dollars. According to its director of export marketing, this simple strategy eliminates all its currency risk. Is he right? Why? Answer: The marketing director for U.S. Farm Raised Fish Trading Co. is confusing transaction exposure with economic exposure. By pricing in dollars, the company eliminates its transaction exposure. But it still has operating exposure. As the yen falls in value, if the firm maintains its dollar price, the yen price of its fish rises and Japanese customers will buy less fish. If the dollar price is reduced to maintain market share, the profit margin falls. Either way, dollar revenues and profits fall. Conversely, a falling dollar will boost the dollar profitability of selling to Japan. 13. The Montreal Expos is a major league baseball team located in Montreal, Canada. What currency risk is faced by the Expos, and how can this exchange risk be managed? Answer: Payroll costs account for the lion’s share of baseball costs. The team has currency risk since it pays its players in U.S. dollars while its principal source of income, from home game ticket sales, is in Canadian dollars. This currency mismatch means trouble when the U.S. dollar appreciates relative to the Canadian dollar. Most importantly, salaries for Expo ballplayers are based on the salaries these players would earn in the U.S.; they are not based on Canadian salaries. An extended discussion of the Toronto Blue Jays, another Canadian major league baseball team, appears in Section 9.4 and sheds further light on the currency risk faced by baseball teams. The Expos might protect themselves by doing what the Blue Jays do: Buy U.S. dollars forward. The larger the purchase, the greater the amount of protection. Typically, though, the Blue Jays buy enough U.S. dollars to cover their projected currency needs for the coming year. While this strategy protects them for next year, it doesn’t hedge their longer term exposure. 14. General Electric recently had to put together a $50 million bid, denominated in Swiss francs, to upgrade a Swiss power plant. If it won, GE expected to pay subcontractors and suppliers in five currencies. The payment schedule for the contract stretched over a five year period. 14.a. How should GE establish the Swiss franc price of its $50 million bid? Answer: GE should begin with the price it would set if the bid were in dollars, and then convert the expected cash inflows into Swiss francs at the forward rates prevailing for each of the dates on which it expects to receive a cash inflow. 14.b. What exposure does GE face on this bid? How can it hedge that exposure? Answer: To begin, GE is not certain of winning the bid. To hedge this quantity risk (it’s uncertain as to how many Swiss francs it will be receiving – either 0 or the amount of its bid), Westinghouse should buy a Swiss franc put option for the amount of its bid, less the amount of Swiss francs it expects to pay out. It should simultaneously buy call options in the amounts of the non Swiss franc foreign currency cash payments it will be making if it wins the contract. If it wins the bid, GE should convert the SFr put option into a series of SFr forward sales, with the amounts and maturities of the forward contracts timed to coincide with the net Swiss franc inflows. At the same time, GE should convert the foreign currency call options into forward purchases of those foreign currencies, with the maturities and amounts of these contracts timed to coincide with the payments in those currencies. 15. Dell Inc. produces its machines in Asia with components largely imported from the U.S. and sells its products in various Asian nations in local currencies. 15.a. What is the likely impact on Dell’s Asian profits of a strengthened dollar? Explain. Answer: Dell’s dollar costs largely stay fixed whereas its dollar revenues will decline. Thus, a strengthened dollar reduced Dell’s dollar profits on its Asian sales. 15.b. What hedging technique(s) can Dell employ to lock in a desired currency conversion rate for its Asian sales during the next year? Answer: Dell can use forward or futures contracts to sell the local currencies forward against the dollar in an amount equal to its projected annual local currency sales. It can also buy put options on the various Asian currencies that it can exercise in the event of dollar appreciation. 15.c. Suppose Dell wishes to lock in a specific conversion rate but does not want to foreclose the possibility of profiting from future currency moves. What hedging technique would be most likely to achieve this objective? Answer: Buying put options on the local currencies would allow Dell to offset its currency losses with gains on its put options if the local currencies depreciate against the dollar. If the local currencies remain stable or strengthen, Dell would just allow the options to expire unexercised and convert its local currency revenues at the higher spot rates. 15.d. What are the limits of Dell’s hedging approach? Answer: This approach will cover Dell for the first year. But if the dollar strengthens, when Dell goes to roll over its forwards or options to hedge the next year’s revenues, it will pay a price for these contracts that reflects the devalued exchange rates of the local Asian currencies. ADDITIONAL CHAPTER 9 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. Why was FASB 8 so widely criticized? How did the Financial Accounting Standards Board respond to this criticism? Answer: The major criticism of FASB 8 was that by disallowing all currency reserves, translation gains and losses flowed right through to the income statement, often leading to dramatic fluctuations in reported income. The corporate belief that this was a problem stemmed from the view that financial markets focus on earnings rather than cash flows. 2. A U.S. firm has fully hedged its sterling receivables and has bought credit insurance to cover the risk of default. Has this firm eliminated all risk on these receivables? Explain. Answer: No. The company has converted its sterling receivables into a fixed amount of dollars to be received in the future. But because this sum of money is set in nominal terms, the firm bears exchange risk. That is, it knows how many dollars it will receive in the future but it does not know what the purchasing power of those dollars will be. 3. What is the basic translation hedging strategy? How does it work? Answer: As discussed in the chapter, the basic translation hedging strategy involves increasing hard currency assets and decreasing soft currency assets, while simultaneously decreasing hard currency liabilities and increasing soft currency liabilities. The specific techniques used to hedge a particular translation exposure all involve establishing an offsetting currency position (e.g., by means of a forward contract) such that whatever is lost or gained on the original currency exposure is exactly offset by a corresponding foreign exchange gain or loss on the currency hedge. 3.a. MNCs can always reduce the foreign exchange risk faced by their foreign affiliates by borrowing in the local currency. True or false? Why? Answer: False. Currency risk is reduced when swings in operating profits due to currency changes are offset, in whole or in part, by opposite movements in the cost of servicing its debts. In this way, currency changes have less effect on dollar cash flows. Consider an MNC with a foreign subsidiary that manufactures for export. The subsidiary’s dollar operating cash flows will rise with LC appreciation and fall with LC depreciation. If the subsidiary borrowed in the local currency, then the dollar cost of servicing its liabilities would also rise with LC appreciation and fall with LC depreciation. This would reinforce, not dampen, the swings in its operating profits caused by the currency changes. 4. Can hedging provide protection against expected exchange rate changes? Explain. Answer: No. The explanation is contained in fundamental point #1 on managing accounting exposure at the start of this chapter discussion. 5. What is the domestic counterpart to exchange risk? Explain. Answer: The domestic counterpart to exchange risk is inflation risk. Exchange risk involves uncertain changes in the exchange rate between domestic currency and foreign currency (and, ultimately, between domestic currency and foreign goods and services), while inflation risk involves uncertain changes in the exchange rate between domestic currency and domestic goods and services. 6. If a currency that a company is long in threatens to weaken, many companies will sell that currency forward. Comment on this policy. Answer: A reasonable working hypothesis is that financial markets are efficient. If so, the expected currency depreciation will already be reflected in the forward rate in the form of a forward discount which exactly offsets the expected loss reducing benefits of hedging. Thus the company will benefit from hedging only to the extent that it can estimate the probability and timing of the depreciation more accurately than the general market can. Unless the company has some special information about the future spot rate that it has good reason to believe is not adequately reflected in the forward rate, it should accept the forward rate’s predictive validity as a working hypothesis and avoid speculative activities. 7. Studies have shown that in trade dealings between nations that have high and volatile inflation rates, most export prices are quoted in dollars. What might account for this finding? Answer: What matters to both importer and exporter is the real price of the goods traded, not its nominal price. However, with high and uncertain inflation, if the currency of either of the two nations is used, both exporter and importer will face uncertainty as to the real price of the goods being traded. The exporter faces the risk that inflation will be higher than expected, lowering its real revenue. Conversely, the importer faces the risk that inflation will be lower than expected, raising its real cost of goods. By pricing in dollars, which is more likely to maintain its real value than either of their home currencies, both parties can reduce their risk. 8. Kemp & Beatley is a New York importer of table linens and accessories. It hedges all its import orders using forward contracts. Does Kemp & Beatley face any exchange risk? Explain. Answer: Yes. According to the Wall Street Journal (September 27, 1984, p.7), “Kemp & Beatley recently made a sizable purchase of Japanese placemats just before the dollar strengthened again. Competitors, as a result, will be able to buy the items for less and the profit margins of Kemp & Beatley will be squeezed, said Lee Greenbaum, president. ‘We had to eat’ the price difference, he said.” Thus, even though hedging enables the company to lock in a dollar price for its cost of goods, its revenue fluctuates in line with the exchange rate; that is, the price at which it can sell its products depends on the replacement cost of these items, which varies with the exchange rate. 9. Liz Claiborne contracts out much of its production to foreign manufacturers. As such, the company faces currency risk. 9.a. What currency risk does Liz Claiborne face? Answer: If foreign manufacturers bill in their local currencies, Liz Claiborne is uncertain as to what the dollar cost of its orders will be, both now and in the future. If Liz Claiborne insists on dollar invoicing, the dollar price will likely vary with the exchange rate. Hence, although Liz Claiborne can lock in the dollar price of its current orders, it has no idea what the dollar costs of its future orders will be. 9.b. How might Liz Claiborne go about hedging its currency risk? Answer: Liz Claiborne can hedge its transaction exposure (equal to the amount of current orders invoiced in foreign currencies) using forward market or money market hedges, depending on their relative costs. The company can hedge its future orders, whether denominated in foreign currencies or in dollars, by buying forward the anticipated amounts of its foreign currency requirements. Liz Claiborne could also use a money market hedge (which would involve the company borrowing dollars and then investing these dollars in foreign money market instruments to create a foreign currency asset to offset its foreign currency liabilities) to lock in the dollar cost of its anticipated future orders. This method would be less practical than the forward market hedge since it would involve Liz Claiborne holding a large portfolio of foreign securities. 9.c. What danger does it face from locking in currency rates today? Answer: This question is similar to that in Problem 17. The assumption in the hedging analysis so far is that the dollar prices Liz Claiborne can charge customers for its clothes are unrelated to its dollar costs. However, to the extent that its competitors also use foreign manufacturers, a rise in dollar costs of foreign orders will affect all companies in the market to a similar degree. Hence, the companies will likely raise their dollar prices if their dollar costs rise since they have similar cost structures. If Liz Claiborne has hedged its foreign costs, it will earn higher margins. Conversely, if the dollar appreciates, competitors will likely cut their prices to reflect the lower cost of replacing their goods sold. If Liz Claiborne has already locked in a higher dollar price for its orders and tries to recoup its higher costs by raising its prices, it will be placed at a competitive disadvantage and will lose market share. On the other hand, if Liz Claiborne reduces its dollar prices to maintain its competitive position in the market, its margins will shrink since its dollar costs have not fallen. To properly hedge its operating exposure, Liz Claiborne must estimate the responsiveness of price in the marketplace to changes in foreign exchange rates. The more responsive these prices are to changes in costs (and the quicker this response), the less operating exposure faced by Liz Claiborne and the less it needs to hedge. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS TO CHAPTER 9 PROBLEMS 1. Suppose that at the start and end of the year, Bell U.K., the British subsidiary of Bell U.S., has current assets of £1 million, fixed assets of £2 million, and current liabilities of £1 million. Bell has no long term liabilities. 1.a. What is Bell U.K.’s translation exposure under the current/noncurrent, monetary/ nonmonetary, temporal, and current rate methods? Answer: Under the current/noncurrent method, Bell U.K.’s translation exposure is £1 million - £1 million, or 0. We cannot determine Bell U.K.’s translation exposure under the monetary/nonmonetary method because we do not know the monetary/nonmonetary breakdown of its assets and liabilities. Similarly, we cannot determine Bell U.K.’s temporal exposure because we do not know the breakdown of its current assets between inventory and monetary assets. Under the current rate method, Bell U.K.’s exposure is £3 million £1 million = £2 million. 1.b. Assuming the pound is the functional currency, if the pound depreciated during that year from $1.50 to $1.30, what is the FASB 52 translation gain (loss) to be included in the equity account of Bell's U.S. parent? Answer: Under FASB 52, Bell U.K. has net pound exposure equal to £3 million £1 million = £2 million. At the original exchange rate of $1.50, the value of this net exposure is $3 million. By the end of the year, this net pound exposure is worth only 2 million * $1.30 = $2.6 million. The net result is a translation loss for Bell U.K.’s parent equal to the difference between the beginning and end of year values or $400,000. 1.c. Redo part b assuming the dollar is the functional currency. Included in current assets is inventory of £0.5 million. The historical exchange rates for inventory and fixed assets are $1.45 and $1.65, respectively. If the dollar is the functional currency, where does Bell U.K.'s translation gain of loss show up on Bell U.S.'s financial statements? Answer: If the dollar is the functional currency, then FASB-52 mandates the use of the temporal method for translation purposes. Under the temporal method, the value of fixed assets and inventory stays constant. The only change is to its monetary assets of £0.5 million and current liabilities of £1 million, for net exposure of -£0.5 million. With negative translation exposure, a depreciation in the value of the pound from $1.50 to $1.30 will result in a translation gain of $0.20 * 500,000, or $100,000. This translation gain must be included in Bell U.K.’s income statement. 2. Rolls-Royce, the British jet engine manufacturer, sells engines to U.S. airlines and buys parts from U.S. companies. Suppose it has accounts receivable of $1.5 billion and accounts payable of $740 million. It also borrowed $600 million. The current spot rate is $1.9528/£. 2.a. What is Rolls-Royce’s dollar transaction exposure in dollar terms? In pound terms? Answer: Rolls-Royce has $160 million in dollar transaction exposure ($1.5 billion - $740 million - $600 million). In pound terms, its transaction exposure equals £81.93 million (160,000,000/1.9528). 2.b. Suppose the pound appreciates to $2.064/£. What is Rolls-Royce’s gain or loss, in pound terms, on its dollar transaction exposure? Answer: Translated at the new exchange rate, the value of its transaction exposure is now £77.5 million. Compared to the former value of its transaction exposure, the result is a loss of £4.43 million (£77.5 million - £81.93 million). 3. Zapata Auto Parts, the Mexican affiliate of American Diversified, Inc., had the following balance sheet on January 1: Assets (Mex$ millions) Liabilities (Mex$ millions) Cash, marketable securities Accounts receivable Inventory Fixed assets Mex$ 1,000 50,000 32,000 111,000 Mex$ 194,000 Current liabilities Long-term debt Equity Mex$ 47,000 12,000 135,000 Mex$ 194,000 The exchange rate on January 1 was Mex$8,000 = $1. 3.a. What is Zapata’s FASB 52 peso translation exposure on January 1? Answer: Zapata’s translation exposure depends on the functional currency used. If, over the past three years, Mexico’s rate of inflation has exceeded 100%, Zapata must use the dollar as its functional currency. Thus, translation exposure is measured using the temporal method. In this case, Zapata’s FASB 52 translation exposure will be (in peso millions) Mex$83,000 - Mex$59,000 = Mex$24,000, or $3 million. This calculation treats cash, receivables, inventory, current liabilities, and long-term debt as exposed, and equity and net fixed assets as unexposed. It also assumes that all these assets and liabilities are in pesos. If inflation has cooled off and the peso is the functional currency, translation exposure equals Zapata’s net worth of Mex$135,000 (assuming as before that all assets and liabilities are denominated in pesos), or $16.875 million. The difference between the two translation exposure figures of Mex$111,000 = $13.875 million equals Zapata’s net fixed assets, which are exposed under the current rate method but not under the temporal method. 3.b. Suppose the exchange rate on December 31 is Mex$12,000. What will be Zapata’s translation loss for the year? Answer: The peso has lost one third of its dollar value during the year. Hence, Zapata’s translation loss equals one third its initial exposure. If the dollar is the functional currency, and assuming no change in assets and liabilities, Zapata’s translation loss for the year will be $3,000,000/3 = $1 million. Alternatively, if the peso is the functional currency, Zapata’s translation loss equals $16,875,000/3 = $5.625 million. 3.c. Zapata can borrow an additional Mex$15,000. How will this affect its translation exposure if it uses the funds to pay a dividend to its parent? If it uses the funds to increase its cash position? Answer: If Zapata borrows an additional Mex$15,000 (in millions) and uses these funds to pay a dividend to its parent, its liabilities will rise by Mex$15,000 and its equity will fall by the same amount. With the added peso liabilities, its exposure will fall by Mex$15,000 or $1.875 million regardless of the functional currency. If the dollar is the functional currency, Zapata’s new translation exposure becomes $1.125 million; if the peso is the functional currency, the new translation exposure becomes $15 million. If Zapata uses the Mex$15,000 to increase its cash position, then its translation exposure stays the same; the added peso liabilities are exactly offset by the added peso assets. 4. Walt Disney expects to receive a Mex$16 million theatrical fee from Mexico in 90 days. The current spot rate is $0.0915/Mex$ and the 90-day forward rate is $0.0903/Mex$. 4.a. What is Disney’s peso transaction exposure associated with this fee? Answer: Disney’s peso transaction exposure on this fee equals Mex$16 million, or $1,464,000 (16,000,000 * 0.0915). 4.b. If the expected spot rate in 90 days is $0.0908, what is the expected U.S. dollar value of the fee? Answer: The expected value of this fee in 90 days is $1,452,800 (16,000,000 * 0.0908). 4.c. What is the hedged dollar value of the fee? Answer: The hedged value of this fee in 90 days is $1,444,800 (16,000,000 * 0.0903). 5. A foreign exchange trader assesses the euro exchange rate three months hence as follows: $1.31 with probability 0.25 $1.33 with probability 0.50 $1.35 with probability 0.25 The 90 day forward rate is $1.32. 5.a. Will the trader buy or sell euros forward against the dollar if she is concerned solely with expected values? In what volume? Answer: The expected future spot exchange rate is $1.33 ($1.31 * 0.25 + $1.33 * 0.50 + $1.35 * 0.25). Because this exceeds the forward rate of $1.32, the trader will buy euros forward against the dollar in an infinite amount. This absurd result is due to the assumption of a linear utility function. 5.b. In reality, what is likely to limit the trader's speculative activities? Answer: Regardless of her utility function, she will be restrained by bank policies designed to guard against excessive currency speculation. 5.c. Suppose the trader revises her probability assessment as follows: $1.29 with probability 0.33 $1.33 with probability 0.33 $1.37 with probability 0.33 5.d. Assuming the forward rate remains at $1.32, do you think this new assessment will affect the trader's decision? Answer: The expected future spot rate remains at $1.33. However, the variance of the expected spot rate is now greater than it was before. If the trader is concerned solely with expected values, this will not affect her speculative activities. But if she is concerned with risk in addition to expected return, the greater variance and consequent greater risk should lead her to reduce her speculative activities. 6. An investment manager hedges a portfolio of Bunds (German government bonds) with a 6-month forward contract. The current spot rate is €0.75:$1 and the 180-day forward rate is €0.72:$1. At the end of the 6-month period, the Bunds have risen in value by 3.75 percent (in euro terms), and the spot rate is now €0.66:$1. 6.a. If the Bunds earn interest at the annual rate of 5 percent, paid semi-annually, what is the investment manager's total dollar return on the hedged Bunds? Answer: Ignoring hedging for the time being, for each $100 invested in Bunds at a spot rate of €0.75 per dollar, the investment manager would have at the end of six months an amount of euros equal to €79.69 as follows: 0.75 * 100 * (1 + 0.025 + 0.0375) = €79.69 This amount takes into account both the 3.75% capital gain on the Bunds and the 2.5% semiannual interest payment. Assuming that the investment manager did not anticipate the 3.75% capital gain and hedged only the expected amount of €76.88, he would now have $106.78 (76.88/0.72) from the original hedged principal and interest plus an additional $4.26 (0.75 * 100 * 0.0375/0.66) from the 3.75% capital gain on the Bund principal of €75 converted into dollars at the spot rate of €0.66:$1. The total dollar amount received in six months would, therefore, be $111.04 (106.78 + 4.26), which is an 11.04% return on the original $100 investment. 6.b. What would the return on the Bunds have been without hedging? Answer: As shown in the answer to part a, the euro value of the Bund’s principal plus interest at the end of six months would be 79.69. Converting this amount into dollars at the spot rate of 0.66:$1 yields an amount equal to $120.74 (79.69/0.66). This amount translates into a dollar return of 20.74%. 6.c. What was the true cost of the forward contract? Answer: As shown in the text (see the section titled “The True Cost of Hedging”), the forward contract reduces the return per dollar invested by an amount equal to the difference between the forward rate and the actual spot rate at the time of settlement. 7. Magnetronics, Inc., a U.S. company, owes its Taiwanese supplier NT$205 million in three months. The company wishes to hedge its NT$ payable. The current spot rate is NT$1 = U.S.$0.03987, and the three-month forward rate is NT$1 = U.S.$0.04051. Magnetronics can also borrow/lend U.S. dollars at an annualized interest rate of 12% and Taiwanese dollars at an annualized interest rate of 8%. 7.a. What is the U.S. dollar accounting entry for this payable? Answer: Magnetronics will record a payable of U.S.$8,173,350, which is just NT$205 converted at the spot rate of U.S.$0.03987. 7.b. What is the minimum U.S. dollar cost that Magnetronics can lock in for this payable? Describe the procedure it would use to get this price. Answer: Magnetronics can use either a forward market hedge or a money market hedge. The forward market hedge will lock in a cost of U.S.$8,304,550 (205,000,000 * 0.04051). Or it can borrow U.S. dollars, convert them into NT$, invest the NT$ for three months, and use the proceeds to settle the NT$ payable. To estimate the cost of this money market hedge, we must work backwards to figure out how many NT$ are needed today. At a quarterly interest rate of 2%, Magnetronics must invest NT$200,980,392 (205,000,000/1.02) today to have NT$205 million in three months. At the current spot rate, this translates into U.S.$8,013,088 today. At a quarterly U.S. interest rate of 3%, this loan will cost U.S.$8,253,481 to repay in three months (8,013,088 * 1.03). Since this is $51,069 less than the cost of satisfying the payable using the forward market, use the money market hedge and lock in a cost of U.S.$8,253,481. 7.c. At what forward rate would interest rate parity hold given the interest rates? Answer: Interest rate parity will hold when the U.S. dollar return on U.S. dollars, 1.12, equals the hedged U.S. dollar return on NT$, or (1/0.03987) * 1.08 * f, where f is the equilibrium forward rate. The solution to this equation is f = .03987 * 1.12/1.08 = $0.04135. At this forward rate, interest rate parity will hold. 8. Cooper Inc., a U.S. firm, has just invested £500,000 in a note that will come due in 90 days and is yielding 9.5% annualized. The current spot value of the pound is $1.9612 and the 90-day forward rate is $1.9467. 8.a. What is the hedged dollar value of this note at maturity? Answer: At maturity, this note will pay off £511,875 (500,000 * 1 + 0.095/4) The hedged dollar value of this note at maturity is $996,467 (511,875 * 1.9467). 8.b. What is the annualized dollar yield on the hedged note? Answer: The dollar investment in the note today is $980,600 (500,000 * 1.9612). The 90-day return is 1.424% (996,467/980,600 - 1). Annualized, this dollar return is 6.47% (1.62% * 4). 8.c. Cooper anticipates that the value of the pound in 90 days will be $1.9550. Should it hedge? Why or why not? Answer: If Cooper does not hedge, it will expect to collect at maturity $1,000,715.6 (511,875 * 1.9550). This amount exceeds the hedged return. Whether it should hedge depends on how strongly it believes that its expectation of the 90-day spot rate is correct and the forward market is wrong, and on its risk preferences. It also depends on whether it has an offsetting exposure, as the question in part c indicates. 8.d. Suppose that Cooper has a payable of £980,000 coming due in 180 days. Should this affect its decision of whether to hedge its sterling note? How and why? Answer: Yes. If Cooper hedges its investment, it will actually exacerbate its pound exposure. As it stands, the pound investment currently provides an offset of £511,875 to its negative exposure of £980,000, yielding a net exposure of -£468,125 (£511,875 - £980,000). If Cooper hedges the pound investment, its net exposure rises to -£980,000. 9. American Airlines is trying to decide how to go about hedging $70 million in ticket sales receivable in 180 days. Suppose it faces the following exchange and interest rates. Spot rate: $0.6433-42/SFr Forward rate (180 days): $0.6578-99/SFr DM 180-day interest rate (annualized): 4.01%-3.97% U.S. dollar 180-day interest rate (annualized): 8.01%-7.98% 9.a. What is the hedged value of American’s ticket sales using a forward market hedge? Answer: By selling the ticket receipts forward, American Airlines can lock in a dollar value of 70,000,000 * 0.6578 = $46,046,000. 9.b. What is the hedged value of American’s ticket sales using a money market hedge? Assume the first interest rate is the rate at which money can be borrowed and the second one the rate at which it can be lent. Answer: American can also hedge it euro receivable by borrowing the present value of $70 million at a 180-day interest rate of 2.005% (4.01%/2), sell the proceeds in the spot market at a rate of $0.6433/SFr, and invest the dollar proceeds at a 180-day interest rate of 3.99% (7.98%/2). Using this money market hedge, American can lock in a value for its $70 million receivable of $45,907,296 (70,000,000/1.02005 * 0.6433 * 1.0399). 9.c. Which hedge is less expensive? Answer: The forward market hedge yields a higher dollar value for the ticket receivables so is preferable. 9.d. Is there an arbitrage opportunity here? Answer: Yes. By borrowing dollars at a semiannual rate of 4.005% (8.01%/2), converting them to euros at the ask rate of $0.6442, and simultaneously investing the euros at a semiannual rate of 1.985% (3.97%/2) and selling the loan proceeds forward at a bid rate of $0.6578, you can lock in an arbitrage spread of 0.133% semiannually. This can be seen as follows. Following the steps outlined above, the return on the borrowed dollars will be 4.138%. Subtracting off the 4.005% cost of borrowing the dollars yields a semiannual covered interest differential of 0.133% (4.138% - 4.005%). 9.e. Suppose the expected spot rate in 180 days is $0.67/SFr with a most likely range of $0.64-$0.70/SFr. Should American hedge? What factors should enter into its decision? Answer: Based on the expected 180-day spot rate and its expected range, it would appear that American would be better off waiting to convert its ticket sales at the future spot rate. However, American must ask itself where its comparative advantage lies? Does it lie in running an innovative airline or does it reside in trying to outguess apparently sophisticated financial markets? If the former, which most would agree with, American should stick to its knitting and leave the speculation to financial institutions specifically organized for that purpose. 10. Madison Inc. imports olive oil from Chilean firms and the invoices are always denominated in drachma (Dr). It currently has a payable in the amount of Dr 250 million that it would like to hedge. Unfortunately, there are no drachma futures contracts available and Madison is having difficulty arranging a Dr forward contract. Its treasurer, who recently received her MBA, suggests using Italian lira to cross-hedge the drachma exposure. She recently ran the following regression of the change in the exchange rate for the drachma against the change in the lira exchange rate: ΔDr/$ = 1.6(ΔLit/$) 10.a. There is an active market in forward lira. To cross-hedge Madison’s drachma exposure, should the treasurer buy or sell lira forward? Answer: Given that Madison is short Dr and there is a positive correlation between the lira and the Dr, Madison should create a long position in lira; that is, Madison should buy lira forward. 10.b. What is the risk-minimizing amount of lira that the treasurer would have to buy or sell forward to hedge Madison's Dr exposure? Answer: According to the regression, a 1¢ change in the value of the lira leads to a 1.6¢ change in the value of the Dr. To cross-hedge the forthcoming payment of Dr, Lit 1.6 must be bought forward for every unit of Dr owed. With a Dr exposure of Dr 250 million, the exporter must buy forward Lit in the amount of Lit 400 million (1.6 * 250,000,000). ADDITIONAL CHAPTER 9 PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS 1. Paragon U.S.’s Japanese subsidiary, Paragon Japan, has exposed assets of ¥8 billion and exposed liabilities of ¥6 billion. During the year, the yen appreciates from ¥125/$ to ¥95/$. 1.a. What is Paragon Japan’s net translation exposure at the beginning of the year in yen? In dollars? Answer: Paragon Japan has net translation exposure of ¥2 billion (¥8 billion - ¥6 billion). Converted into dollars, this figure yields translation exposure of $16 million (2 billion/125). 1.b. What is Paragon Japan’s translation gain or loss from the change in the yen's value? Answer: At the end-of-year exchange rate, Paragon Japan’s translation exposure equals $21,052,632 (2 billion/95). The net result is a translation gain for the year of $5,052,632 ($21,052,632 - $16,000,000). 1.c. At the start of the next year, Paragon Japan adds exposed assets of ¥1.5 billion and exposed liabilities of ¥2 billion. During the year, the yen depreciates from ¥95/$ to ¥130/$. What is Paragon Japan’s translation gain or loss for this year? What is its total translation gain or loss for the two years? Answer: Paragon Japan’s new translation exposure at the start of the year is ¥1.5 billion (¥2 billion + ¥1.5 billion - ¥2 billion). Given this exposure and the exchange rate change during the year, its translation loss for the year equals $4,251,012 (1,500,000,000 * (1/95 - 1/130)). Over the two-year period, Paragon Japan has realized a translation gain of $801,620 ($5,052,632 - $4,251,012). 2. Suppose that on January 1, American Golf’s French subsidiary, Golf du France, had a balance sheet that showed current assets of FF1 million; current liabilities of FF300,000; total assets of FF2.5 million; and total liabilities of FF900,000. On December 31, Golf du France’s balance sheet in francs was unchanged from the figures given above, but the franc had declined in value from $0.1270 at the start of the year to $0.1180 at the end of the year. Under FASB 52, what is the translation amount to be shown on American Golf's equity account for the year if the franc is the functional currency? How would your answer change if the dollar were the functional currency? Answer: According to FASB 52, balance sheets must be translated using the current rate method; that is, all assets and all liabilities must be translated at the current rate. Golf du France’s net foreign currency translation exposure, therefore, is FF2,500,000 FF900,000 or FF1,600,000. At the original rate of $0.1270, the value of the franc net exposure was FF1,600,000 * 0.1270 = $203,200. By the end of the year, this net exposure equals FF1,600,000 * $.1180 = $188,800. This involves a translation loss for American Golf of $14,400 ($203,200 $188,800). If the current assets are all monetary or if inventory is carried at market value, Golf du France’s exposure if the dollar is the functional currency would be current assets minus current liabilities or FF1,000,000 FF900,000 = FF100,000. In this case, American Golf’s translation loss would equal 100,000 * (0.1270 0.1180) = $900. This loss must be included in the income statement. 3. Halon France, the French subsidiary of a U.S. company, Halon, Inc., has the following balance sheet: Assets (FF thousands) Liabilities (FF thousands) Cash, marketable securities Accounts receivable Inventory Net fixed assets 7,000 18,000 31,000 63,000 FF119,000 Accounts payable Short-term debt Long-term debt Equity 14,000 8,000 45,000 52,000 FF119,000 3.a. At the current spot rate of $0.21/FF, calculate Halon France’s accounting exposure under the current/noncurrent, monetary/nonmonetary, temporal, and current rate methods. Answer: Assuming all assets and liabilities are denominated in francs, under the current/noncurrent method, Halon France’s accounting exposure is FF34 million (7 + 18 + 31 - 14 - 8, in millions), or $7.14 million (0.21 * 34 million). Its monetary/nonmonetary method accounting exposure is -FF42 million (7 + 18 - 14 - 8 - 45, in millions), or -$8.82 million (0.21 * -42 million). Halon France’s temporal method exposure is the same as its current/noncurrent method exposure. Under the current rate method, Halon France’s exposure is its equity of FF52 million, or $10.92 million (0.21 * 52 million). 3.b. Suppose the French franc depreciates to $0.17. Produce balance sheets for Halon France at the new exchange rate under each of the four alternative translation methods. Answer: Current/noncurrent rate and temporal methods Assets ($ thousands) Liabilities ($ thousands) Cash, marketable securities* Accounts receivable* Inventory* Net fixed assets 1,190 3,060 5,270 13,230 $22,750 Accounts payable* Short-term debt* Long-term debt Equity 2,380 1,360 9,450 9,560 $22,750 *Exposed Monetary/nonmonetary method Assets ($ thousands) Liabilities ($ thousands) Cash, marketable securities* Accounts receivable* Inventory Net fixed assets 1,190 3,060 6,510 13,230 $23,990 Accounts payable* Short-term debt* Long-term debt* Equity 2,380 1,360 7,650 12,600 $23,990 *Exposed Current rate method Assets ($ thousands) Liabilities ($ thousands) Cash, marketable securities* Accounts receivable* Inventory* Net fixed assets* 1,190 3,060 5,270 10,710 $20,230 Accounts payable* Short-term debt* Long-term debt* Equity 2,380 1,360 7,650 8,840 $20,230 *Exposed 3.c. Calculate the translation gains or losses associated with the FF depreciation for each of the four methods. Relate these gains and losses to the exposure calculations performed in part a combined with the exchange rate change. Where would these translation gains or losses show up in the balance sheets prepared for part b? Answer: The translation gain (loss) equals the franc exposure multiplied by the -$0.04 change in the exchange rate. These translation gains (losses) are as follows: current/noncurrent/temporal methods – loss of $1.36 million (-0.04 * 34 million); monetary/nonmonetary method – gain of $1.68 million (-0.04 * -42 million); and current rate method – loss of $2.08 million (-0.04 * 52 million). These gains (losses) show up on the equity account and equal the difference in equity values calculated at the new exchange rate of $0.17/FF and the old exchange rate of $0.21/FF. 4. An importer has a payment of £8 million due in 90 days. 4.a. If the 90 day pound forward rate is $1.4201, what is the hedged cost of making that payment? Answer: The hedged cost of making the payment is $11,360,800 (8,000,000 * 1.4201). 4.b. If the spot rate expected in 90 days is $1.4050, what is the expected cost of payment? Answer: The expected cost of payment is $11,240,000 (8,000.000 * 1.4050)/ 4.c. What factors will influence the hedging decision? Answer: The importer must consider the basis for its expected future spot rate and why that value diverges from the forward rate, its willingness to bear risk, and whether it has any offsetting pound assets. 5. International Worldwide would like to execute a money market hedge to cover a ¥250,000,000 shipment from Japan of sound systems it will receive in six months. The current exchange rate is ¥124 = $1. 5.a. How would International structure the hedge? What would it do to hedge the Japanese yen it must pay in six months? The annual yen interest rate is 4%. Answer: International should invest the present value of ¥250,000,000, or ¥250,000,000/1.02 = ¥245,098,039 = $1,976,597 at today’s exchange rate of ¥124 = $1. In six months International can cash in its investment, which by then will have grown to ¥250,000,000, and use the proceeds to pay off its supplier. 5.b. The yen may rise to as much as ¥140 = $1 or fall to ¥115 = $1. What will the total dollar cash flow be in six months in either case? Answer: We can only value the future dollar cash flow in relation to the current spot rate of the yen. Converting the future value of ¥250,000,000 into dollars at today’s spot rate of ¥124, International World wide’s total dollar cost of paying for the sound system delivery, assuming it makes use of the money market hedge, will be $2,016,100, which is shown as follows: POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF MONEY MARKET HEDGE IN 6 MONTHS Spot Exchange Rate in 6 Months Value of Payable (1) Loss/Gain on Money Market Hedge (2) Total Cash Flow in 6 Months (1 + 2) ¥115 = $1 $2,173,900 ($157,800) $2,016,100 ¥124 = $1 $2,016,100 0 $2,016,100 ¥140 = $1 $1,785,700 $230,400 $2,016,100 The money market hedge gain of $157,800 if the exchange rate moves to ¥115 = $1 arises because the investment proceeds of ¥250,000,000, valued at $2,016,100 at the exchange rate of ¥124 = $1, will be worth $2,173,900 at the new exchange rate. This gain is subtracted off the cost of the payable. 6. A French corporate treasurer expects to receive a DM11 million payment in 90 days from a German customer. The current spot rate is DM0.29870:FF1 and the 90-day forward rate is DM0.29631:FF1. In addition, the annualized three-month Euro DM and Euro franc (French) rates are 9.8% and 12.3%, respectively. 6.a. What is the hedged value of the DM receivable using the forward contract? Answer: By selling the DM receivable forward, the French treasurer can lock in revenue of FF37,123,283 (11,000,000/0.29631). 6.b. Describe how the French treasurer could use a money market hedge to lock in the franc value of the DM receivable. What is the hedged value of the DM receivable? What is the effective forward rate that the treasurer can obtain using this money market hedge? Answer: The French treasurer can borrow the present value of the DM11 million receivable, which equals DM10,736,945 (11,000,000/1.0245) at the 2.45% quarterly interest rate (9.8%/4). Next, the treasurer converts these DM into French francs at the spot rate of DM0.29870:FF1 to get FF35,945,580. Finally, the treasurer will invest the francs at the quarterly rate of 3.075% (12.3%/4) and receive FF37,050,907 in 90 days. The result from this money market hedge is the equivalent of selling forward the DM11 million at a forward rate of 0.29689 (11,000,000/37,050,907). From the standpoint of the treasurer, this is a worse rate than could be realized directly in the forward market (as evidenced by the fact that the forward market hedge yields FF72,376 more than does the money market hedge). 6.c. Given your answers in parts a and b, is there an arbitrage opportunity? How could the treasurer take advantage of it? Answer: There is an arbitrage opportunity, assuming that transaction costs (such as the bid-ask spreads in both the foreign exchange and Euromarkets, which were ignored in this example) don’t offset the gains. The opportunity would involve borrowing francs, converting them into DM, investing the DM while simultaneously selling them forward for francs, and using the proceeds to repay the franc loan. However, since the difference between the actual and the constructed forward rates is only 0.2%, it is quite likely that transaction costs will preclude an arbitrage profit. 6.d At what 90-day forward rate would IRP hold? Answer: IRP holds when the French franc return on francs equals the hedged franc return on DM. The former return is 1 + 0.123/4 = 1.03075. The latter return is 0.29870 * 1.0246/f90, where f90 is the 90-day forward rate. Setting these two terms equal and solving for f90 yields f90 = (1.0246/1.03075) * 0.29870 = DM0.29692. 7. Plantronics owes SKr50 million, due in one year, for some electrical equipment it recently bought from ABB Asea Brown Boveri. At the current spot rate of $0.1480/SKr, this payable is $7.4 million. It wishes to hedge this payable but is undecided how to do it. The one-year forward rate is currently $0.1436. Plantronics’ treasurer notes that the company has $10 million in a marketable U.S. dollar CD yielding 7% per annum. At the same time, SE Banken in Stockholm is offering a one-year time deposit rate of 10.5%. 7.a. What is the low-cost hedging alternative for Plantronics? What is the cost? Answer: Plantronics can use the forward market to lock in a cost for its payable of $7.18 million. Alternatively, Plantronics can use a money market hedge to lock in a lower dollar cost of $7,165,611 for its payable. Thus, the money market hedge is the low-cost hedge. To compute this cost, note that Plantronics must invest SKr45,248,869 today at 10.5% to have SKr 50 million in one year (45,248,869 * 0.105 = 50 million). This amount is equivalent to $6,696,833 at the current spot of SKr$0.1480/SKr. The opportunity cost to Plantronics of taking this amount from its CD today and converting it into SKr is $7,165,611, which is the future value of $6,696,833 invested at 7%. 7.b. Suppose interest rate parity held. What would the one-year forward rate be? Answer: Interest rate parity holds when the dollar return on investing dollars equals the dollar return on investing SKr, or 1.07 = (1/0.1480) * 1.105 * f1, where f1 is the equilibrium one-year forward rate. The solution to this equation is f1 = $0.1433/SKr. 8. Dow Chemical has sold SFr 25 million in chemicals to Ciba-Geigy. Payment is due in 180 days. Spot rate: $0.7957/SFr 180-day forward rate: $0.8095/SFr 180-day U.S. dollar interest rate (annualized): 5.25% 180-day Swiss franc interest rate (annualized): 1.90% 180-day call option at $0.80/SFr: 2% premium 180-day put option at $0.80/SFr: 1% premium 8.a. What is the hedged value of Dow’s receivable using the forward market hedge? The money market hedge? Answer: Dow Chemical can use a forward contract to lock in a value of $20,237,500 (25,000,000 * 0.8095) for its receivable. It can also use a money market hedge, which would proceed as follows. Dow would borrow the present value of the SFr 25 million receivable, which equals SFr24,764,735 (25,000,000/1.0095) at the 0.95% 180-day interest rate (1.9%/2). This franc amount translates into a dollar amount of $19,705,300 at the current spot rate of $0.7957/SFr. By investing these dollars at the semiannual rate of 2.625% (5.25%/2), Dow will have $20,222,564 at the end of 180 days (1.02625 * $19,705,300). It can then pay off the Swiss franc loan with the SFr25 million in collected receivables. 8.b. What alternatives are available to Dow to use currency options to hedge its receivable? Which option hedging strategy would you recommend? Answer: Dow can buy a put option giving it the right but not the obligation to sell SFr25 million in 180 days at a price of $0.80/SFr and a put premium of 1%. Dow can also use a currency collar, which would involve buying the put option and selling a call option in the amount of SFr25 million and receiving a 2% premium. With sale of the call option, if the Swiss franc appreciates beyond $0.80, the holder of the call option will call the franc’s away. Thus, Dow will cap its upside potential at $0.80 plus the 2% premium and be protected on the downside by the put option. By buying the put option and selling the call option at a strike price of $0.80/SFr and pocketing the 1% premium of $0.008 (0.01 * $0.7957), Dow would create the equivalent of a forward contract at $0.808. This is a poorer price than Dow would receive via the forward contract. 8.c. Which hedging alternative analyzed in parts a and b would you recommend to Dow? Why? Answer: The forward contract is the preferred alternative because its hedging characteristics are identical to those of the others but it has a higher payoff. Dow would be speculating on the future spot price of the Swiss franc if it bought the put option. Since Dow has no comparative advantage in pricing options, it should drop this alternative. 9.* Metalgesselschaft, a leading German metal processor, has scheduled a supply of 20,000 metric tons of copper for October 1. On April 1, copper is quoted on the London Metals Exchange at £562 per metric ton for immediate delivery and £605 per metric ton for delivery on October 1. Monthly storage costs are £10 for a metric ton in London and DM 30 in Hamburg, payable on the first day of storage. Exchange rate quotations are as follows: The pound is worth DM 3.61 on April 1 and is selling at a 6.3% annual discount. The opportunity cost of capital for Metalgesselschaft is estimated at 8% annually, and the pound sterling is expected to depreciate at a yearly rate of 6.3% over the next 12 months. Compute the DM cost for Metalgesselschaft on April 1 of the following options: 9.a. Buy 20,000 metric tons of copper on April 1 and store it in London until October 1. 9.b. Buy a forward contract of 20,000 metric tons on April 1, for delivery in six months. Cover sterling debt by purchasing forward pounds on April 1. 9.c. Buy 20,000 metric tons of copper on October 1. Identify other options available to Metalgesselschaft. Which one would you recommend? Answer: This problem illustrates some of the difficulties often encountered when trading in commodities, where the bulk of the contracting is generally done in pounds or U.S. dollars. In this case, Metalgesselschaft is confronted with two types of risk: (i) relative price risk stemming from fluctuations in the price of copper on the London Metals Exchange and (ii) currency risk resulting from fluctuations in the DM/pound exchange rate. Here are calculations for the present values of the alternatives. 9.a. Buy the required 20,000 metric tons of copper and incur storage costs in London. Payment occurs on April 1, so the present value of the cost is the same as the actual cost. Answer: DM cost = Number of tons needed * [sterling price per ton for immediate delivery + pound storage cost in London per ton for a six month period] * DM spot price of one pound on April 1 = 20,000 * (562 + 60) * 3.61 = DM 44,908,400 9.b. Cover both commodity and currency risks through forward contracts of matching maturities in the respective markets. Payment doesn't take place until October 1. Answer: DM cost = Number of tons needed x sterling price per ton of copper for delivery on October 1 * forward DM price per pound on April 1 for delivery on October 1/(1 + opportunity cost of funds) = 20,000 * 605 * 3.61(1 .063/2)/(1 + 0.08/2) = DM 40,677,931 9.c. Leave both commodity and currency positions uncovered. The DM cost of this option cannot be computed since no information is given as to the projected price of copper or the projected DM value of the pound six months hence. Answer: An additional option would consist of buying the copper on April 1 and storing it in Hamburg. This option is analogous to the first one, except for the geographical location of storage. This option is less expensive than the first one, however, because the cost of storage in Hamburg is only DM180, whereas it costs DM60 * 3.61 = DM216.6 to store copper in London. The total cost of this option is 20,000(562 * 3.61 + 180) = DM44,176,400. Of the options we can price, the second one, which involves hedging both commodity price risk and currency risk, is the least expensive. Whether Metalgesselschaft should, in fact, hedge depends on how its DM revenues vary with the spot cost of copper expressed in DM. If its DM revenues don’t vary with the current DM spot price of copper, the firm is probably better off hedging its copper purchases. On the other hand, if DM revenues vary directly with the spot price of copper, then hedging one end of the profit equation (costs) without hedging the other end (revenues) could subject Metalgesselschaft to more risk than if it didn’t hedge at all. 10. Cosmo, a Japanese exporter, wishes to hedge its $15 million in dollar receivables coming due in 60 days. To reduce its net cost of hedging to zero, however, Cosmo sells a 60-day dollar call option for $15 million with a strike price of ¥98/$ and uses the premium of $314,000 to buy a 60-day $15 million put option at a strike price of ¥90/$. 10.a. Graph the payoff on Cosmo’s hedged position over the range ¥80/$-¥110/$. What risk is Cosmo subjecting itself to with this option hedge? Answer: As can be seen from the payoff diagram on Cosmo’s currency collar, Cosmo is limiting the upside potential on its receivable with the call option but also limiting its downside risk. The put and call premiums of $314,000 cancel offset each other and so don’t affect the payoff on the currency collar. The diagram reflects the fact that Cosmo will not exercise its put option at an exchange rate above ¥90/$ and the buyer will not exercise its call option below ¥98/$. Neither option, therefore, will be exercised in the range of ¥90/$:¥98/$. 10.b. What is the net yen value of Cosmo’s option hedged position at the following future spot rates: ¥85/$, ¥95/$, and ¥105/$? Answer: Cosmo’s currency collar will return the following amounts of yen at the given exchange rates: ¥85/$, ¥1,350,000,000 (Cosmo will exercise its option to sell dollars at ¥90/$); ¥95/$, ¥1,425,000,000 (this exchange rate falls in the range where the put and call options won’t be exercised, so Cosmo will convert at the actual spot rate); ¥105/$, ¥1,470,000,000 (Cosmo’s dollars will be called away at the exercise price of ¥98/$). 10.c. As an alternative to using options, Cosmo could have hedged with a 60-day forward contract at a price of ¥97/$. What would be the yen value of Cosmo’s hedged receivable if it had used a forward contract to hedge? Answer: Cosmo can lock in a value of ¥1,455,000,000 (¥97 * 15,000,000) with the forward contract. 10.d. At what exchange rate will the hedged value of Cosmo's dollar receivables be the same whether it used the option hedge or forward hedge? Answer: At an exchange rate of ¥97/$, the currency collar will return ¥1,455,000,000, since, at this rate, neither option will be exercised and Cosmo will convert at the spot rate. Solution Manual for Foundations of Multinational Financial Management Atulya Sarin, Alan C. Shapiro 9780470128954