- UID
- 223323
- 帖子
- 627
- 主题
- 107
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2013-8-20
|
9#
发表于 2012-4-3 16:24
| 只看该作者
Mark Austin is a risk management consultant specializing in fixed income securities. He has been asked to evaluate the interest rate risk situation of an intermediate size bank. The bank has a large floating rate liability of $100,000,000 on which it pays the London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) on a quarterly basis. Austin is concerned about the significant interest rate risk the bank incurs because of this liability. Since most of the bank's assets are invested in fixed rate instruments there is a considerable duration mismatch. Some of the bank's assets are floating rate notes tied to LIBOR. However, the total par value of these securities is significantly less than the liability position.
Austin considers both swaps and interest rate options. The interest rate options are 2-year caps and floors with quarterly exercise dates. He wishes to hedge the entire liability.
Austin has the technology to be able to generate an interest rate tree resulting in the quarterly incremented interest rate tree and the corresponding pricing tree for a two-year caplet shown in Table 1.
He has also obtained the prices for an at-the-money 6 month cap and floor with quarterly exercise. These are shown in Table 2.Table 1: Interest Rate Tree and Price Tree for Two-Year Caplet ($100M notional) | | | | | | | | 12.23% | | | | | | | 10.66% | | | | | | | 9.68% | | 10.01% | | | | | 8.79% | | 8.72% | | | | | 7.32% | | 7.92% | | 8.19% | | | 6.65% | | 7.19% | | 7.14% | | | 6.05% | | 5.99% | | 6.48% | | 6.70% | 5.00% | | 5.45% | | 5.89% | | 5.84% | | | 4.95% | | 4.91% | | 5.31% | | 5.48% | | | 4.46% | | 4.82% | | 4.78% | | | | | 4.02% | | 4.34% | | 4.48% | | | | | 3.95% | | 3.91% | | | | | | | 3.55% | | 3.67% | | | | | | | 3.20% | | | | | | | | | 3.00% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $1,557,206 | | | | | | | $1,214,622 | | | | | | | $933,050 | | $1,001,459 | | | | | $697,982 | | $741,758 | | | | | $507,549 | | $524,260 | | $546,738 | | | $357,476 | | $354,271 | | $348,281 | | | $244,490 | | $231,189 | | $209,772 | | $174,677 | $163,310 | | $146,294 | | $121,961 | | $84,861 | | | $90,294 | | $69,369 | | $41,334 | | $0 | | | $38,766 | | $20,180 | | $0 | | | | | $9,892 | | $0 | | $0 | | | | | $0 | | $0 | | | | | | | $0 | | $0 | | | | | | | $0 | | | | | | | | | $0 |
Table 2:
At-the-Money 0.5 year Cap and Floor Values |
Price of at-the-money Cap | $133,377 |
Price of at-the-money Floor | $258,510 |
Austin analyzes alternative hedging strategies. Which of the following is the most appropriate transaction to most efficiently hedge the interest rate risk for a floating rate liability without sacrificing potential gains from interest rate decreases?
Buying a cap combined with a floating rate liability limits the exposure to interest rate increases (no exposure to interest rate increases above strike rate) while the floating rate borrower is still able to benefit from interest rate decreases.
Austin now wants to compute the cost to convert the bank's floating rate liability to a fixed rate liability for 6 months. Using the information in Tables 1 and 2, what would be the cash flow to Austin to implement this hedge using at the money interest rate options?
This is the difference between the 0.5 year cap and the 0.5 year floor both with a strike rate of 5.000% with the values shown in Table 2.
So we have cash flow to convert floating to fixed = −$133,377 + $258,510 = $125,133
Austin is now considering some of the bank's floating rate assets. Which of the following transactions is the most appropriate to minimize the interest rate risk of these assets without sacrificing upside gains?
Buying a floor combined with a floating rate holding limits the exposure to interest rate decreases (no exposure to interest rate decreases below strike rate) while the floating rate holder is still able to benefit from interest rate increases. Ideally, Patrick should consider matching this asset position against the liability position. |
|