• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

June 2025 ACCA Exams

How was your exam? Comments & Instant poll >>

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

NUTOURNE CO (DEC 18)

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA AFM Exams › NUTOURNE CO (DEC 18)

  • This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 months ago by John Moffat.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 16, 2021 at 9:35 pm #625489
    rumanailyas
    Participant
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 12
    • ☆

    Hello, sir. Hope you well and safe. Firstly, thank you so much for your lectures and notes.

    My question is regarding Notourne Co question. From what i have watched in your lectures, there werent any sums regarding under hedging and its calculation so this problem seemed a bit off to me.
    So, i just went ahead and calculated the lock in rate according to how you taught in your lectures:

    Mid rate spot = 1.0292+1.0309/2 = 1.03005

    futures = 1.0369

    Therefore, 1.03005-1.0369= -0.00685 * 1/7 = -0.000978 (unexpired basis)

    Lock in rate = Opening futures price + unexpired basis on the transaction
    date
    = 1.0369 + (-0.000978)= 1.0359

    Receipt = 12,300,000 * 1.0359= $12,741,834

    Isnt this enough? We are getting the same answer right?
    Why do we hedge the remainder amount specifically for this question? There are so many questions where there was an underhedged amount but we just round it up/down and solve the question accordingly.

    June 17, 2021 at 8:33 am #625525
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 54675
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    What you have typed is fine except for the fact that we apply the lock-in rate to the contract amount and in this question the contract amount is 98 contracts of CHF125,000.

    I do mention the over or under hedge in my lectures, and the problem is that the contract amount is very unlikely to be exactly the same amount as the amount of the transaction. If we do nothing then the difference between the two remains at risk, and the only way we can remove that risk is to use a forward rate on the amount left over.

    In the exam, always mention any over or under hedge. If it is tiny (so, for example, had it been 98.05 contracts that we rounded to 98 contracts) then do not bother doing more. If it is a larger amount (so here it was 98.4 contracts that we rounded to 98 contracts) then mention it and if you have time then calculate the amount left over and use the forward rate on it.

    June 19, 2021 at 8:12 pm #625868
    rumanailyas
    Participant
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 12
    • ☆

    Okay i think i got it. So, for the Lammer PLC (june 06 adapted) question, they havent calculated the total outcome? They didnt even calculate underhedging separately. Why?

    June 20, 2021 at 6:11 am #625886
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 54675
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    This is a question from 15 years ago and the examiner has change twice since then. These days you certainly would be expected to show the final outcome for futures and to at least mention the over/under hedge (which has been mentioned in the case of the options).

    August 13, 2024 at 7:17 pm #709632
    Katz
    Participant
    • Topics: 4
    • Replies: 10
    • ☆

    Hello Mr. John,

    My query in this question is in calculating the receipt (under-hedged amount). In the answer they derived the Receipt = CHF50,000 x 1·0358= $51,790. But can I know the reason why CHF50,000 was multiplied with 1·0358?

    I think that CHF50,000 needs to be multiplied with six months higher forward rate of $1.0380, right?

    August 14, 2024 at 8:28 am #709645
    John Moffat
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 57
    • Replies: 54675
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    No, the answer is correct.

    They are selling CHF and therefore buying US$ and so the relevant rate is 1.0358.

    (Had they been able to exchange at 1.0380 they would have ended up receiving more, and that can never be the case – it is always what is worse for the company because the difference in the banks profit 🙂 )

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Log In

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • mrjonbain on What is Assurance? – ACCA Audit and Assurance (AA)
  • Ejueyitsi-Toju on What is Assurance? – ACCA Audit and Assurance (AA)
  • sadik.sadka on How to make the best use of OpenTuition
  • SONIC916 on Lessee accounting – ACCA (SBR) lectures
  • AkinMike on IASB Conceptual Framework – Introduction – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in