Deploying Cash Equities Exposure: Futures, ETF or Total Return Swap
A US corporate pension plan has just received $45 million in cash and wants immediate exposure to large-cap US equities for about six months while it searches for a new manager. The plan can: (i) buy an S&P 500 ETF with a 0.07% annual expense ratio and a 3 bp bid-offer spread; (ii) buy S&P 500 futures at 5,250 with a $250 multiplier, 8% initial margin, and daily variation margin; or (iii) enter a six-month total return swap with a bank at SOFR+28 bp, daily margined. The futures expire in three months, so one roll is required. The plan earns 4.9% on cash and margin collateral. The current spot index is 5,200, the dividend yield is 1.4%, and three-month financing is 5.1%. The investment committee limits unsecured bank exposure to $2 million and wants to avoid forced deleveraging if equities fall 15% during the period. The plan's operations team has no prior futures or swap experience.
1. Calculate the number of futures contracts needed and estimate the approximate all-in cost of each of the three routes over six months, stating your assumptions.
Read the worked answer
Futures contracts: Contract notional = 5,250 × $250 = $1,312,500. Contracts = $45,000,000 ÷ $1,312,500 = 34.3, so buy 34 contracts (notional $44.625m, a small under-hedge).
Futures cost: Commission and exchange fees are roughly 34 × 2 × $3.75 ≈ $255. Bid-offer at 0.25 index points each way costs 0.5 × $250 × 34 = $4,250. One roll adds a similar spread and fee, say $4,500. Fair value is 5,200 × [1 + (5.1% − 1.4%) × 0.25] ≈ 5,248.1, so buying at 5,250 costs about 1.9 points × $250 × 34 ≈ $16,150. Total ≈ $25,000, or about 5.6 bp of notional.
ETF cost: TER for six months ≈ 3.5 bp = $15,750; round-trip spread 6 bp = $27,000; total ≈ $42,750, or 9.5 bp.
TRS cost: 28 bp annual × 0.5 = 14 bp = $63,000, before any collateral or operational cost.
Futures are cheapest, but the comparison must include margin operations and roll execution risk.
2. Assess which structure best satisfies the investment committee's constraints, including counterparty exposure and the 15% equity fall scenario.
Read the worked answer
The futures route is cleared, so it creates no unsecured bank exposure and stays within the $2m limit. Initial margin is 8% × $44.625m ≈ $3.57m. A 15% equity fall implies a variation margin call of about 15% × $44.625m ≈ $6.69m. The plan holds $45m cash earning 4.9%, so it can meet that call without forced deleveraging, but it must be operationally ready for daily margin and must keep sufficient liquidity outside the margin account. The ETF route avoids margin calls and counterparty risk but uses the cash and is the most expensive. The TRS route costs 14 bp, but unless fully collateralised it breaches the $2m unsecured bank limit; even with a CSA, the plan has no swap experience. Recommendation: the ETF is the safest operational choice; futures are the best economic choice if the plan trains staff and ring-fences margin liquidity; the TRS is unsuitable given the constraints.
3. Explain two market-structure risks that remain even with a fully collateralised futures hedge.
Read the worked answer
First, roll and basis risk: the three-month futures must be rolled, and the roll price depends on financing, dividends and market demand. If the futures market moves to a wider contango, the roll costs more than assumed, and the hedge may not track the spot index precisely. Second, margin liquidity risk: daily variation margin is paid in cash, and a sharp fall can require several million dollars at short notice. Collateralising the position reduces counterparty risk but does not remove the need to fund variation margin. A third risk is tracking error between the S&P 500 futures and the plan's intended benchmark or the ETF, especially if the plan later changes manager or benchmark.