I think there is a mistake in Solotuion of question 4D in Practice problem. Summary:: a security = $225 at present , want to purchase after 1 year, r = 4.75% => Long a forward contract priced at 235,069. At expiration, that security = $190. => Gain or loss ?
Solotuion: Position loss 45.69 -> ok Gain on asset = 225-190 = $35 ??? Overall loss: -$10.69 ???
I really don’t understand why there is a gain 225 - 190 = $35 ? Have to pay 235.69 for a security only 190 after 1 year and the overall loss is $10,69 ? Notice that $10,69 is the result of 225 * 4.75% which mean $10,69 is just a interest. If use the same logic, whatever the price is the investor always gets overall loss $10,69 ?
Used search function but can’t find the final answer. No one can explain clearly, just making more assumption. I think you can’t answer this question too.
I’m still half way through Econ but you got me all curious. I wish I could’ve helped but it seems like everyone is a bit confused by this Question. I guess that you have to take it as is, you have about 54 Qs of topic based practice on the web, so move on and focus on that, the Q&As over there tend to be more straight forward and phrased more accurately.
It’s a gain of 35 as you delayed the purchase of the cash asset from when it was 225 until it was 190…so in effect you got it for a price that was cheaper by 35 dollars.
Simple as that I believe. It’s slightly confusing as how can you “gain” from something that you didn’t trade…but it’s semantics. You profited by 35 dollars by delaying purchase.
Its the same idea of profiting from a futures trade when you didn’t actually outlay any investment (bar margin etc) to enter into the futures trade.
I think the key here is: “the investor plans to purchase the asset in one year.” The FRA is just to hedge that. Therefore the decomposiion of return is hedging return (-45) + asset return (35) = -10 net loss.