Currency Overlay: Hero or Drag?
A global equity portfolio has a local-currency return of +9.2% for the year, while its benchmark, the MSCI World Index, returned +8.6% in local currency. The plan's policy hedges 50% of developed-market currency exposure. The overlay cost 50 basis points, and the total portfolio returned +8.9%, versus the 50% hedged policy benchmark's +8.8%. The unhedged total return would have been +9.4%. The CIO argues the overlay destroyed 50 basis points because the unhedged return was higher. The overlay manager points out that the hedge reduced volatility from 14.8% to 13.9% and that the policy is risk-reduction, not return enhancement. The investment committee must decide whether to keep, modify, or terminate the overlay. The policy benchmark for the overlay is the 50% hedged MSCI World.
1. What is the correct benchmark and objective for the overlay, and how should the committee assess whether the 50 bps cost was justified?
Read the worked answer
The overlay should be judged against the 50% hedged policy benchmark and against its stated objective: reducing currency risk, not maximizing return. The relevant comparison is +8.9% versus +8.8%, a 10 bp gain, not +8.9% versus the unhedged +9.4%. The 50 bp cost must be evaluated against the volatility reduction: 14.8% to 13.9% is a 6% relative reduction in risk. The committee should compute the information ratio of the overlay versus the policy benchmark, the hedge ratio actually achieved, and the cost per unit of risk reduced. It should also separate the hedge cost (forward points, carry) from currency movement. The CIO's comparison to the unhedged return is a benchmark error: it credits the overlay with a currency view it was never hired to take. If the policy is risk reduction, a year in which currency appreciated and the hedge cost 50 bps is not evidence of failure; it is the expected cost of insurance.
2. The CIO wants to terminate the overlay to capture the unhedged return. What risks and behavioral biases should the committee consider?
Read the worked answer
Terminating the overlay to capture the unhedged return is a tactical currency bet dressed as a policy decision. The committee should recognize recency bias: currency movements are mean-reverting and the recent gain may not persist. It should also consider the plan's funding level, liquidity needs, and risk budget. If the plan cannot tolerate a 15% currency swing, the overlay is doing its job. Changing the policy after a favorable currency move also raises governance concerns: the policy was set for strategic reasons, and overriding it based on one year's return undermines discipline. The committee should ask whether the plan's currency risk tolerance has genuinely changed, not whether the unhedged return was higher. If it wants more currency exposure, it should change the strategic hedge ratio with a full risk analysis, not terminate the overlay ad hoc.
3. Recommend a decision and specify any conditions or review triggers.
Read the worked answer
Retain the overlay but review the hedge ratio and cost budget. The overlay added 10 bps versus its policy benchmark and reduced volatility, so it met its objective. The committee should set a formal review: if the cost exceeds 60 bps for two consecutive years without a corresponding risk reduction, or if the hedge ratio deviates by more than 5 percentage points, revisit. It should also require the overlay manager to report forward-point carry, realized hedge effectiveness, and attribution. If the plan's risk tolerance has increased, a gradual reduction from 50% to 25% could be considered, but only with a documented strategic rationale. Do not terminate based on the unhedged comparison. The decision should be minuted with the benchmark error explanation so that future committees do not repeat the same mistake.