Hubbry Logo
Fuel hedgingFuel hedgingMain
Open search
Fuel hedging
Community hub
Fuel hedging
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fuel hedging
Fuel hedging
Fuel hedging
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Fuel hedging is a contractual tool some large fuel consuming companies, such as airlines, cruise lines and trucking companies, use to reduce their exposure to volatile and potentially rising fuel costs.[citation needed] A fuel hedge contract is a futures contract that allows a fuel-consuming company to establish a fixed or capped cost, via a commodity swap or option. The companies enter into hedging contracts to mitigate their exposure to future fuel prices that may be higher than current prices and/or to establish a known fuel cost for budgeting purposes. If such a company buys a fuel swap and the price of fuel declines, the company will effectively be forced to pay an above-market rate for fuel. If the company buys a fuel call option and the price of fuel increases, the company will receive a return on the option that offsets their actual cost of fuel. If the company buys a fuel call option, which requires an upfront premium cost, much like insurance, and the price of fuel decreases, the company will not receive a return on the option but they will benefit from buying fuel at the then-lower cost.[citation needed]

Background

[edit]

The cost of fuel hedging depends on the predicted future price of fuel. Airlines may place hedges either based on future prices of jet fuel or on future prices of crude oil.[1] Because crude oil is the source of jet fuel, the prices of crude oil and jet fuel are normally correlated. However, other factors, such as difficulties regarding refinery capacity, may cause unusual divergence in the trends of crude oil and jet fuel.[citation needed]

Companies which consume large volumes of fuel and do not hedge their fuel costs generally believes one, if not both, of the following:

  1. The company has the ability to pass on any and all increases in fuel prices to their customers, without a negative impact on their profit margins.[citation needed]
  2. The company is confident that fuel prices are going to fall and is comfortable paying a higher price for fuel if, in fact, their analysis proves to be incorrect.[2]

Typically, airlines will hedge only a certain portion of their fuel requirements for a certain period. Often, contracts for portions of an airline's jet fuel needs will overlap, with different levels of hedging expiring over time.[citation needed]

During the 2009-2010 period, the studies for the airline industry have shown the average hedging ratio to be 64%.[citation needed] Especially during the peak stress periods, the ratio tends to increase.

Southwest Airlines has tended to hedge a greater portion of its fuel needs as compared to other major U.S. domestic carriers.[3] Southwest's aggressive fuel hedging has helped the airline partially avoid financial consequences caused by airline industry downturns (e.g., the downturn caused by the 2000s energy crisis). Between 1999 and 2008, Southwest saved more than $4 billion through fuel hedging under the strategic leadership of former CFO Kelly (who became CEO in 2004, and President and Chairman in 2008).[4][5]

Providers of fuel hedging

[edit]

Fuel hedging services are predominantly provided by specialist teams within fuel management companies, large oil companies and financial services institutions.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Fuel hedging

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Fuel hedging is a strategy used primarily by , shipping companies, and other fuel-intensive industries to protect against volatile fuel prices by employing derivatives contracts, such as futures, options, swaps, and forwards, to lock in future purchase costs at predetermined rates. This approach aims to stabilize cash flows and operating expenses, as fuel often constitutes 15-30% of total costs in sectors like , where unexpected price spikes can erode profitability. In practice, companies typically hedge 30-70% of their anticipated fuel needs, often for periods of 6-12 months, using cross-hedges with more liquid crude oil or refined product contracts since direct jet fuel markets are less developed. Common instruments include futures contracts traded on exchanges like the (NYMEX) for (WTI) crude or the (ICE) for , with standardized volumes (e.g., 1,000 barrels), options such as collars that cap upside risk while allowing some downside benefit, and swaps that exchange fixed payments for floating fuel price-based ones. Empirical studies indicate that hedging can reduce operating costs by 9-12% for airlines, though this benefit may diminish when accounting for overall cost inefficiencies, and it does not always yield statistically significant savings compared to purchases. Hedging programs, such as those implemented by U.S. state transportation departments for , further demonstrate its role in minimizing price volatility across public and private sectors. Historically, fuel hedging gained prominence in the airline industry during the amid oil price shocks, evolving from rare usage in the to a standard tool by the early , influenced by financial theory emphasizing risk mitigation over speculative gains. While effective against rising prices, it can result in opportunity costs during declines, prompting debates on optimal hedging ratios and integration with broader energy risk strategies in global markets. As of 2025, while hedging remains common, some airlines, such as , have discontinued their fuel hedging programs.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

Fuel hedging refers to the strategic use of financial derivatives to mitigate the risk of adverse price fluctuations in fuel commodities, such as , diesel, or crude oil, allowing consumers to offset potential losses from rising costs. This approach enables companies to establish fixed or capped prices for future fuel purchases, transforming uncertain expenditures into more predictable ones. The core purpose of fuel hedging is to future costs, thereby stabilizing operational budgets, safeguarding profit margins, and minimizing exposure to volatility driven by factors like geopolitical tensions, disruptions, or speculative trading in energy markets. By doing so, businesses can better plan financial strategies without the immediate threat of sharp price spikes impacting their bottom line. A fundamental aspect of fuel hedging involves understanding price risk in energy markets, where spot prices represent the current for immediate delivery based on real-time , while futures prices reflect expectations for delivery at a later date and can diverge due to anticipated events. Hedging focuses on risk reduction by taking offsetting positions in these markets to neutralize potential losses, distinct from , which involves assuming additional risk in pursuit of profit from price movements. For example, an facing the prospect of escalating prices might use hedging to secure a fixed rate for a portion of its anticipated needs over the next year, thereby ensuring consistent operational costs and avoiding budget disruptions from market swings.

Importance in Volatile Markets

Fuel price volatility is driven by a range of factors, including decisions by the () to adjust production quotas, which can significantly influence global supply and prices. Weather events, such as hurricanes in the , disrupt offshore production and refining capacity, leading to temporary supply shortages and price spikes; for instance, a high-impact hurricane can result in the loss of about 1.5 million barrels per day of crude production. Global demand shifts, often fueled by economic growth in emerging markets or geopolitical tensions, further exacerbate unpredictability, as seen in the 2007-2008 period when strong demand growth pushed prices to a peak of $147 per barrel in July 2008 before a sharp decline. These drivers create substantial uncertainty for fuel-dependent industries, where even short-term fluctuations can translate into millions in unanticipated costs. In volatile markets, fuel hedging provides critical benefits by offering cost predictability, which allows companies to manage cash flows more effectively and avoid disruptions from sudden price increases. This stability enables better financial planning, as hedged costs reduce the variability in operating expenses and support consistent budgeting. For customer-facing industries like , hedging facilitates competitive by stabilizing fare structures, preventing the need to pass on volatile fuel costs to consumers through frequent adjustments. Additionally, by mitigating earnings volatility, hedging enhances investor confidence, as it demonstrates proactive and contributes to more reliable financial performance metrics. The economic impact of fuel hedging is particularly evident during price surges, where it plays a key role in preventing severe losses or even bankruptcies among unhedged firms. For example, during the 2008 oil crisis, airlines without significant hedging exposure faced fuel costs that eroded profitability and contributed to financial distress, while hedged carriers like reported profits amid industry-wide losses. However, in 2025, Southwest discontinued its fuel hedging program, citing high costs and diminished benefits in recent years. In the post-2020 pandemic recovery, as oil prices rebounded sharply in 2022 due to demand resurgence, unhedged firms experienced greater balance sheet strain from elevated fuel expenses, whereas those with hedging programs maintained more resilient cash positions and avoided deeper operational cutbacks. Overall, hedging has helped avert broader economic ripple effects in fuel-intensive sectors by preserving jobs and capacity during crises. Quantitative insights into hedging underscore its stabilizing effect on balance sheets, with hedge ratios—representing the percentage of anticipated needs covered by —varying widely by region and airline, typically ranging from 0% to 90%, with many major at 0% and European carriers often at 30-60% or higher. Higher hedge ratios correlate with reduced exposure to price shocks, leading to lower volatility in reported and stronger metrics, though they may involve trade-offs like opportunity costs when prices fall. This approach ultimately supports healthier debt-to-equity ratios and credit ratings by smoothing out the impact of costs, which can constitute up to 30% of total operating expenses in vulnerable industries.

History

Origins in Energy Markets

Fuel hedging practices originated in the broader energy commodity markets during the 1970s, amid escalating oil price volatility triggered by geopolitical events and supply disruptions. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo, imposed by Arab members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries in response to Western support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, drastically curtailed oil supplies to the United States and other nations, causing global oil prices to quadruple from about $3 per barrel to over $12 by 1974. This crisis exposed the vulnerabilities of energy supply chains and created an urgent need for risk management tools, catalyzing the development of standardized futures contracts to hedge against price swings. The (NYMEX), established in 1972 through the merger of earlier commodity exchanges, played a pivotal role in formalizing energy futures trading. In response to the ongoing volatility from the 1970s oil shocks, NYMEX introduced its first energy futures contract for in 1978, followed by unleaded gasoline in 1981 and light sweet crude oil in 1983. These contracts were initially adopted by oil producers, refiners, and distributors to manage risks, such as fluctuating input costs and output prices, marking the transition from bilateral agreements to exchange-traded instruments that provided and . A key foundational shift occurred from traditional physical hedging—relying on storage inventories or long-term supply contracts—to financial hedging via , fueled by U.S. . The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 began phasing out federal price controls on at the , promoting competition and exposing producers to market-driven prices that amplified volatility and the demand for hedging tools. This , combined with similar reforms in oil markets, encouraged the growth of spot markets and financial contracts, enabling energy firms to mitigate risks without tying up capital in physical assets.

Evolution in Aviation and Transportation

Fuel hedging in the sector gained widespread adoption among s in the late , driven by increasing oil price volatility and the need to stabilize operational costs. pioneered an aggressive hedging strategy in 1998, locking in low prices through long-term contracts that covered up to 100% of its needs, which ultimately saved the company an estimated $3.5 billion between 1998 and 2008 compared to industry average rates. This approach capitalized on favorable market conditions at the time and set a benchmark for other carriers, encouraging broader use of to mitigate fuel expense fluctuations, which typically account for 20-30% of operating costs. Key developments accelerated hedging practices following major disruptions, including the post-9/11 fuel price surges in 2001-2002, which exposed airlines to sharp cost increases amid reduced passenger demand and economic uncertainty. These events prompted more carriers to implement hedging programs to protect against similar volatility, with adoption rates rising as fuel prices doubled in some periods. The 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita further highlighted risks for unhedged airlines, as Gulf Coast refinery disruptions caused prices to spike by over 30% temporarily, leading to billions in additional costs for exposed operators while hedged firms like Southwest maintained stability. This period also saw the growth of over-the-counter (OTC) markets for customized contracts, allowing airlines to tailor hedges to specific exposures rather than relying solely on standardized crude oil futures, enhancing flexibility in . In the broader transportation sector, fuel hedging expanded to shipping and trucking during the , as and diesel prices surged amid global demand growth and supply constraints. Shipping companies began applying hedging to in response to volatile marine diesel markets, with practices influenced by the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) MARPOL Annex VI regulations adopted in 1997, which imposed initial emission limits effective from 2005 and prompted shifts toward lower-sulfur fuels that increased hedging needs for price stability. Trucking firms similarly adopted hedging strategies in the mid- to counter diesel price swings, which reached highs of approximately $4.85 per by 2008, using tools like futures and swaps to lock in costs for fleet operations. The 2010s shale oil boom temporarily reduced hedging reliance in , as U.S. production surges drove prices down by nearly 50% from 2014 peaks, leading major airlines to scale back programs and forgo premiums on low-cost environments. Post-2020, fuel hedging evolved amid new volatility. The caused prices to plummet below $1 per gallon in 2020 due to demand collapse, reducing hedging activity as airlines focused on survival. However, the 2022 triggered crude oil spikes above $120 per barrel, prompting renewed hedging adoption to rates against geopolitical risks. By 2025, discontinued its long-standing hedging program after two decades of use, citing sustained low volatility and strategic shifts, while other carriers maintained partial hedges amid ongoing global uncertainties.

Hedging Instruments and Strategies

Common Financial Derivatives

Fuel hedging relies on several common financial derivatives to manage exposure to volatile fuel prices, primarily through exchange-traded and over-the-counter (OTC) instruments that allow parties to lock in prices or limit risk without physical delivery in most cases. These derivatives include futures contracts, forwards, swaps, and options, each offering distinct mechanics suited to different aspects of fuel price management. Futures contracts are standardized agreements traded on exchanges like the CME Group's NYMEX or ICE, obligating the buyer to purchase and the seller to deliver a specified quantity of a commodity at a predetermined price on a future date. For fuel hedging, common futures include those on crude oil (e.g., WTI or Brent), heating oil (a proxy for jet fuel and diesel), ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), and RBOB gasoline, with contract sizes typically around 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels). These are cash-settled or physically deliverable but often closed out before expiration, enabling hedgers to offset price fluctuations; for instance, an airline might sell heating oil futures to protect against rising jet fuel costs. Forwards are customized OTC contracts between two parties, tailored to specific quantities, delivery dates, and types like , without exchange standardization or clearing. Unlike futures, they lack daily margining, exposing parties to , but their flexibility allows precise matching to actual needs, such as locking in prices for future consumption. These are particularly useful when exchange-traded options do not align with the hedger's exact requirements. Swaps involve exchanging cash flows based on fixed versus floating fuel prices, typically OTC and financially settled without physical delivery. In a fixed-for-floating swap, one party pays a predetermined fixed rate and receives the floating market price (e.g., based on Platts indices for jet kerosene), effectively capping or flooring costs over the contract period; for example, an airline might enter a swap to pay $60 per barrel fixed while receiving the monthly average spot price, netting gains if prices rise above $60. Collars, a variant, combine a purchased cap (call option) with a sold floor (put option) to create cost boundaries at little to no upfront cost, limiting both upside exposure and potential losses. Options provide asymmetric protection, granting the right but not the to buy (call) or sell (put) at a , with the buyer paying a premium. Call options against price increases by allowing purchase at the strike if prices rise, while retaining benefits from price drops; they are the primary option type used by buyers like airlines. Put options protect sellers against price declines by allowing sale at the strike but are less common for buyers. A popular strategy for buyers is the collar, where a is purchased for upside protection and a is sold to offset the premium, creating a range of hedged prices. The suitability of these instruments depends on matching them to the specific type, as direct jet fuel futures are limited, leading to cross-hedging with proxies like or gasoil, which introduces basis risk—the mismatch between the hedged commodity's price movements and the actual price due to factors like refining costs or location differentials. To address this, hedgers use crack spreads, which combine crude oil futures with refined product futures (e.g., a 3:2:1 spread for and from crude) to hedge the refining margin for producing jet fuel from crude oil, providing a more accurate proxy for end-product costs.

Hedging Techniques and Approaches

Fuel hedging techniques encompass a range of methods to manage volatility, with delta hedging serving as a key dynamic approach for adjusting positions in options-based strategies. Delta hedging involves offsetting the sensitivity of an option's to changes in the underlying fuel by taking opposing positions in the or related futures, aiming to maintain a delta-neutral portfolio that minimizes directional . This technique is particularly useful in fuel markets where options like collars are common, allowing hedgers to rebalance exposures as market conditions evolve, such as during sudden price swings in crude oil. Static and dynamic hedging differ primarily in their adjustment frequency and suitability to exposure duration. Static hedging establishes fixed positions, such as buying swaps or collars at inception and holding until maturity, which suits short-term or predictable exposures but limits adaptability to market shifts. In contrast, dynamic hedging requires ongoing adjustments to hedge ratios based on real-time price movements and volatility, making it ideal for longer-duration exposures in volatile markets where static strategies may lead to over- or under-hedging. For instance, dynamic approaches enable the early unwind of protective puts when prices rise, reducing collateral demands while preserving upside potential. Common approaches include layered hedging and ratio hedging to balance comprehensive coverage with flexibility. Layered hedging involves staggering contracts over time, starting with small positions far out on the forward curve and incrementally adding layers as consumption nears, which smooths entry costs and aligns with forecasted needs. Ratio hedging, meanwhile, covers only a portion of anticipated exposure—typically 50-80% for airlines—to retain some benefit from favorable price drops while mitigating severe upside risks. This partial coverage avoids the pitfalls of full hedging, such as opportunity costs during price declines. Decision frameworks for implementing these techniques rely on quantitative assessments of exposure and tolerance. Hedge ratios are evaluated using minimum variance models, often targeting 50-80% coverage to optimize reduction without excessive costs, as higher ratios yield . (VaR) models further inform these decisions by potential losses from fuel price fluctuations, decomposing total portfolio VaR into fuel-specific components to guide ratio adjustments and instrument selection. For example, historical simulation VaR can quantify how a 60-70% lowers exposure while factoring in collateral impacts. Portfolio considerations emphasize diversification and continuity to sustain effective hedging. Diversification across instruments—combining fixed-price swaps, options, and futures—reduces risks, as no single tool perfectly tracks prices, thereby enhancing overall stability. Rolling hedges maintain coverage by systematically replacing expiring contracts with new ones further out on the curve, ensuring perpetual protection without gaps in exposure management. This approach, often layered over 12-24 months, allows hedgers to refine positions as market views change.

Applications by Industry

Airlines and Aviation

In the airline industry, jet fuel constitutes a significant portion of operating expenses, typically accounting for 20-30% of total costs, making it the largest and most volatile expense category. Airlines are particularly exposed to refined petroleum products such as Jet A-1, the predominant kerosene-based fuel used in commercial aviation worldwide, which is derived from crude oil refining processes and subject to price swings influenced by global supply chains. This exposure heightens the need for risk management strategies, as fuel costs directly impact profitability and ticket pricing in a highly competitive sector. Airlines commonly hedge 30-70% of their anticipated needs over 6-12 months, depending on market conditions and , to balance protection against upside with flexibility. These hedges often involve financial swaps tied to industry benchmarks like the Platts Jet Fuel Index, which provides a standardized reference for transactions in key markets such as the U.S. Gulf Coast or . Such instruments allow carriers to prices for future consumption, stabilizing cash flows amid market volatility. Notable outcomes illustrate the dual-edged nature of these practices. , for instance, benefited substantially from its hedging program during the 2008 oil price peak, saving an estimated $3.5 billion cumulatively since 1999, which provided a critical profit buffer equivalent to nearly 83% of its total earnings over that period. However, in March 2025, Southwest announced the discontinuation of its fuel hedging program. In contrast, faced significant losses in 2015 due to over-hedging when fuel prices plummeted, incurring $1.1 billion in hedge settlements in the first quarter. Separately, in the fourth quarter of 2014, hedging contributed to a $712 million net loss, as contracts locked in higher rates than prices. Key challenges in airline fuel hedging include aligning coverage with seasonal demand fluctuations between peak summer travel and off-peak winter periods, necessitating flexible strategies to avoid under- or over-hedging based on inaccurate forecasts. Additionally, unhedged exposure to fuel price spikes has contributed to financial distress, as seen in ' 2005 bankruptcy filing, where surging costs—exacerbated by minimal hedging (less than 5% for much of the year)—widened losses to $191 million in the first quarter and accelerated crises amid industry-wide pressures.

Shipping and Other Sectors

In the maritime shipping industry, fuel hedging primarily targets fuel, such as Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) 380, which is widely used in large marine engines due to its cost-effectiveness for long-haul voyages. Shipowners and operators commonly employ marine fuel swaps, particularly fixed-price swaps, to lock in fuel costs against price fluctuations, thereby stabilizing operational expenses amid volatile oil markets. These swaps allow for efficient without physical delivery, often settled based on benchmarks like Platts assessments for bunker prices. The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 2020 sulfur cap regulation, which limits sulfur content in ship fuel to 0.50% m/m globally (down from 3.5%), has significantly heightened the need for hedging low-sulfur fuels like very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO). This shift has increased compliance costs and price volatility for compliant fuels, prompting shippers to hedge using oil futures contracts, which can reduce weekly price variance by up to 71.94%. The regulation's environmental focus has thus integrated hedging strategies more deeply into voyage planning to mitigate both sulfur-related premiums and broader crude oil exposure. Shipping's unique adaptations to fuel hedging stem from extended voyage durations, often spanning weeks or months, necessitating longer-term contracts compared to shorter-cycle industries. Operators frequently use time charters for sustained procurement stability, aligning hedges with multi-month exposure rather than spot purchases. Sector-specific benchmarks, such as those from the , provide critical reference points for assessing freight and fuel-related risks, enabling more precise swap pricing tied to route-specific indices. Beyond shipping, the trucking sector relies on diesel futures for hedging, as diesel constitutes a major in fleet operations. Trucking firms often use (NYMEX) No. 2 futures—chemically similar to diesel—to offset price swings, though basis risk arises from quality differences between contracts and actual . This approach helps maintain profitability during periods of elevated demand, such as peak shipping seasons. Utilities engaged in power generation hedge natural gas exposure through NYMEX futures to secure fuel inputs for gas-fired plants, protecting against seasonal and supply-driven volatility. Following the 2014 shale boom, which boosted U.S. production and depressed prices, many utilities increased hedging volumes to capitalize on lower forward curves while guarding against potential rebounds. These futures, typically cash-settled for 10,000 MMBtu lots, allow end-users to fix prices without physical delivery, enhancing budgeting for output. In , particularly firms, crude hedges address feedstock price risks, as processes like production are directly tied to derivatives. Companies employ futures and swaps on benchmarks like (WTI) to dampen volatility, with strategies focusing on collars or outright sales to lock in margins amid refining chain interconnections. This hedging preserves operational continuity, especially during global supply disruptions affecting crude inputs.

Providers and Market Participants

Financial Institutions

Financial institutions, particularly major investment banks, serve as the primary providers of fuel hedging services through their commodity trading and derivatives desks. Institutions such as and play pivotal roles in offering over-the-counter (OTC) swaps tailored to fuel price risks, along with advisory services to help clients like airlines and shipping companies manage exposure to volatile energy markets. These banks act as market makers in fuel derivatives, facilitating trades in instruments like jet fuel swaps and heating oil contracts, which are essential for hedging against fluctuations in crude oil and refined product prices. In addition to executing trades, these institutions provide comprehensive services including the structuring of customized hedging programs that align with clients' specific risk profiles and operational needs. Proprietary trading desks within banks like JPMorgan and ensure liquidity by quoting bid-ask spreads and absorbing temporary imbalances in the OTC fuel , while consulting helps clients optimize hedge ratios and monitor basis risks between fuel types. This integration with broader trading arms allows banks to leverage expertise in energy markets, offering bundled solutions that combine hedging with financing and market intelligence. Major banks dominate the OTC fuel hedging landscape, as evidenced by the concentration where four large U.S. hold over 87% of the industry's total notional amounts. This dominance stems from their scale, global reach, and ability to intermediate between end-users and counterparties, often integrating fuel hedging with wider portfolios for enhanced efficiency. In the area, banks similarly represent the largest share of outstanding positions by gross notional value, underscoring their central role in providing and risk transfer mechanisms. The operational models of these institutions have evolved significantly following the , particularly with the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, which imposed mandatory clearing requirements on many standardized OTC derivatives, including certain energy swaps used in hedging. This shift increased compliance costs and capital charges for banks, prompting a move toward central clearing for eligible fuel-related contracts to mitigate , while non-centrally cleared swaps for customized hedges remain subject to heightened margin and reporting obligations. As a result, banks have adapted by enhancing their clearing infrastructure and focusing on cleared products, though this has raised hedging costs for clients and influenced the design of fuel derivative offerings.

Specialized Hedging Services

Specialized hedging services in fuel markets are provided by non-bank entities such as commodity trading firms and futures exchanges, which offer tailored solutions for managing fuel price volatility outside traditional banking frameworks. Commodity trading firms like and deliver customized fuel risk management, including physical supply integration with financial hedges for products such as jet fuel and diesel. These firms leverage their global trading networks to execute basis trades, where they arbitrage the price differential between local aviation fuel markets and international benchmarks like . Futures exchanges, including the (ICE) and , facilitate cleared fuel hedging through standardized contracts that mitigate counterparty risk. ICE offers jet fuel futures directly tied to international benchmarks, enabling efficient hedging for and shipping sectors with high to physical prices. Similarly, CME's NYMEX division provides and futures, which serve as proxies for broader fuel exposures, with daily settlements ensuring and transparency. These providers extend services beyond basic futures, including independent advisory for hedge and execution of sophisticated instruments like weather-linked fuel options. Advisory firms such as Mercatus Energy offer non-bank guidance on structuring fuel hedges for airlines, using scenario modeling to align strategies with operational forecasts and minimize basis risk. Complex structures, such as options combining fuel price triggers with indices (e.g., heating degree days), allow hedgers to protect against correlated risks like mild winters reducing heating demand; these are often cleared via CME's weather derivatives platform integrated with energy contracts. Key advantages of these specialized services include deep expertise in niche areas like basis trading, where firms like optimize locational spreads across supply chains, and reduced conflicts of interest compared to banks that may prioritize . This independence fosters objective advice, particularly for mid-sized operators seeking customized solutions without bundled lending requirements. Since the , these services have expanded significantly, driven by the rise of ESG-focused hedging for sustainable fuels (SAF). Global SAF capacity has grown from under 1 billion gallons in 2020 to projections of nearly 6 billion gallons by 2030, prompting specialized providers to develop hedges for SAF price volatility amid renewable feedstock fluctuations. Firms like CIH now offer dedicated advisory for renewable fuel hedges, integrating ESG metrics to support decarbonization goals while managing transition risks.

Risks and Limitations

Potential Drawbacks and Failures

Fuel hedging, while aimed at stabilizing costs, incurs significant opportunity costs when fuel prices decline below hedged levels, forcing companies to pay fixed higher rates despite cheaper market availability. For instance, a hedger locking in futures at $2.50 per may forgo savings if prices drop to $2.00, resulting in an effective cost premium that erodes margins. This drawback is particularly acute in falling markets, where the strategy eliminates upside from lower input costs, potentially leading to relative underperformance compared to unhedged competitors. Liquidity risks further compound these issues, as collateral requirements for hedging contracts can strain cash flows, especially in volatile or illiquid markets. Airlines, for example, often post or assets as margin for swaps, reducing available for operations during periods of financial stress. Airways highlighted in its 2008 10-K filing that such requirements on fuel hedges directly impacted its position. Illiquid over-the-counter derivatives exacerbate this, as unwinding positions may incur substantial losses or prove impossible without market depth. Notable failures underscore these vulnerabilities. In 2015, faced severe setbacks when it closed out nearly all remaining fuel hedges due to sustained low oil prices, projecting total hedge losses of approximately $1 billion for the year, including $190 million in the first quarter and $680 million across the remaining quarters. These writedowns stemmed from contracts locked in at higher rates, directly hitting . Counterparty default exposure represents another critical risk, particularly with over-the-counter swaps and forwards where one party may fail to meet obligations, potentially leading to unhedged fuel exposures and financial losses. Over-hedging amplifies this and other issues, as excessive coverage can generate negative cash flows when prices fall, tying up capital in losing positions and straining balance sheets. Case studies illustrate these dynamics starkly. ' aggressive hedging strategy, covering up to 90% of fuel needs by 2008 using a mix of call options, collars, swaps, and futures, shielded it from the oil price crash, stabilizing costs and supporting profitability during the . Between 1998 and 2008, these efforts saved over $3.5 billion, accounting for nearly 83% of its total profits. In contrast, ' less comprehensive approach exposed it to greater volatility; in 2009 alone, fuel hedge losses totaled $1.4 billion, turning a potential net profit into a $1.2 billion net loss. From 2008 to 2010, Delta's hedging ratios remained lower, leading to earnings instability as fuel prices swung, while Southwest's adaptive reductions (to 55% in 2009 and 30% in 2010) preserved resilience without overcommitting. This disparity highlights how mismatched hedging can quantify into billions in earnings impacts during downturns. More recently, during the 2022 oil price surge triggered by Russia's invasion of , hedging provided substantial relief to airlines with positions in place, with Asian carriers gaining approximately $2 billion in from locked-in prices as crude topped multi-year highs. However, as prices fell and stabilized through 2023-2025, many airlines reduced coverage to minimal levels—often below 20% as of early 2025—to avoid opportunity costs in a low-price environment, illustrating ongoing debates on optimal ratios amid geopolitical and market uncertainties.

Mitigation and Best Practices

To mitigate risks associated with fuel hedging, organizations implement regular portfolio reviews and as core best practices. Portfolio reviews involve ongoing assessments of hedging positions against market benchmarks and peer strategies to ensure alignment with evolving profiles, allowing for timely adjustments to hedge ratios and instruments. simulates extreme market scenarios, such as sharp price swings or crunches, to evaluate the financial resilience of hedge portfolios and identify potential collateral demands that could strain flows. These practices help prevent overexposure and maintain hedging effectiveness without excessive costs. Diversifying counterparties is another essential to avoid concentration , where reliance on a single could amplify losses during counterparty defaults or market disruptions. By spreading hedges across multiple reputable banks and traders, firms reduce the impact of any one entity's failure and improve leverage for better terms. This approach, combined with rigorous credit assessments, ensures sufficient counterparty capacity even in volatile environments. Key mitigation tools include rebalancing s and establishing board-level oversight for policies. Rebalancing entails periodically adjusting structures—such as varying tenors, ratios, or instrument mixes like swaps and options—to reflect changes in consumption forecasts or market conditions, thereby preserving the hedge's protective intent without introducing new basis risks. Board-level oversight requires executive approval for deviations from predefined hedging limits, fostering accountability and integrating hedging into broader to align with strategic objectives. For instance, policies often mandate that hedging volumes not exceed 70-85% of anticipated needs to balance risk reduction against costs. Effective frameworks for fuel hedging emphasize alignment with (ERM) and for geopolitical events. Integrating hedging into ERM ensures that fuel price strategies support overall business resilience, with cross-functional teams coordinating between treasury, operations, and risk functions to holistically address volatility drivers. involves modeling disruptions like interruptions from conflicts or sanctions, enabling proactive adjustments to hedge tenors or volumes to mitigate tail s. These frameworks promote a dynamic, rather than static, approach to control. Lessons learned from past volatility, particularly post-2008 , highlight the value of shorter hedge tenors—typically 6-18 months—to enhance adaptability. Airlines that suffered losses from long-term hedges during the oil price collapse shifted toward shorter durations, allowing quicker unwinding or rolling of positions to capitalize on favorable markets while limiting exposure to prolonged downturns. This adjustment reduces the risk of being locked into unfavorable prices and aligns better with uncertain demand patterns in sectors like .

Regulation and Accounting

Regulatory Frameworks

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 established a comprehensive regulatory framework for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives in the United States, with Title VII specifically mandating centralized clearing through registered clearing organizations for standardized derivatives to mitigate and enhance market transparency. This applies to derivatives used in fuel hedging, such as swaps tied to oil prices, where the (CFTC) determines clearing requirements based on factors like and exposures, while allowing exemptions for non-financial end-users engaged in bona fide commercial hedging. In the , the (), Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, imposes similar obligations on OTC derivatives, requiring all derivative contracts—including those for commodity hedging like fuel—to be reported to approved trade repositories for regulatory oversight and risk monitoring. also mandates central clearing for certain standardized OTC derivatives to reduce and operational vulnerabilities, with national competent authorities enforcing compliance across member states. In December 2024, the adopted amendments to ( REFIT), entering into force on 24 December 2024, which streamline reporting obligations and improve data quality for OTC derivatives, including those used in fuel hedging, with most provisions applying from 2025. Oversight of fuel hedging activities falls primarily under the CFTC in the U.S., which regulates futures and options markets, including contracts, by monitoring trading activity and enforcing rules to ensure market integrity. Internationally, the (IOSCO) facilitates coordination through its Principles for the and Supervision of Derivatives Markets, which promote harmonized public reporting, position aggregation, and information sharing among regulators to address cross-border risks in markets. Specific to fuel commodities, regulators impose position limits on exchanges to prevent and excessive , as seen in CFTC rules for physically settled energy contracts like New York Harbor Ultra-Low Diesel () and Reformulated Blendstock for Blending (), with spot-month limits set at 2,000 contracts each to maintain orderly markets. These measures, strengthened post-2008 , stem from concerns over speculative pressures distorting energy prices, prompting the CFTC to aggregate positions across futures and economically equivalent swaps under Dodd-Frank to curb such activities. Recent developments from 2022 to 2025 under the EU's Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) and Regulation (MiFIR) have enhanced transparency for commodity derivatives, expanding post-trade reporting requirements to include cleared OTC contracts in major currencies and introducing deferral buckets based on trade size and liquidity to balance disclosure with market sensitivity. These updates, finalized with application from 29 September 2025 and supported by ESMA's transitional statements in October 2025, aim to improve and oversight in energy-related derivatives while aligning with global standards.

Financial Reporting Standards

Fuel hedging activities are subject to specific financial reporting standards that govern recognition, measurement, and disclosure to ensure transparency and alignment with risk management practices. Under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, effective from January 1, 2018, provides the framework for hedge accounting of commodities such as fuel. This standard supports two primary types of hedges relevant to fuel: fair value hedges, which address changes in the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities exposed to fuel price risk, and cash flow hedges, which mitigate variability in future cash flows from forecasted fuel purchases. In the United States, Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging outlines analogous provisions, permitting fair value hedges for recognized items like fuel inventory and cash flow hedges for anticipated fuel expenditures, with similar objectives of matching hedge accounting to economic outcomes. Qualification for hedge accounting under both frameworks requires formal documentation at the hedge's inception, specifying the risk management objective, the hedging instrument (e.g., fuel futures or swaps), the hedged item (e.g., forecasted volumes), and the risk being hedged (e.g., price fluctuations). For , additional criteria include demonstrating an economic relationship between the hedged item and instrument, ensuring does not dominate value changes, and applying a ratio consistent with the entity's strategy—often assessed qualitatively through matching critical terms like volume and timing, without a strict quantitative threshold. In contrast, ASC 815 mandates that the be expected to be "highly " in offsetting changes attributable to the hedged , with prospectively and retrospectively using methods such as the dollar-offset ratio, where the ratio must fall between 80% and 125% to qualify. Under both standards, any ineffectiveness—arising from factors like basis differences in benchmarks (e.g., crude versus crack spreads)—is recognized immediately in profit or loss, while the effective portion of hedges is deferred in other until the hedged transaction impacts . Disclosure obligations emphasize transparency regarding hedge exposures and financial impacts. IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures, as amended for , requires entities to describe their strategy for commodity price risks, including how hedges align with it; quantitative details such as hedge ratios (e.g., the proportion of forecasted volumes designated), notional volumes hedged, and maturity profiles; sources and amounts of ineffectiveness; and sensitivity analyses showing potential impacts from price changes on . For ASC 815, disclosures under ASC 815-10-50 include the of hedging instruments, their location and effects on the balance sheet and , the volume of transactions (e.g., gallons of hedged), how and why ineffectiveness was measured, and expected reclassifications from accumulated other to earnings in the next 12 months. These requirements apply specifically to hedges, where disclosures often highlight cross-hedging using related benchmarks like futures. The application of these standards influences presentation by reducing profit or loss volatility for qualifying s but introducing mark-to-market adjustments on the balance sheet, as all are recorded at regardless of hedge status. Non-qualifying s, treated as standalone at through profit or loss, can amplify swings from volatility, potentially leading to restatements if initial designations fail to meet criteria like or —issues that have prompted revisions in financials when hedge relationships were retrospectively invalidated.

References

  1. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/3029/1/Airline%20jet%20fuel%20hedging%20-%20theory%20and%20practice.pdf
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969699713001531
  3. https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=hedging
  4. https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/Annual-Fuel-Hedging-Report-FY2023.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7147842/
  6. https://www.swamedia.com/vforcesite/SwmDownload?contentKey=MCEQY3OCGMLNB6PDQZL7YVZAY4NQ&siteId=0DMHu000000NZBROA4&boilerPlateContentKey=MCDIRMIT62VBDE7P3D2QZM7KMXLM
  7. https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/market-opinion-and-analysis-blog/how-to-benefit-from-an-effective-fuel-hedging-strategy
  8. https://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/crudeoil/financial_markets.php
  9. https://simpleflying.com/what-is-fuel-hedging-and-why-do-airlines-do-it/
  10. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/difference-between-hedging-and-speculation/
  11. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/oil-market-volatility
  12. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/perspectives/2023/07-hurricanes/article.php
  13. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2009a_bpea_hamilton-1.pdf
  14. https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=econ_studt_schol
  15. https://www.airlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/jet-fuel-1.pdf
  16. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/86bc/334009d9a37cf6e5b1098f6fce707d64247c.pdf
  17. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-11/southwest-airlines-to-end-oil-hedge-that-once-saved-it-billions
  18. https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/fuel-hedging-large-differences-by-region-fewer-by-market/
  19. https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2432/2/3/17
  20. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/b4ff84b2d5dc4d0963a5074102460cc1-0350012022/related/Commodity-Markets-Chapter-1.pdf
  21. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/oil-shock-of-1973-74
  22. https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/report-lbnl-41098.pdf
  23. https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/768/files/63b3d211e398d.pdf
  24. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-13906.pdf
  25. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/opa/speeches/opadial-69.htm
  26. https://southwest50.com/our-stories/the-southwest-jet-fuel-hedge-strategy/
  27. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=578663
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383209270_Research_on_Airline_Fuel_Hedging_Strategies-Case_Analysis_and_Strategy_Design
  29. https://www.npr.org/2005/10/20/4967137/the-marketplace-report-hurricanes-economic-punch
  30. https://www.tcd.ie/triss/assets/PDFs/iiis/iiisdp433.pdf
  31. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Historic-Background-.aspx
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692309001756
  33. https://www.truckinginfo.com/10176454/100-years-of-covering-trucking-the-2000s
  34. https://www.wsj.com/articles/airlines-pull-back-on-hedging-fuel-costs-1458514901
  35. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m
  36. https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.html
  37. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstreams/b445e6ed-2c00-44e3-999c-c0e4aef7520f/download
  38. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9422&context=etd
  39. https://www.dbb.defense.gov/Portals/35/Documents/Reports/2004/FY03-8_Fuel_Hedging_2004-3.pdf
  40. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/81973/A-Beginners-Guide-to-Fuel-Hedging-Call-Options
  41. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/77634/an-introduction-to-airline-fuel-hedging-strategies-swaps
  42. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/articles-and-reports/introduction-to-crack-spreads.html
  43. https://www.ice.com/publicdocs/futures/Jet_Fuel_Hedging_and_Trading_at_ICE.pdf
  44. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/delta-hedging/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426617301085
  46. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/86168/the-case-for-employing-a-dynamic-fuel-hedging-program
  47. https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/cfr/2012/22nd-derivatives-risk-conf/fine-tuning-rev6.pdf
  48. https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/59779398/500785_Fuel_Hedging_in_the_Airline_Industry.pdf
  49. https://www.airlineeconomicsplus.com/public/uploads/PDFS/singapore-2024/airline-fuel-hedging.pdf
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965856418315131
  51. https://papers.tinbergen.nl/99023.pdf
  52. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/65501/energy-hedging-the-diversified-portfolio-approach
  53. https://dbb.defense.gov/Portals/35/Documents/Reports/2004/FY03-8_Fuel_Hedging_2004-3.pdf
  54. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/reports/airfare-jet-fuel-price-facts-november-2024/
  55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531270/
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228628896_Airline_Jet_Fuel_Hedging_Theory_and_Practice
  57. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25419436
  58. https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-southwest-airlines-finally-soured-on-jet-fuel-hedging-634b8927
  59. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/us-airline-fuel-hedging-part-1-united-delta-fight-to-reduce-losses-american-enjoys-hedge-freedom-243841
  60. https://ir.delta.com/news/news-details/2015/Delta-Air-Lines-Announces-March-Quarter-Profit/default.aspx
  61. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/20/delta-air-lines-posts-fourth-quarter-loss-after-fuel-hedging.html
  62. https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=jaaer
  63. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/business/surging-fuel-prices-catch-most-airlines-unprepared-adding-to-the.html
  64. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7678959
  65. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub160859.pdf
  66. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/74900/an-introduction-to-bunker-fuel-hedging-updated
  67. https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/588463-cleartrade-exchange-offering-bunker-fuel-swap-contracts
  68. https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-2020.aspx
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988322003528
  70. https://www.voyagerportal.com/resources/voyage-charter/
  71. https://www.maritimeships.com/pros-and-cons-time-charter-vs-voyage-charter/
  72. https://www.balticexchange.com/en/data-services/market-information0/indices.html
  73. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/81549/a-beginners-guide-to-fuel-hedging-futures
  74. https://ca.rbcwealthmanagement.com/documents/231835/231856/1471531608636hedging-diesel.pdf/e4cfa316-a6e8-4791-9981-6ee233712c53
  75. https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/article_7_hedging_fuel_prices_ahead_of_increased_volatility
  76. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/105229/an-introduction-to-consumer-natural-gas-hedging-part-i-futures
  77. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180309_US_NaturalGasPrices.pdf
  78. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/FA860F98-D599-5E8C-5898-BA051066B2D5
  79. https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/import_unmanaged/risk.net/data/eprm/pdf/may03/market.pdf
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988311000296
  81. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/86597/the-fundamentals-of-oil-gas-hedging-futures
  82. https://www.risk.net/commodities/2378981/enthusiasm-hedging-wanes-among-us-airlines
  83. https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/study-the-role-of-banks-in-physical-commodities.pdf
  84. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/investor-relations/documents/quarterly-earnings/2024/4th-quarter/corp-10k-2024.pdf
  85. https://www.occ.gov/publications-and-resources/publications/quarterly-report-on-bank-trading-and-derivatives-activities/files/pub-derivatives-quarterly-qtr3-2023.pdf
  86. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/fsr/special/html/ecb.fsrart202211_01~173476301a.en.html
  87. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaomalia-33
  88. https://www.trafigura.com/what-we-do/oil-and-petroleum-products/
  89. https://globalskl.com/insights/f/jet-fuel-trading-key-market-players-and-emerging-trends
  90. https://www.argusmedia.com/en/solutions/products/argus-jet-fuel
  91. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/airline-fuel-hedging
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321000062
  93. https://www.trafigura.com/media/k4ocz3zq/2015_trafigura_economics_of_commodity_trading_firms_abridged_en.pdf
  94. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2024/07/evolution-of-alternative-fuels-for-aviation.pdf
  95. https://www.cihedging.com/renewables/
  96. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/spirrong/energyhedge.pdf
  97. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Shared%20Documents/events/37/rampinisufiviswanathan2011.pdf
  98. https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/united-airlines-closes-out-fuel-hedges-sees-hedge-losses-near-1-bln-idUSL1N0V11Z6/
  99. https://www.airlineeconomicsplus.com/public/uploads/PDFS/2025-dublin/airline-fuel-hedging.pdf
  100. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/06/30/southwest-airlines-flies-to-14-unless-hedging-losses-eat-profits/
  101. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27904/000095012311014364/g24877e10vk.htm
  102. https://www.eurofinance.com/news/hedging-provides-a-2bn-relief-to-asian-airlines-against-rising-fuel-prices/
  103. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/37636/oil-gas-hedging-what-can-be-learned-from-the-past
  104. https://aegis-hedging.com/insights/what-is-counterparty-risk-and-what-are-best-practices
  105. https://www.mercatusenergy.com/blog/bid/87328/the-key-elements-of-a-successful-energy-hedging-program
  106. https://investor-relations.lufthansagroup.com/en/corporate-facts/financial-strategy-value-based-management/maintain-financial-stabilty/hedging-of-financial-risks.html
  107. https://www.mayerbrown.com/public_docs/Final-FSRE-Outline.pdf
  108. https://www.europex.org/eulegislation/emir/
  109. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/financial-markets/post-trade-services/derivatives-emir_en
  110. https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/MarketSurveillance/SpeculativeLimits/index.htm
  111. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD726.pdf
  112. https://www.csis.org/analysis/energy-speculation-cftc-and-position-limits
  113. https://www.afme.eu/media/ceckeczx/afmemifirimplementation09.pdf
  114. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-10/ESMA74-276584410-11123_Public_statement_on_the_Transition_for_the_application_of_the_MiFID_II-MiFIR_review_No.2.pdf
  115. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-9-financial-instruments/
  116. https://www.pwc.com/hu/hu/szolgaltatasok/ifrs/ifrs_9/ifrs9_kiadvanyok/achieving_hedge_accounting_in_practice_under_ifrs9.pdf
  117. https://rsmus.com/content/dam/rsm/insights/financial-reporting/1pdf/a-guide-to-hedge-accounting-20231219.pdf
  118. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/4a4b100c43794398baf73dcea6b5ad42/ifrs-9-benchmark-crude-oil-contracts-used-in-jet-fuel-hedges.pdf
  119. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2018/02/disclosures-under-ifrs9.pdf
  120. https://www.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/support/advocacy/user-perspectives-on-financial-instruments-under-ifrs.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.