How does the duration-based hedge ratio differ from the DV01 approach, and when should each be used?
I keep seeing both DV01-based and duration-based hedge ratios in my FRM study materials. They seem to give similar results, but the formulas look different. Are they mathematically equivalent, or is there a practical difference? When would I choose one over the other?
Duration-based and DV01-based hedge ratios are mathematically related but expressed differently. Understanding when each formulation is more convenient helps avoid errors on the exam and in practice.\n\nDuration-Based Hedge Ratio:\n\nN = -(D_P x P) / (D_F x F)\n\nWhere D_P = portfolio duration, P = portfolio value, D_F = futures duration, F = futures contract value.\n\nDV01-Based Hedge Ratio:\n\nN = -DV01_P / DV01_F\n\nWhere DV01_P = portfolio dollar change per bp, DV01_F = futures dollar change per bp.\n\nMathematical Equivalence:\n\nSince DV01 = Duration x Value / 10,000:\n\nDV01_P / DV01_F = (D_P x P / 10,000) / (D_F x F / 10,000) = (D_P x P) / (D_F x F)\n\nThey are identical when using the same duration measure (modified or effective).\n\nWorked Example -- Both Methods:\n\nSterling Bank needs to hedge a $200 million mortgage-backed securities portfolio.\n\n| Metric | MBS Portfolio | 10Y T-note Futures |\n|---|---|---|\n| Modified duration | 4.85 years | 6.92 years (CTD) |\n| Market value | $200,000,000 | $112,750 per contract |\n| DV01 | $97,000 | $78.07 per contract |\n| CF (CTD) | -- | 0.9034 |\n\nDuration method:\nN = (4.85 x 200,000,000) / (6.92 x 112,750) = 970,000,000 / 780,230 = 1,243 contracts\n\nDV01 method:\nN = $97,000 / $78.07 = 1,243 contracts\n\nIdentical result.\n\nWhen to Prefer Each:\n\n| Situation | Preferred Method | Reason |\n|---|---|---|\n| Simple bond portfolio | Either works | Mathematically equivalent |\n| Complex instruments (MBS, callables) | DV01 | Effective duration is embedded in DV01 already |\n| Cross-market hedging | DV01 | Different notionals make duration comparison misleading |\n| Exam questions | Match the given data | Use whichever inputs are provided |\n| Key rate hedging | DV01 by tenor bucket | Duration is a single-point measure |\n\nNegative Convexity Caveat:\n\nFor MBS portfolios, the effective duration changes dramatically with rates (negative convexity from prepayment risk). Sterling Bank's hedge of 1,243 contracts works at current rates, but a 50 bp rally could shorten MBS duration to 3.1 years while the futures duration barely changes, leaving the portfolio over-hedged. Dynamic rebalancing or options overlays address this.\n\nPractice both hedge ratio methods in our FRM question bank.
Master Part I with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
How should I think about the relationship between Macaulay duration and modified duration instead of memorizing two separate definitions?
Why do hedge calculations often use dollar duration or DV01 instead of just modified duration?
When should I prefer historical simulation VaR over delta-normal VaR?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.