Hedge accounting in banks: Managing risk versus managing outcomes

Related topicsFinancial services
Risk

Explore how Indian banks apply hedge accounting, key risks, gaps, and a governance framework to align practices with economic reality and risk objectives.

Contributor : Madhu Challagulla, Director, Risk Consulting, EY India

Hedge accounting in Indian banks is a principles-driven discipline, designed to better align financial reporting with underlying risk management strategies. Traditionally viewed as a rules-based compliance exercise under legacy accounting frameworks, the shift has enhanced the ability of banks to reflect the economic substance of hedging activities, particularly in managing interest rate and foreign exchange risks. However, there is also greater reliance on judgment, which can affect how hedge relationships are designed, measured and reported.

Regulatory scrutiny of derivative exposures has intensified for hedge effectiveness and valuation practices, along with regulatory tightening and supervisory oversight of treasury operations.

The structural issue is that while treasury functions actively manage complex exposures using derivatives, the accounting treatment of these hedges can diverge from their economic intent if not applied with rigor. Flexibility can also create scope for inconsistent application. In the absence of robust documentation, independent validation, and disciplined execution, hedge accounting outcomes can be influenced more by interpretation than by underlying risk, potentially obscuring volatility and delaying loss recognition.

In this context, Indian banks must reassess their hedge accounting frameworks holistically. Strengthened governance anchored in active Board and Asset-Liability Committee oversight, tighter integration between risk management and accounting, independent model validation, and transparent assumptions are essential. As regulatory expectations rise and market volatility persists, disciplined application of hedge accounting will be central to preserving financial integrity, enhancing investor confidence and enabling reported performance to faithfully reflect economic reality.

1

Chapter 1

Towards effective hedge accounting policies in Indian banks

There is a sharper focus on strong governance, clear documentation and close alignment between accounting outcomes and treasury strategy.

Banks use derivative instruments such as interest rate swaps, currency forwards and credit derivatives as part of banking treasury risk management of exposure from the banking book, including interest rate, foreign exchange and credit risks. However, because derivatives are generally measured at fair value through profit or loss, their mark-to-market movements can introduce volatility into reported earnings.

Frameworks like IGAAP Guidance Note, Ind AS 109 hedge accounting and IFRS 9 hedge accounting help address the difference by aligning the accounting treatment of the hedging instrument with that of the hedged item. This better reflects the bank’s underlying risk management strategy and reduces artificial earnings fluctuations caused by valuation mismatches.

A key element of hedge accounting is demonstrating that the hedging relationship is effective. Under older standards, this required meeting a strict quantitative threshold (typically 80% to 125%^[1]). However, modern standards have replaced the rule-based approach with a more principles-based hedge accounting framework. Instead of adhering to a fixed range, entities must now show that there is an economic relationship in hedge accounting between the hedged item and the hedging instrument, that credit risk does not dominate the offset, and that the hedge ratio reflects actual risk management practices.

The shift provides greater flexibility and allows hedge accounting to more closely mirror how risks are managed in practice, while still ensuring that the relationship between the hedge and the exposure is meaningful and robust.

LLM for transforming the BFSI sector: Unlocking innovation and efficiency

A specialized fine-tuned LLAMA 3.1-8B Instruct model, which aims at addressing the distinct challenges in customer care within India’s BFSI sector.

Know more

The Indian banking context: Evolving practices and implications

In India, hedge accounting in banks is used for interest rate swaps and cross-currency swaps as part of managing banking book duration and funding risks. Given the diversity of balance sheet structures and market conditions, practices vary across institutions, particularly in areas such as hedge documentation and effectiveness assessment.
 

In certain situations, basis differences between the underlying exposures and hedging instruments — such as differences between benchmark rates or repricing conventions — can affect the degree of economic offset achieved. While hedge accounting frameworks are designed to accommodate such realities, they also require ongoing assessment of hedge effectiveness and alignment with underlying risk management objectives.
 

With the transition to derivative accounting under Guidance Note on Accounting for Derivative Contracts (Revised 2021) issued by ICAI and increasing emphasis from auditors and regulators in recent years, there has been greater focus on the robustness of hedge designation, documentation and effectiveness evaluation. As a result, some hedge relationships have been reassessed or discontinued, leading to the recognition of previously deferred valuation impacts in profit and loss.
 

Beyond the immediate financial effects, such developments have contributed to a broader emphasis on governance standards, risk management practices and transparency in financial reporting, along with closer supervisory engagement in select cases.

There is a strong need to get the spirit of hedge accounting policy, governance and implementation right in the BFSI industry. As this becomes business-as-usual, both its form and substance must be comprehensive, aligned and appropriate to avoid any inconsistent or opportunistic application.

2

Chapter 2

Opportunistic application of hedge accounting

Hedge accounting outcomes are also influenced by consistent and rigorous structure, value and monitoring.

Increased reliance on judgment introduces a key challenge in hedge accounting for Indian banks: effectiveness assessment can be applied in a way that preserves hedge accounting outcomes even when the underlying economic relationship is not consistently robust.

The issue is not non-compliance with the standard, but the scope to apply judgment selectively, resulting in outcomes that may overstate the strength and stability of hedging relationships.

Measurement and modeling flexibility

• Flexible methodology applied without consistency

Accounting Standards permit both qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess hedge effectiveness, but they do not prescribe a specific method. In practice, entities commonly apply techniques such as regression analysis, dollar-offset methods or hypothetical derivatives in hedge accounting. The intention is that the chosen method appropriately reflects the nature of the hedging relationship and is applied consistently over time.

However, because different methods and assumptions can produce varying results, the choice of methodology becomes a key area of judgment. For instance, effectiveness assessed on a cumulative basis (since inception) may smooth short-term mismatches and present a stable overall offset, whereas a period-by-period assessment captures interim volatility and timing differences more explicitly. As a result, the same hedge relationship may appear highly effective in aggregate, while exhibiting noticeable ineffectiveness in individual reporting periods.

Where methodology selection—or the manner of application—is not clearly anchored to the underlying risk characteristics, it can influence the measurement of effectiveness and the resulting accounting outcome. Inconsistent application across periods or portfolios may therefore obscure underlying volatility and create the impression of a stronger and more stable economic offset than is actually observed.

• Fair valuation and non-performance risk

Accurate hedge accounting depends on robust fair valuation of derivatives, including adjustments for non-performance risk such as counterparty credit risk (CVA or Credit Valuation Adjustment) and own credit risk (DVA or Debit Valuation Adjustment). Where these elements are not consistently incorporated, valuations may be misstated, leading to either artificial ineffectiveness or suppression of genuine volatility. This makes effectiveness outcomes sensitive to modeling choices rather than purely reflective of underlying risk offset.

• Inconsistent valuation practices

Differences in valuation methodologies — such as the use of different discount curves, yield curves or pricing models across instruments — can materially affect measurement of hedge effectiveness. Inconsistent practices may either exaggerate mismatches or conceal them altogether. Over time, this reduces comparability and weakens the reliability of reported hedge performance, as outcomes become dependent on modeling assumptions rather than economic alignment.

• Use of hypothetical derivatives

Hypothetical derivatives are commonly used to model a perfectly effective hedge by isolating the designated risk. While analytically useful, these constructs assume ideal conditions and ignore real-world mismatches such as basis differences, timing gaps and credit effects. Over-reliance on such assumptions can result in an overly optimistic view of hedge effectiveness, where measured outcomes do not fully reflect actual economic behavior.

Risk components

• Transaction costs

 

Transaction costs such as brokerage, commissions, bid–ask spreads and funding costs are typically excluded from the designated hedging relationship. In practice, where such costs are embedded within the pricing structure and not separately identified or designated, they may not be explicitly reflected in hedge effectiveness assessments, even though they can indirectly contribute to hedge ineffectiveness.

 

• Cross-currency basis spreads

 

Cross-currency swaps often include basis spreads that reflect differences in funding conditions and liquidity across currencies. If these spreads are not clearly designated or appropriately accounted for — typically under the cost of hedging approach — they can introduce volatility that is unrelated to the core hedged risk. Failure to treat these components consistently can distort effectiveness assessment and complicate the interpretation of hedge performance.

 

• Designation of benchmark components

 

For hedge accounting to be credible, the benchmark risk component designated must be both independently identifiable and reliably measurable. Where benchmarks are vaguely defined, not observable, or proxy-based without strong justification, the effectiveness assessment becomes less robust. This can lead to challenges in demonstrating a clear economic relationship, particularly under audit or regulatory scrutiny.

 

• Time value and cost of hedging

 

Under the cost of hedging framework, components such as the time value of options are typically deferred in Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) and amortized over time. Misalignment between the recognition of these components and the hedged exposure can lead to artificial ineffectiveness. Consistent and disciplined treatment is essential to enable hedge performance that reflects the intended economic outcome.
 

Economic and structural mismatches

• Over-reliance on form over substance

 

The requirement to demonstrate an economic relationship in hedge accounting may, in practice, be satisfied through structural alignment (e.g., matching critical terms) without sufficiently evaluating how the hedge performs under real conditions.

This can lead to important sources of ineffectiveness being underassessed, including:

 

·Differences in underlying benchmarks (basis risk)

·Mismatched cash flow timings

·Credit risk impacts on either leg of the hedge

 

As a result, the hedge relationship may appear valid in design, but its ability to deliver consistent offset remains overstated.

 

• Embedded floors and structural mismatches

 

Financial instruments often include embedded features such as interest rate floors or caps, which may not be mirrored in the hedging instrument. These structural differences create inherent sources of ineffectiveness, especially when such features become economically significant, for instance, in low-interest rate environments. If not properly captured in effectiveness assessments, these mismatches can lead to unexpected volatility.

 

• Optionality and cash flow uncertainty

 

Optionality features such as prepayment options, call/put features, or early termination clauses introduce uncertainty into the timing and amount of cash flows. This directly affects the ability to demonstrate a stable hedge relationship, particularly for cash flow hedges. If not adequately incorporated into the hedge design and assessment, these features can weaken the reliability of effectiveness conclusions over time.

 

• Benchmark limitations in the Indian market context

 

In the Indian banking environment, a structural challenge arises from the limited availability of tradable and observable benchmarks for common lending rates such as Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR), base rate or internal transfer pricing curves. Since hedging instruments are typically linked to observable market rates like Overnight Index Swap (OIS) or Mumbai Interbank Outright Rate (MIBOR), there is an inherent disconnect between the exposure and the hedge. The resulting reliance on proxy benchmarks introduces basis risk and makes effectiveness assessment more judgment-driven. While not prohibitive, this environment demands stronger methodological rigor, clear justification and robust documentation to support hedge accounting conclusions.

 

Judgment, documentation and governance gaps

• Documentation that enables broad interpretation

Hedge documentation is expected to clearly articulate the risk management objective, the hedged risk and the basis for assessing effectiveness. In practice, however, documentation may be:

 

·High-level or template-based

·Insufficiently linked to actual treasury strategies

·Broad enough to accommodate multiple interpretations over time

 

This reduces discipline in the application and allows continued justification of hedge accounting treatment even when effectiveness weakens, limiting transparency.

 

• Alignment with the risk management strategy

Hedge accounting should be a direct extension of the entity’s Board-approved risk management framework, including clearly defined objectives, permissible instruments and exposure limits. Where a hedging relationship appears to deviate from these principles, it raises concerns about whether the hedge is genuinely risk-driven or influenced by accounting considerations. Even if the technical criteria of hedge accounting are met, weak alignment with internal risk governance can undermine the credibility of the designation and raise questions about the substance of the relationship.

 

• Highly probable assessment

Cash flow hedge accounting requires forecast transactions to be highly probable and supported by objective evidence such as budgets, contractual pipelines or historical patterns. Where this assessment is based on weak or overly optimistic assumptions, there is a heightened risk of hedge failure. In such cases, accumulated amounts in OCI may need to be reclassified to profit or loss, resulting in delayed recognition of volatility.

3

Chapter 3

Overall implication on key judgments

Low tolerance for accounting arbitrage as currency and interest rate volatility increases and there is more focus on risk-based supervision.

Across these areas, the common thread is not explicit violation, but the potential to use flexibility in ways that prioritize accounting stability over faithful representation.

The consequence is a subtle but important shift:

• Economic volatility is not eliminated, but less visible in reported results
• The true sensitivity of positions to market movements is diluted
• Financial statements may reflect a smoother performance profile than the underlying risk would suggest

In this context, effectiveness assessment becomes less of a pure validation of risk mitigation and more of a key judgment area that directly influences how risk is portrayed.

Hedge accounting governance structure: From policy to practice

A policy on paper will fail without governance that enforces discipline. A robust structure has four layers:

• Board and ALCO oversight: The Board Risk Committee approves the hedge accounting policy. The Asset-Liability Committee (ALCO) owns the actual risk management strategy and must approve the hedging strategy, including the economic rationale. This prevents the treasury from designating hedges purely for accounting outcomes.
• Independent risk function: The market risk or independent validation unit should review and sign off on the effectiveness testing model before use. They can also perform periodic back-testing to check if the model’s predictions match actual P/L outcomes.
• Finance and accounting controls: Finance is responsible for documentation at inception, which includes the risk objective, hedged item identification, hedge ratio and method. Any de-designation or rebalancing must be approved and recorded with a clear audit trail. Segregation of duties is critical: the person executing the trade should not be the one assessing effectiveness.
• Internal audit and external review: Internal audit should test sample hedges annually for compliance with both policy and accounting standards. External auditors focus on whether ineffectiveness is measured and recognized promptly. RBI’s supervisory reviews since 2020 have placed specific emphasis on this audit trail for banking book derivatives.

Technical methods give numbers; governance gives credibility. Without independent oversight, even the most sophisticated regression model can be tuned to produce a desired P/L result. With strong governance, simpler methods can be trusted because the process itself is defensible.

Conclusion

Hedge accounting has evolved from a rules-driven framework to one grounded in principles, with the objective of better reflecting how banks manage risk. However, this evolution comes with a trade-off: greater flexibility inevitably brings greater reliance on judgment.

The key challenge is not whether hedge accounting is applied, but how rigorously it is applied. When supported by consistent methodology, transparent assumptions and strong hedge accounting governance, it can faithfully represent economic reality.

However, when flexibility is exercised without sufficient discipline, there is a risk that:

• Outcomes are shaped more by interpretation than by economics;
• Volatility is deferred rather than recognized;
• Financial statements portray stability that may not fully exist.

Ultimately, hedge accounting should not be a tool to smooth earnings, but a framework to faithfully represent risk and its management.

EY Treasury Technology Solutions

DigiTreasury is an advanced, integrated treasury analytics platform, delivering data-driven insights to the C-Suite and treasury function.

Know more

Case illustration: Repo-linked lending and the limits of hypothetical derivatives

Background

A mid-sized Indian bank has built an INR500 crore corporate loan portfolio linked to the RBI repo rate, with pricing structured as repo plus a fixed spread. To manage interest rate risk arising from this portfolio, the treasury desk enters into a five-year interest rate swap where the bank pays fixed rate and receives MIBOR. At inception, the hedge appears economically intuitive — both the loans and the derivative are exposed to movements in short-term interest rates.

 

Evolving market conditions

Over the next few quarters, the RBI begins a tightening cycle:

• MIBOR reacts immediately, rising sharply as liquidity conditions tighten and rate expectations adjust.
• The bank’s repo-linked loan portfolio, however, adjusts with a lag, reflecting reset cycles, operational practices and spread considerations.

This creates a divergence in behavior: the swap’s fair value moves significantly, while the loan portfolio shows only gradual changes in cash flows.

 

Effectiveness assessment challenge

As part of hedge accounting requirements, the bank attempts to assess effectiveness using the hypothetical derivative method. Conceptually, this involves constructing a derivative that perfectly mirrors the repo-linked cash flows of the loan portfolio.

However, a fundamental issue emerges:

There is no observable market curve for the repo rate to construct forward-looking cash flows.

Unlike MIBOR or OIS curves, which are derived from traded instruments, the repo rate:

• Is a policy benchmark, not directly traded
• Does not have a published term structure
• Is transmitted through lending products with lags and bank-specific spreads

Practical workaround

To overcome this, the bank adopts a proxy-based approach:

• It uses an OIS curve as a base
• Applies internal adjustments to approximate repo-linked behavior
• Constructs the hypothetical derivative using this adjusted curve

While this allows the mechanics of effectiveness testing to proceed, it introduces a layer of model dependency:

• The proxy curve may not fully capture the timing of repo transmission
• Adjustments may reflect internal assumptions rather than market consensus
• The resulting hypothetical derivative becomes partly constructed rather than observed

Outcome

When the actual MIBOR-linked swap is compared against this constructed benchmark:

• Measured ineffectiveness varies depending on how the proxy is calibrated
• In certain periods, the hedge appears reasonably effective
• In others, basis differences and timing mismatches become more visible

This creates a situation where:

• Effectiveness is not purely observed but influenced by methodology choices
• Different reasonable assumptions can lead to different accounting outcomes

Accounting implication

From an accounting perspective, the bank faces a nuanced challenge:

• Ignoring the repo–MIBOR basis would overstate hedge effectiveness
• Relying entirely on modeled proxies introduces subjectivity and model risk

As a result, the bank must:

• Recognize that some level of ineffectiveness may be unavoidable
• Enable transparent documentation of methodology, proxies and assumptions
• Apply the approach consistently across periods

The challenge here is not poor hedge design, but market structure limitations.

In such cases:

• Hedge accounting cannot eliminate basis risk; it can only measure and represent it faithfully
• The focus shifts from “achieving effectiveness” to enabling credibility in how effectiveness is assessed

Ultimately, the strength of the hedge accounting outcome lies not just in the model, but in the discipline, transparency and governance surrounding its application.

• Financial services risk management

  EY helps BFSI sectors manage risks & regulatory challenges by delivering tailored consulting across banking, insurance, asset management & private equity.

• International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)

  EY India helps companies in implement International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) . Get IFRS consulting services to navigate accounting complexities.

• Ind AS 118: Changing the way the numbers speak

  Ind AS 118 enhances financial reporting with clearer presentation, new profit subtotals and disclosures, improving transparency and investor insight.

Related article

Why customer experience is the new battleground in Indian banking

Indian banking CX is at a turning point, where empathetic and predictive, phygital experiences now define customer loyalty and growth.

How agentic automation is shaping the future of financial services

Financial services are shifting from RPA to agentic automation, using AI agents to drive smarter operations, enhance risk management and improve customer experiences.