Case Lufthansa

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 189
  • Published : November 2, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
Problem go to solution
Business, Finance - Other
Lufthansa: To Hedge or Not To Hedge
The following is an MBA problem for which I am seeking a detailed answer in understandable English.  (Note:  I have had a problem in the past with answers that were substantively good but were hard for me to understand/figure out due to improper use of English grammar.)

Case Synopsis:  Heinz Ruhnau, Lufthansa's CEO, needed to determine how to deal with the foreign ex change risk resulting from the purchase of 20 new aircraft. Due to Lufthansa's recent growth, it needed new aircraft. Its official policy was to have half Boeing and half Airbus aircraft, so it needed to purchase some aircraft from Boeing to offset its pending purchase of aircraft from Airbus.  Ruhnau needed to determine how to deal with the massive foreign ex change exposure caused by the US$500 million purchase price (Lufthansa was the flagship German airline with the majority of its revenues in deutsche marks). The exposure was the result of this money being due in one year - upon delivery of the aircraft. He was considering four alternatives to deal with this risk:

1) do nothing,
2) hedge using forward contracts,
3) hedge using options, or
4) use the money market to lock in current exchange rates.

Due to the restrictive covenants on Lufthansa's borrowing, the fourth option was not a viable alternative.

Based on the above synopsis and the full case attached, please answer the following questions:

1) If the DM/$ exchange rate were 2.4DM/$ in January 1986, what would be the all in cost of the aircraft purchase under each alternative? (Consider both fully hedging the cost and hedging exactly one half of the cost.)

2) If the DM/$ exchange rate were 3.4DM/$ in January 1986, what would be the all in cost of the aircraft purchase under each alternative? (Consider both fully hedging the cost and hedging exactly one half of the cost.)

3) Why may you only want to hedge part of the purchase price?

4) Which alternative would you choose and why?
* Created:
* Sep 05, 2006 9:45 pm
* Solution By OTA:
* Departed OTA

Solution go to problem
Case Synopsis:  Heinz Ruhnau, Lufthansa's CEO, needed to determine how to deal with the foreign ex change risk resulting from the purchase of 20 new aircraft. Due to Lufthansa's recent growth, it needed new aircraft. Its official policy was to have half Boeing and half Airbus aircraft, so it needed to purchase some aircraft from Boeing to offset its pending purchase of aircraft from Airbus.  Ruhnau needed to determine how to deal with the massive foreign ex change exposure caused by the US$500 million purchase price (Lufthansa was the flagship German airline with the majority of its revenues in deutsche marks). The exposure was the result of this money being due in one year - upon delivery of the aircraft. He was considering four alternatives to deal with this risk:

1) do nothing,
2) hedge using forward contracts,
3) hedge using options, or
4) use the money market to lock in current exchange rates.

Due to the restrictive covenants on Lufthansa's borrowing, the fourth option was not a viable alternative.

Based on the above synopsis and the full case attached, please answer the following questions:

1) If the DM/$ exchange rate were 2.4DM/$ in January 1986, what would be the all in cost of the aircraft purchase under each alternative? (Consider both fully hedging the cost and hedging exactly one half of the cost.)

For the first alternative, which is do nothing and wait to see what the exchange rate is like in January 1986, the all in cost of the aircraft purchase will be as follows: -

US$500 million x 2.4DM/$ = DM1,200 million

For the second alternative, which is hedge using forward contracts, if we choose to fully hedging the cost, the all in cost of the aircraft purchase will be as follows: -

By using forward contracts, the company has to comply with the...
tracking img