How a Fixed-for-Floating Swap Can Be Viewed as a Chain of FRAs
Summary
The document asks how to express a receiver interest rate swap as a sequence of forward rate agreements. It starts from the swap’s discounted fixed-minus-floating cash flows, then compares those payments with forward-rate terms based on discount factors. The answer explains the cash-flow timing difference: an FRA conventionally settles the rate difference at the start of its accrual period, discounted using the floating rate, while a swap typically pays the corresponding amount at the period’s end.
The sequence of FRA exposures can represent the swap’s floating accruals, which provides an intuition for the algebraic relationship. The answer also notes that market conventions and instruments have changed: longer-dated FRAs may be less common, and interest rate futures can serve as hedging instruments. Futures and swaps may clear at different venues and use different curves, creating basis and margin-related risks. The explanation is tied to Libor-era conventions and is not a full derivation under modern multi-curve frameworks.
Key ideas
- A swap’s floating leg can be understood as a series of rate accrual exposures resembling FRAs.
- FRA settlement timing differs from the end-of-period payment convention used in a swap.
- Discounting the FRA settlement at the floating rate links its start-date payment to the equivalent accrual value.
- Futures may be used to hedge parts of a swap curve where longer-dated FRAs are not commonly traded.
- Different clearing venues and curve conventions can introduce basis and collateral risks.
Tags
Full text
# How can we write swap as a chain of FRA's
# How can we write swap as a chain of FRA's
For the rest of my question I use the notation from Brigo. The discounted payoff of a receiver interest rate swap (RFS) at $t<T_{\alpha}$, where $T_{\alpha}$ is the first resetting date, is given by
$$(RFS)=\sum^\beta_{i=\alpha +1 }D(t,T_i)N\tau_i(K-L(T_{i-1},T_i))$$
where
- $D(t,T_i)$ the discount factor at $t$ of time $T_i$
- N some notional
- $\tau_i$, general daycount convention for between $T_{i-1}$ and $T_i$
- $L(T_{i-1},T_i)$ market rate between $T_{i-1}$ and $T_i$
- strike rate $K$
My first question: Brigo says one can write the above value as a chain of foward rate agreements:
$$(RFS)= \sum^\beta_{i=\alpha +1 }NP(t,T_i)\tau_i(K-F(t;T_{i-1},T_i))$$
However I do not see how this is true by using
$$P(t,T)(1+\tau(t,T)L(t,T))=1$$ and $$F(t;T,S):=\frac{1}{\tau(T,S}\left(\frac{P(t,T}{P(t,S)}-1\right)$$
## Answer by Phil H (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/16219
```
t τ----T
```
A FRA from $\tau$ to $T$ pays the difference between the fixed rate and the actual fixing (Libor), discounted from $T$ back to $\tau$ at the Libor rate. This is from when that was a good measure of the risk free rate, with the idea that you would receive this and invest at Libor from $\tau$ to $T$. Thus the cash flow at $\tau$ is:
$$C(\tau) = f(\tau,T).[K-L(\tau)].D(L(\tau),\tau,T)$$
Where $f(\tau,T)$ is the year fraction of the FRA period, $K$ is the FRA fixed rate, $L(\tau)$ is the appropriate fixing for $\tau$.
A swap's float leg involves some very similar payments, but the main difference is that they pay just the difference between the rates at the end of the roll rather than the beginning:
$$C'(T) = f(\tau,T).[K-L(\tau)]$$
Apart from that detail, the exposure from a FRA is equivalent to the exposure from one roll of a floating note, i.e. to $L(\tau)$. So since your swap consists of a series of Libor fixed rolls, you can reconstruct the float leg value from the FRAs.
In reality, this is a bit more fraught these days - FRAs are not commonly traded for terms longer than 2y, and in this part of the curve the dominant instrument is 3m IR Futures (for the major currencies). So usually you would use Futures rather than FRAs to hedge a swap.
But 2015! Clearing rules are fey: for USD, Futures clear on CME but most swaps clear on LCH.Clearnet, so hedging your swap with futures leaves you with a clearing spread equivalent to a float/float between the two venues. For EUR and GBP the fork is Eurex and LCH. I suspect most of the spread there is down to the differences in the curves rather than realistic expectations of either defaulting; there is a valuation risk which could leave the hedger forked between margin calls on both. Welcome to the money market.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.