EVE Limit Breach and a Proposed Pay-Fixed Swap
A regional bank has $8.0bn of assets. Its bond portfolio has a modified duration of 5.2 years and book value $2.4bn; loans are mostly floating-rate. On the liability side, $5.6bn of deposits have a modeled beta of 35% and an average life of 2.8 years; $1.2bn of wholesale funding reprices quarterly. The bank's EVE sensitivity to a +200bp parallel shock is reported as -14.2% of Tier 1 capital, above its board limit of -12%. Management proposes a $1.0bn pay-fixed interest rate swap with 4.5-year maturity to hedge. The ALCO notes that deposit beta rose from 20% to 35% in the last cycle and that deposit balances fell 6% when rates rose. A director asks whether the hedge will 'fix' the EVE ratio and whether the model's assumption is prudent.
1. Interpret the EVE sensitivity, identify its drivers, and evaluate whether the proposed swap is appropriate.
Read the worked answer
Interpretation. An EVE sensitivity of -14.2% for +200bp means economic value falls by 14.2% of Tier 1 capital, exceeding the -12% limit by 2.2 percentage points. The negative sign is consistent with a positive duration gap: long-duration bonds ($2.4bn at 5.2 years) lose more value than liabilities gain when rates rise, while floating-rate loans reprice quickly and deposits reprice only partially.
Swap evaluation. A pay-fixed swap receives floating and pays fixed; its net duration is negative because the fixed leg has long duration and the floating leg has short duration. Adding it reduces the bank's overall asset duration and should move EVE sensitivity toward zero. Directionally, the hedge is appropriate. But $1.0bn against $8.0bn of assets may be too small to close a 2.2-point breach, and the 4.5-year maturity may not match the bond portfolio's 5.2-year duration. The bank must calculate dollar duration and test partial hedges, not assume the notional is sufficient.
Reasoning. The swap can reduce the EVE gap, but it is not a 'fix' if the underlying deposit assumptions are wrong. It also affects NII and hedge accounting, so the ALCO must evaluate both EVE and earnings risk.
2. Evaluate the deposit beta and balance assumptions. What stress tests should ALCO run before relying on the hedge?
Read the worked answer
Assumptions are not conservative enough. The model uses a 35% beta, but the last cycle already produced a rise from 20% to 35%, and balances fell 6% when rates rose. If the next cycle has a 50% beta or a 10% outflow, liability values and NII will behave differently, and the EVE hedge may be undersized or mispriced. The 2.8-year average life for non-maturity deposits also needs validation: behavioral life can shorten sharply when rates rise or confidence falls.
Stress tests. Run EVE and NII under: beta 45%, 55%, and 65%; deposit outflow of 5%, 10%, and 15%; parallel shocks of +100bp, +200bp, and +300bp; non-parallel twists (short rates up more than long rates); and a basis-risk scenario where swap rates and deposit rates diverge. Test the swap's effectiveness under each. Also test a recession scenario with falling rates, because a hedge that only works in one direction can create new risk.
Reasoning. The hedge is only as good as the modeled liability behavior. If deposit beta is understated, the bank may believe it is hedged when it is still exposed.
3. What governance and limit actions should the board take in response to the breach?
Read the worked answer
Immediate governance. Require a formal limit-breach remediation plan with a deadline, not an informal hedge decision. The board should approve any temporary increase in the EVE limit only with a clear rationale and a plan to return within limit. The hedge itself should go through ALCO approval, with documented objectives, hedge accounting treatment, counterparty credit risk, and collateral/liquidity implications.
Model governance. Commission independent validation of the deposit beta, NMD life, and EVE model, including backtesting against the last cycle. Require the ALCO to report EVE and NII sensitivities under the stress scenarios above, not just one parallel shock. Set sub-limits for deposit concentration and wholesale funding maturity.
Reasoning. The breach is a symptom of model and limit discipline, not just a duration problem. Hedging to satisfy a ratio without fixing the assumptions would create false comfort. The board should require evidence that the hedge reduces risk under adverse deposit behavior, and should monitor the residual gap quarterly.