In a world of persistent market and economic volatility, the Corporate Treasury function is increasingly taking on a more strategic role in navigating the uncertainties and driving corporate success.
Even in the most mature organizations, the involvement of the Treasury center in FX risk management often begins with collecting forecasted exposures from subsidiaries. However, to fundamentally enhance the performance of the FX risk management process, it is crucial to understand the nature of these FX exposures and their impacts on the upstream business processes where they originate.
Enabling this requires the optimization of the end-to-end FX hedging lifecycle, from subsidiary financial planning and analysis (FP&A) that identifies the exposure to Treasury hedging. Improvements in the exposure identification process and FX impact analytics necessitate the use of intelligent systems and closer cooperation between Treasury and business functions.
Traditional models
While the primary goal of local business units is to enhance the performance of their respective operations, fluctuating FX rates will always directly impact the overall financial results and, in many cases, obscure the true business performance of the entity. A common strategy to separate business performance from FX impacts is to use constant budgeting and planning rates for management reporting, where the FX impact is nullified. These budgeting and planning rates typically reflect the most likely hedged rates achieved by Treasury, considering the hedging policies and forecasted hedging horizons. However, this strategy can lead to unexpected shocks in financial reporting and obscure the impacts of FX exposure forecasting and hedging performance.
When these shocks occur, conclusions about their causes, such as over or under-hedging or unrealistic planning rates, can only be drawn through retrospective analysis of the results. Unfortunately, this analysis often comes too late to address the underlying issues.
The most common Treasury tools used to measure the accuracy of business forecasting are Forecast vs. Forecast and Actual vs. Forecast accuracy reporting. These tools help identify recurring trouble areas that may need improvement. However, while these metrics indicate where forecasting accuracy can be improved, they do not easily translate into a quantification of the predicted or actual financial impact required for business planning purposes.
End-to-End FX risk management in a Treasury 4.x environment
Finance transformation projects, paired with system centralization and standardization, may offer an opportunity to create better integration between Treasury and its business partners, bridging the information gap and providing better insight and early analysis of future FX results. Treasury systems data related to hedging performance, together with improved up-to-date exposure forecasting, can paint a clearer picture of the up-to-date performance against the plan.
While some principles may remain the same, such as using planning and budgeting rates to isolate the business performance for analysis, the expected FX impacts at a business level can equally be analyzed and accounted for as part of the regular FP&A processes, answering questions such as:
- What is the expected impact of over- or under-hedging on the P&L?
- What is the expected impact from late hedging of exposures?
- What is the expected impact from misaligned budgeting and planning rates compared to the achieved hedging rates?
The Zanders Whitepaper, "Treasury 4.x – The Age of Productivity, Performance, and Steering," outlines the enablers for Treasury to fulfill its strategic potential, identifying Productivity, Performance, and Steering as key areas of focus.
In the area of Performance, the benefits of enhanced insights and up-to-date metrics for forecasting the P&L impacts of FX are clear. Early identification of expected FX impacts in the FP&A processes provides both time and opportunity to respond to risks sooner. Improved insights into the causes of FX impacts offer direction on where issues should be addressed. The outcome should be enhanced predictability of the overall financial results.
In addition to increased Performance, there are additional benefits in clearer accountability for the results. In the three questions above, the first two address timely forecasting accuracy, while the third pertains to the Treasury team's ability to achieve the rates set by the organization. With transparent accountability for the FX impact, Treasury gains an additional tool to steer the organization toward improved budgeting processes and create KPIs to ensure effective strategy implementation. This provides a valuable addition to the commonly used forecast vs. forecast exposure analysis, as the FX impacts resulting from that performance can be easily identified.
Conclusion
Although FP&A processes are crucial for clear strategic decision-making around business operations and financial planning, the FX impact—potentially a significant driver of financial results—is not commonly monitored with the same extent and detail as business operations metrics.
Improving the FX analytics of these processes can largely bridge the information gap between business performance and financial performance. This also allows Treasury to be utilized as a more engaged business partner to the rest of the operations in the prediction and explanation of FX impact, while providing strategic direction on how these impacts can be minimized, both globally and at local operations levels.
Implementing such an end-to-end process may be intimidating, but data and technology improvements embraced in the context of finance transformation projects may open the door to exploring these ideas. With cooperation between Treasury and the business, a true end-to-end FX risk management process may be within reach.