Accrual valuation and mark to market adjustment

Alexey Bakshaev
alex.bakshaev@gmail.com

February 22, 2016

Abstract
arXiv:1602.06189v1 [q-fin.PR] 18 Feb 2016

This paper provides intuition on the relationship of accrual and mark-to-market

valuation for cash and forward interest rate trades. Discounted cash flow valua-
tion is compared to spread-based valuation for forward trades, which explains the
trader’s view on valuation. This is followed by Taylor series approximation for cash
trades, uncovering simple intuition behind accrual valuation and mark-to-market
adjustment. It is followed by the PNL example modelled in R. Within the Taylor
approximation framework, theta and delta are explained. The concept of deferral is
explained taking Forward Rate Agreement (FRA) as an example.

1 Introduction
1.1 Types of valuation
Financial accounting requires that valuation of a trade must at least reflect trade eco-
nomics. At best, the market value is either known and can be applied directly, or can
be derived via certain proxies like comparables or hedges that replicate the trade. The
most basic way to value an interest flow receivable in the future is to linearly accrue its
value over the waiting time. Consider 1 of notional we lend for a T amount of time at
a fixed interest rate of r. We will denote the year fraction since the start of the trade
t
until time t as ∆0t , e.g. 360 . Likewise, the year fraction from the start of the trade until
the interest payment at time T is ∆0T . We will accrue interest linearlly. Given that
∆0t
the payment amount is r∆0T and the linear portion of the period to date t is ∆ 0T
, the
∆0t
accrued portion of interest may be written as ∆0T ∗ r∆0T or simply r∆0t . The accrual-
based PV in that case is:

P Vaccr = 1 + r∆0t (1)

Since market conditions at the moment of pricing will be different to those when the
trade was made, the market will price the trade differently to accrual-based valuation.
Let’s assume that we do discounting with known market rates. The discounting factor
for time t as of t0 = 0 can be written as (2) where z0,t is the market zero rate.
1
DF0t = (2)
1 + z0t ∆0t

1
1.2 Cash trades and forward trades
1.2.1 Forwards
Forward trades are trades that start in the future. Continuing with the example above,
let’s assume that we lend 1 of notional on some future date t1 and get it back with fixed
rate rebate r on another future date t2 (t0 = 0 < t1 < t2 ). We will drop t from notation
for the sake of brevity, so the interest paid on date t2 (accrued over the period t1 to t2 )
is written as r∆1,2 . In this case, discounted cash flow valuation may be written as:
P VDCF = −1 ∗ DF0,1 + (1 + r∆1,2 ) ∗ DF0,2 (3)
Extending (1) for a forward-starting case, we can define accrual-based valuation as:

 0
 if t < t1
P Vaccr = 1 + r∆t1 ,t if t1 < t < t2 (4)

0 if t >= t2


where ∆t1 ,t = t−t

360 and r∆t1 ,t is the accrued amount.
1

This piecewise definition of accrual-based valuation follows from a simple economic prin-
ciple: if the trade starts in the future (t0 < t1 ), we have not yet started to accrue interest,
hence, accrual valuation will be giving 0 accrued value by definition. This means that
until the accrual period starts, accrual-based valuation will yield zero PNL and flat valu-
ation at P Vaccr = 1. However, this is not the case with the DCF-based apporach. It will
be subject to time decay (theta) and revaluation at market rates (delta) from the trade
booking date. It will be explained more clearly in due course of this paper. Another
important observation is that accrual-based valuation does not depend on market rates:
it is driven only by trade parameters (accrual period length and rate) and the relative
position of valuation date with respect to accrual period.
Interest is assumed to be paid on trade maturity date, so accrual goes to 0 at this mo-
ment. Since the principal is also paid at maturity, entire accrual valuation (1) will go to
0 at and past the maturity date. This is equivalent to transforming a security asset to
cash, so we don’t have the security on the balance anymore, just cash. DCF valuation
also goes to zero since we assume that the discounting factor on the maturity date is 0
(DFt=T = 0). Below is the depiction of the accrued amount in time.

Accrual
Forward trade Cash trade

r∆12

0 1 2 T ime

2
1.2.2 ”Cash” trades
”Cash” trades are the trades that are already started (t1 <= t). Accrual-based valuation
is in line with (1) and (4). We may re-write DCF valuation as:
P VDCF = (1 + r∆1,2 ) ∗ DFt,2 (5)

2 Forwards valuation
Following the fixed rate example above, let’s prove a simple lemma that introduces the
notion of equivalence of DCF and spread-based valuations. LHS is a DCF valuation
formula (3), RHS is a spread-based valuation formula P Vspread−based = [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 ∗
DF0,2
Lemma 1. DCF valuation and spread-based valuations are equivalent:
− 1 ∗ DF0,1 + (1 + r∆1,2 ) ∗ DF0,2 ≡ [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 ∗ DF0,2 (6)
Proof. Let z12 be the forward rate from the start date to maturity. By definition:
1
DF1,2 = (7)
1 + z12 ∆12
DF0,2 DF0,1
At the same time, DF1,2 = DF0,1 . From this follows that 1 + z12 ∆12 = DF0,2 . Substitut-
ing DF0,1 in (3) we get:

P VDCF = −1 ∗ (1 + z12 ∆12 ) ∗ DF0,2 + [1 + r12 ∆12 ] ∗ DF0,2 = [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 ∗ DF0,2 (8)

2.1 Taylor approximation

Taylor approximation for x0 = 0 can be written as:
1
∼ 1 − x + o(x) (9)
1+x

Hence, the discounting factor may be written as:

1
DF0t = ∼ 1 − z0t ∆0t + o(z0t ∆0t ) (10)
1 + z0t ∆0t

Applying Taylor approximation for the RHS of (6) we get:

P Vspread−based = [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 ∗ DF0,2 ∼ [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 + o(z∆) (11)

3
Numerical example 1. Trader’s view of forward pricing
Consider a tomorrow-next (TN) interest at maturity trade with the nominal of
1000000 done at 500bps. Let the TN market rate be 300bps, ON market rate be 200
bps. What is the value?
We would use Taylor-approximation of the spead based valuation that we explained in
(11):

P Vspread−based ∼ [r − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 (12)

Spread-based (following (11)): 1000000 ∗ (0.05 − 0.03) ∗ 1/360 = 55.55.

Let’s now see how far it is from the actual DCF valuation. DF0,1 = 1/(1+0.02∗1/360) =
0.999944448, DF1,2 = 1/(1 + 0.03 ∗ 1/360) = 0.999916674, so DF0,2 = DF0,1 ∗ DF1,2 =
0.999861126. Using (3) we get:
P VDCF = −1000 ∗ 0.999944448 + 1000 ∗ (1 + 0.05 ∗ 1/360) ∗ 0.999861126 = 55.5478 (13)
We see that it is in good coherence with Taylor approximation.

3 Relationship of accrual based and DCF valuation

Let’s now see what happens with DCF valuation when the trade stops being forward
and becomes ”cash” so we begin to accrue interest. We will continue with the same fixed
rate one-period trade example.
Lemma 2. Within the first-order Taylor series approximation, DCF valuation may be
presented as the sum of the accrual-based PV and the mark-to-market adjustment.
P VDCF = (1 + r∆0,T ) ∗ DFt,T ∼ 1 + r∆0,t + (r − zt,T )∆t,T + o(z) (14)
Proof. Let’s denote the valuation date as t, the maturity date as T , the trade rate as r
and the zero rate from t to T zt,T as z .
1 + r∆0,T 1 + r(∆0,t + ∆t,T ) r∆0,t (1 + z∆t,T ) − r∆0,t z∆t,T + 1 + r∆t,T
= =
1 + z∆t,T 1 + z∆t,T 1 + z∆t,T
1 + r∆t,T − r∆0,t z∆t,T (15)
= r∆0,t +
| {z } 1 + z∆t,T
Accrual | {z }
MtM Adjustment

Let’s now apply Taylor approximation (9) to the MtM component, removing the second-
order components. Note that rz∆0,t ∆t,T is also a second-order component.
1 + r∆t,T − r∆0,t z∆t,T
r∆0,t + ∼ r∆0,t + (1 + r∆t,T − rz∆0,t ∆t,T )(1 − z∆t,T ) ∼
1 + z∆t,T
r∆0,t + 1 + r∆t,T − rz∆0,t ∆t,T − z∆t,T − rz(∆t,T )2 + rz 2 ∆0,t (∆t,T )2 ∼ (16)
1 + r∆0,t + (r − z)∆t,T +o(z∆)
| {z } | {z }
P Vaccr (1) MtM Adjustment (11)

4
 M tM Adjustment ∼ (r − z)∆t,T (17)

As shown above, DCF valuation is equivalent to the sum of accrual-based valuation

(1) and mark-to-market adjustment (17). Note that the spread-based valuation (11)
applied from the valuation date t until the expiration date T here represents mark-
to-market adjustment (17) that brings the accrual-based valuation in line with the
market rate z.
If the market rate z is equal to the trade rate r, the MtM adjustment component can-
cels out. This draws some parallels to bond markets vocabulary. From the clean price
perspective, the trade is priced at par in this case. From the dirty price perspective, the
trade is priced at par plus accrued. Once the trade rate is different to the market rate,
the clean price becomes affected by the mark-to-market adjustment.

4 Greeks
Based on (16) let’s derive the basic Greeks that define the PNL. Recollect that ∆0,t =
t−t0 T −t
360 , ∆t,T = 360

∂P V r r z z
ϑ= ∼ − + ∼
∂t 360 360 360 360 (18)
∂P V
%= ∼ −∆t,T
∂z
• ϑ (”theta”) addresses sensitivity to time decay t. First-order dependency is on the
market rate. It shows the market cost of carrying 1 day of notional over to the
next day. We may as well re-write ϑ as the sum of accrued and mtm components:
z r z r
ϑ∼ ∼ +( − ) (19)
360 360
|{z} | 360 {z 360 }
Accrued MtM adjustment

• % (”rho”) addresses sensitivity to market rates z. We have an inverse relationship

on the remaining duration of the trade. This means that the less time is left until
expiry, the less sensitive is the price to changes in the market rate. The minus sign
tells us that PV decreases as the market rate increases.

4.1 Accrual valuation and MtM adjustment in R

R is a scientific language popular in many areas. One of its advantages is the easiness
of working with vectors. We will populate an array of increasing daycount in the days
object, decreasing daycount in the daysRemaining object and will then calculate:

5
discFact - a vector of daily discounting factors for each day in daysRemaining object
accrued - a vector of daily accrued amounts
PV - a vector of DCF-based PVs (one PV per day)
mtmAdj - a vector of mark-to-market adjustments (11)
PVTaylor - a vector of Taylor-approximated PVs, see (16)
unexplained - a vector of the difference between DCF PV and Taylor-approx PV

We will assume the market rate of 700 bps which is intentionally higher than the trade
rate of 500 bps (1M of notional for 10 days) to get the negative mtm adjustment (it is
more instructive this way). This market rate of 700 bps will be constant each day for
the sake of simplicity. Below is the R code that calculates valuation for the above.

days <− seq ( 1 , 1 0 )

daysRemaining <− seq ( 9 , 0 , −1)
a c c r u a l F r a c t i o n s <− days / 360
f r a c t i o n s R e m a i n i n g <− daysRemaining / 360
d i s c F a c t <− 1/(1+ 0 . 0 7 ∗ daysRemaining / 3 6 0 )
a c c r u e d <− 1000000 ∗ 0 . 0 5 ∗ a c c r u a l F r a c t i o n s
PV <− 1000000 ∗ ( 1 + 0 . 0 5 ∗ 10/ 3 6 0 ) ∗ d i s c F a c t
mtmAdj <− 1000000 ∗ ( 0 . 0 5 − 0 . 0 7 ) ∗ f r a c t i o n s R e m a i n i n g
PV Taylor = 1000000 + a c c r u e d + mtmAdj
u n e x p l a i n e d <− PV − PV Taylor
PVs <− cbind ( days , PV, accrued , mtmAdj , PV Taylor , u n e x p l a i n e d )
PVs

Executing this code in the R environment yields the following PNL simulation:

This example provides some nice intuition:

• Accrual linearly increasing which reflects the coupon amount being linearly recog-
nized

• Negative MtM adjustment reflects the fact that the market rate of 700bps is higher
than the trade rate of 500 bps. It decreases with time as the valuation date t gets

6
 closer to the expiration date T , since the mtm component is scaled by the duration
multiple of ∆t,T . This is in line with sensitivity % (duration) to the market rate z
which is exactly that: −∆t,T

• Since the market rate is not changing, there is no % attribution. The entire daily
PnL is explained by time decay ϑ ∼ 1000000 ∗ 0.07/360 ∼ 194.44 (18). This
highlights a very important point. While PNL attribution is purely theta-driven,
it might be split into the accrual component and the mark-to-market component
which depend on the trade rate and the curve rate, respectively. Following (19)
we get the following theta components:
r
ϑaccr ∼ ∼ 1000000 ∗ 0.05/360 ∼ 138.89
360
z−r (20)
ϑM tM ∼ ∼ 1000000 ∗ (0.07 − 0.05)/360 ∼ 55.56
360

5 Generalizaions
5.1 Floating rates
Let’s now assume the valuation of a single-period forward-starting floating trade. In the
formula (8) we need to replace the fixed trade rate r with a floating rate f and a fixed
spread s. Taylor approximation will be written as:

P VDCF = [f12 + s − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 ∗ DF0,2 ∼ [f12 + s − z12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 (21)

If forward rates f12 and z12 are forecasted from the same yield curve (e.g. LIBOR) they
will cancel out and valuation is approximated as simply as

P VDCF = s∆1,2 (22)

In the case of zero spread s = 0, so the valuation of such forward period is 0. This is
easily understood, as we both forecast and discount over the period with the same rate.
The amount we pay at time 1 (notional amount) will be equal to the discounted (to time
1+z12 ∆1,2
1) value of the flow we receive at point 2, so −1 + 1+z12 ∆1,2 =0.
In the case of LIBOR forecasting and OIS discounting we will get PV depending on
LIBOR to OIS spread f12 − z12
Once the rate is fixed f12 = r, valuation will be equivalent to (14).

5.2 Applicable products

Intuition on accrual valuation and mark-to-market adjustment provided in this paper
applies to a wide range of interest rate products such as FRA, repo (considering just
the cash side of the transaction), interest at maturity, as well as bonds and interest
rate swaps. An extreme case are the products where we assume zero duration, e.g. call
accounts. For those, the most conservative valuation would be purely accrual-based (if

7
we assume that the money can be withdrawn on the valuation date) with no mark-to-
market adjustment.
Another extreme case is forward rate agreements (FRAs). Those are forward trades
that pay at the beginning of the period. While they stay forward, valuation is driven
by the mark-to-market adjustment. However, once a FRA pays, the MtM adjustment
component disappears entirelly. Since we received the interest at the beginning of the
period, we need to defer it. The explaination of that is provided in the next paragraph.

5.3 Forward Rate Agreements

Forward rate agreement (FRA) is a financial contract where the lender (seller) agrees
to receive the fixed ”contractual” interest rate r in the future (a fixed rate is locked-in
now) in exchange for a floating payment in the future (becomes known at the future
point t1 ). A special property of FRA is that it pays at the beginning of the forward
period. Let’s again denote the beginning of the forward period t1 as 1 and the end t2 as
2. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that both the fixing and the payment happen
at t1 . Since the payment is at t1 , there is a need to lock-in the discounting rate from 2
to 1. The convention is to assume that it is the same forward rate f12 that the period is
forecasted (and later fixed) with. Thus, PV of a FRA at point t1 is:

[r − f12 ] ∗ ∆1,2
P VFt1RA = (23)
1 + f12 ∆1,2

Discounting to time 0 we get:

[r − f12 ] ∗ ∆1,2
P VF RA = ∗ DF0,1 (24)
1 + f12 ∆1,2

Applying Taylor approximation (9) to this formula gives us the same approximation
as in (12), which tells us that FRA valuation is a purely mark-to-market adjustment -
driven (17):
P VF RA ∼ [r − f12 ] ∗ ∆1,2 (25)

5.4 Notion of NPV

To better understand the concept of deferral, we need to introduce the notion of NPV
first. NPV is the sum of the outstanding cash position and the present value of the
trade. The graph below shows what accrual-based PV, Cash position and NPV look like
for the one-period example that we used in (4).

8
 P Vaccr

1 + r∆12
1

0 1 2 T ime
CashP os

r∆12

0 1 2 T ime
-1

NPV

r∆12

0 1 2 T ime
As can be seen, NPV gives the notion of linarly increasing interest income that remains
constant after the coupon payment date is achived.

5.5 Deferral
With FRA we would like to linearly recognize the income over the FRA period. This
means that we need to offset the interest payment received at the beginning of the period
with the deferral amount so that the net of those would equate to linearly increasing
accrual. We can define deferral as:

 0
 if t < t1
Def erral = −r∆t,T if t1 < t < t2 (26)

0 if t >= t2


−t
where −r∆t,T is −r T360 .
It can be seen that the sum of the coupon and deferral would form the profile equivalent
to linear accrual.
Def erral + Coupon = Accrual (27)

9
The graph below depicts that.
Def erral CashP os
r∆12

1 2 T ime 1 2 T ime
-r∆12

Income
r∆12

1 2 T ime

6 Conclusion
Using Taylor approximation helps to bridge the gap between accrual and mark-to-market
valuation. We can see that PV may be split into accrual and mark-to-market adjust-
ment components. Similarly, theta can be viewed as the sum of the accrued and MtM
component.
We see that the forward valuation formula (6) turns into the mark-to-market adjustment
for trades that began to accrue interest. The less time remains until trade expiration,
the less effect mark-to-market effect has on valuation. This makes sense since the risk
(duration) decreases with time to maturity.

7 Literature
• Options, futures, and other derivatives / John C. Hull

• Fixed Income Securities: Tools for Today’s Markets 3rd Edition / Bruce Tuckman,
Angel Serrat

10