The Airline's Fuel Hedge That Moved the Wrong Way
An airline hedges 70% of its next-12-month jet fuel exposure using crude oil futures, on the theory that jet fuel and crude are highly correlated. Fuel budget is $1.2 billion; the hedge covers $840 million notional. In the first half, crude falls 25% but jet fuel falls only 12% because of a regional refinery outage that tightened jet fuel supply. The airline's fuel cost is therefore higher than the crude-based hedge implied. The risk committee asks why the hedge 'lost money while fuel prices fell' and whether the program should be abandoned. The treasurer notes the crack spread (jet fuel minus crude) widened sharply. The company uses hedge accounting and must assess effectiveness.
1. Explain the source of the hedge's underperformance and whether it constitutes hedge ineffectiveness.
Read the worked answer
The underperformance is basis risk, specifically a widening crack spread between jet fuel and crude. The hedge instrument (crude futures) and the hedged item (jet fuel) are different commodities; their relationship is statistical, not contractual. When the crack spread widens, jet fuel falls less than crude, so:
- The crude hedge gains less than the fuel cost savings would imply (or, if crude fell and the hedge was a short/long position, the offset is imperfect).
- The airline's actual fuel cost is higher than the crude-only hedge predicted.
Is it ineffectiveness? Under hedge accounting, yes - to the extent the change in the hedging instrument's fair value does not offset the change in the hedged item's cash flows, that portion is ineffectiveness and must be recognized. A dollar-offset test would show the crude gain/loss failing to match the jet fuel cost change. The crack spread is the quantified source. Whether the relationship still qualifies depends on whether the correlation remains within the documented effectiveness corridor; a 25% vs 12% divergence is material and likely breaches it.
So: the hedge is not 'wrong' - it is an imperfect proxy. The loss is the cost of using a correlated but non-identical instrument.
2. Advise the risk committee on whether to abandon the program or restructure it, with reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Do not abandon on the basis of one adverse spread move. The program's purpose is to reduce volatility of fuel cost, not to make money; a hedge that underperforms in one period may still reduce variance over time. Abandoning after a loss is 'hedging to the rear-view mirror.'
Better options:
- Re-examine the hedge ratio and instrument. If crack-spread risk is material, consider hedging with jet fuel swaps or a crack-spread instrument (buying jet fuel / selling crude) rather than outright crude. This directly hedges the basis.
- Re-run the effectiveness assessment. If the crude-based relationship no longer qualifies, de-designate and either (a) accept P&L volatility, or (b) re-designate with a documented, tested relationship.
- Stress-test the crack spread. Model scenarios where the spread widens further and confirm the company can absorb the cost.
- Document the decision. The committee should record that the program is retained for risk-reduction reasons, with the basis risk explicitly acknowledged and monitored.
The key judgement: a hedge that loses relative to a naive expectation is not necessarily a failed hedge - but a hedge whose basis is structurally unstable may need a better instrument.