Abstract

Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 133 requires business entities to document their anticipation of hedge effectiveness in order to qualify for hedge accounting treatment of gains and losses from financial derivatives. In the absence of specific guidelines, the accounting industry has espoused the “80–125” rule for determining hedge effectiveness. But the authors observe that meaningful assessment of anticipated hedge effectiveness must consider two distinct aspects of a firm's hedging strategy: (1) the strength of the hedging relationship, which is determined by the choice of the hedging instrument; and (2) the position taken in the hedging instrument relative to the holdings of the hedged item. They take both aspects of hedging into consideration in developing alternative measures of hedge effectiveness and distinguishing between the potential and attained effectiveness of a particular hedge. This approach enables the user to evaluate the relative merits of alternative hedging strategies to support risk management decisions, and also to document a selected hedging strategy's anticipated effectiveness for purposes of compliance with FAS 133. While the authors endorse a fairly broad interpretation of hedge effectiveness, their approach can also be used in the narrower context of an “80–125” rule.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.