INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVENo Access

HEAT™ (HEDGE EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS TOOLKIT): A CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING HEDGE EFFECTIVENESS UNDER IAS 39 AND FAS 133 FROM JPMORGAN

GUY COUGHLAN

JPMorgan Asset and Liability Management Advisory, JPMorgan Securities, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author

SIMON EMERY

JPMorgan Corporate Derivatives, JPMorgan Chase Bank, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author

, and

JOHANNES KOLB

JPMorgan Corporate Derivatives, JPMorgan Chase Bank, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219868104000178Cited by:14 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

HEAT™ or Hedge Effectiveness Analysis Toolkit is JPMorgan's latest addition to a long list of innovative and cutting-edge risk management solutions. HEAT is destined to help corporations navigate the complexities of hedge effectiveness testing under IAS 39 and FAS 133. HEAT comprises a consistent framework incorporating alternative methodologies for understanding and implementing hedge effectiveness testing. It is unique because it enables corporations to assess the effectiveness of hedges in both economic and accounting terms and also enables corporations to estimate the potential impact on earnings if hedge accounting is not obtained. While HEAT provides corporations with a consistent framework incorporating many alternative methodologies for hedge effectiveness testing, auditors will ultimately determine the appropriateness of any given methodology from a regulatory and accounting perspective, and as such accounting advice should be sought before implementing a particular methodology. In practice, even relatively simple hedge effectiveness methodologies can give surprising and sometimes counterintuitive results. HEAT helps to address the pitfalls that need to be negotiated in developing a consistent and intuitive approach to evaluating hedge effectiveness.

Keywords:

References

Althoff, J. M. and J. D. Finnerty (2001). Use of regression in assessing hedge effectiveness. FAS 133 and the New Derivatives Accounting Landscape, Institutional Investor, New York (Fall), 44–51 . Google Scholar
Canabarro, E. (1999). A Note on the Assessment of Hedge Effectiveness Using Dollar Offset Ratio Under FAS 133, Goldman Sachs research paper (June) . Google Scholar
G. D. Coughlan, Treasury Log 4, 4 (2003). Google Scholar
G. D. Coughlan , J. Kolb and S. Emery , HEAT Technical Document ( JPMorgan , London , 2003 ) . Google Scholar
G. D. Coughlan , Corporate Risk Management in an IAS 39 Framework ( Incisive Media , London , 2004 ) . Google Scholar
C. L. Culp and M. H. Millar , Corporate Hedging in Theory and Practice: Lessons from Met-allgesellschaft ( Risk Books , London , 1999 ) . Google Scholar
L. H. Ederington, Journal of Finance 34, 157 (1979), DOI: 10.2307/2327150. Crossref, Google Scholar
FASB (1998). Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133: Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. Norwalk CT: FASB (June) . Google Scholar
FASB (2000). Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 138: Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities — An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133. Norwalk CT: FASB (June) . Google Scholar
J. D. Finnerty and D. Grand, Accounting Horizons 16, 95 (2002), DOI: 10.2308/acch.2002.16.2.95. Crossref, Google Scholar
C. T. Franckle, Journal of Finance 35, 1273 (1980), DOI: 10.2307/2327101. Crossref, Google Scholar
D. N. Gujarati , Basic Econometrics , 3rd edn. ( McGraw-Hill , Singapore , 1995 ) . Google Scholar
Humphreys, B. (2000). Catch 133. EPRM, (November), 28–29 . Google Scholar
IASB , International Financial Reporting Standards ( IASB , London , 2004 ) . Google Scholar
L. L. Johnson, Review of Economic Studies 27, 139 (1960). Crossref, Google Scholar
A. Kalotay and L. Abreo, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 13(Winter), 93 (2001), DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2001.tb00429.x. Crossref, Google Scholar
I. G. Kawaller and P. D. Koch, Journal of Derivatives 7(Summer), 79 (2000), DOI: 10.3905/jod.2000.319136. Crossref, Google Scholar
I. G. Kawaller, Bank Asset/Liability Management 18(3), 1 (2002). Google Scholar
I. G. Kawaller, AFP Exchange 7, (2002). Google Scholar
I. G. Kawaller, Derivatives Strategy 6, 36 (2001). Google Scholar
I. G. Kawaller and R. B. Steinberg, AFP Exchange 7, (2002). Google Scholar
J. Longerstaey and M. Spencer, RiskMetrics Technical Document, 4th edn. (JPMorgan, New York, 1996). Google Scholar
J. Mina and J. Y. Xiao , Return to RiskMetrics: The Evolution of a Standard ( The RiskMetrics Group , New York , 2001 ) . Google Scholar
Royall, R. L. (2001). Use of regression in assessing hedge effectiveness. FAS 133 and the New Derivatives Accounting Landscape, Institutional Investor, New York (Fall), pp. 52–61 . Google Scholar
S. M. Swad , Accounting and disclosures for derivatives , 1995 Twenty-Second Annual National Conference on Current SEC Developments ( 1995 ) . Google Scholar