Swaps as a Series of Forward Contracts (CFA Level 1): Conceptualizing Swaps as a Series of Forwards, Valuation at Inception, and Ongoing Valuation and Net Settlement. Key definitions, formulas, and exam tips.
Swaps often sound intimidating, but at their heart, they’re basically a bunch of forward contracts stitched together. Let me just say, the first time I heard that each swap payment period could be treated like a “mini-forward,” I had one of those ah-ha moments. In fact, you can conceptualize each interest payment as a forward contract on an interest rate that settles when that payment is due. That’s a lot to take in, but it’s also pretty cool because it shows you can break the big problem (valuing a swap) into smaller, more approachable components (forward contracts).
In this section, we’ll explore the nuts and bolts of viewing a swap as a strip of forward contracts, with particular focus on interest rate swaps. We’ll talk about the rationale behind this breakdown, the net settlement idea, how you might price each piece, plus credit risk considerations—since, hey, you don’t want to be left high and dry by a default at the third payment date.
Along the way, we’ll slip in some personal anecdotes, maybe one or two silly examples, and warn you about common pitfalls. Ready to dig in?
Many practitioners—and your friendly CFA curriculum—refer to an interest rate swap as a series of forward rate agreements (FRAs). Each FRA addresses a single future payment date. Picture a timeline with settlement dates t₁, t₂, t₃, …, tₙ. At each date, a floating rate is determined (e.g., based on some reference like SOFR or EURIBOR) and compared to the fixed rate established at the start of the swap. You then exchange the net difference.
To illustrate:
graph LR
A["Time 0 <br/>(Swap Initiation)"]
B["Forward #1 <br/>(settling at t1)"]
C["Forward #2 <br/>(settling at t2)"]
D["Forward #3 <br/>(settling at t3)"]
E["Forward #n <br/>(settling at tn)"]
A -- "Contract Terms" --> B
A -- "Contract Terms" --> C
A -- "Contract Terms" --> D
A -- "Contract Terms" --> E
Each forward is like an agreement that says, “At time tᵢ, if the floating rate is above the fixed rate, the floating-rate payer owes the difference to the fixed-rate receiver, and vice versa.” In classic plain vanilla interest rate swap form:
Net out these payments, and you get a single cash flow at each settlement date. That’s the net settlement concept: you only exchange the difference. This arrangement reduces transactions, which—trust me—can be a relief to your back-office folks.
At the start of the swap, the value to both parties is typically zero. Why? Because the present value (PV) of one leg (say the fixed payments) matches the PV of the floating leg. If it didn’t, well, you’d have an arbitrage scenario: the side with a positive value could theoretically demand a premium or otherwise exploit the mispricing.
So how do you ensure the PVs match up?
While you don’t always do this algebra by hand—financial calculators or spreadsheets can handle it—knowing the logic is essential. It’s also crucial in exam contexts: the typical “plain vanilla” interest rate swap is simply a portfolio of forward rate agreements priced so that, at inception, the total net present value (NPV) is zero.
After inception, the swap’s value will fluctuate due to interest rate changes. Each “forward” embedded in the swap is revalued as the yield curve shifts. You can imagine that if rates rise, the fixed-rate payer is at a disadvantage (they’re locked into paying a potentially too-high fixed rate), so the swap’s value might become negative to them and positive to the fixed-rate receiver.
On each settlement date:
In practice, only one net payment changes hands. If the floating leg owes more, it pays the fixed leg the difference, and vice versa. This simplicity helps reduce operational overhead and, more importantly, lowers credit risk exposure.
Now, consider forward start swaps. These are swaps that don’t begin right away but at some point in the future—kind of like a “swap on a swap.” If you think about it, those forward start ones line up perfectly with the concept of forward contracts: they’re specifying the terms of a swap that will initiate later. Why would anyone do that? Perhaps you want to lock in a fixed rate for a period that begins in six months because you believe rates will skyrocket. You effectively say, “Let’s play the game starting in six months, but I want to fix the rules now.”
Under the hood, the floating rates that come into play on that future start date are themselves forward rates. Practitioners love to break these into notional FRAs to reflect the predicted path of interest rates. It’s the same concept: a series of forward periods lined up.
When you have multiple settlement points in time, you’re obviously concerned about credit risk. If your counterparty goes bust mid-swap, you might lose the positive present value your side has accumulated. So how can you mitigate?
These techniques reduce the chance that a default on future obligations leads to a big hit. But, of course, they don’t eliminate the risk entirely—no system is perfect. For exam purposes, familiarizing yourself with central clearing is wise. And from a real-world standpoint, it’s become “the new normal” for a lot of standard interest rate swaps.
Let’s imagine a very simple scenario. Suppose you enter a one-year swap with quarterly settlements (four settlement dates: 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). You pay a fixed 5% annual rate (on some notional of, say, $1,000,000) and receive a floating rate that resets quarterly. For demonstration, let’s say all forward rates are predicted to be around 5% as well, so the swap’s initial value is zero.
Incidentally, that means each forward contract embedded in the swap has a net zero present value. If at settlement 1, the floating rate is 5.2%, you pay the net difference: (5% − 5.2%) × (Notional × 0.25) = −$500. Actually, wait, that means you receive if your fixed is lower? Let’s be sure we keep the sign consistent:
So your net is (5.2% − 5.0%) on $1,000,000 for a quarter, or 0.2% × 1,000,000 × 0.25 = $500. You get $500. If the floating rate had been 4.8%, you’d pay $500.
While that’s extremely simplified, hopefully it helps illustrate how each settlement date is “just” a forward contract on the interest rate that’s about to be realized.
Inside the black box, each coupon period is indeed priced like a forward rate agreement. Basic FRA valuation states that you can find the value of paying a fixed rate and receiving a floating rate by referencing the forward yield curve. Summation across all FRAs (one for each settlement period) yields the total swap value.
This decomposition is handy for risk measurement, too. Because if you want to do, say, scenario analysis, you can look at how each forward period’s rates might shift under a variety of yield-curve movements, then re-aggregate those results.
You might wonder, do folks in the real world literally break out a swap into 20 or 40 separate forward contracts? Probably not. They rely on standard swap pricing formulas or curves that handle all the discounting and forward rate calculations in one go. But behind the scenes, it’s exactly the same concept, and the exam may test your understanding of that equivalence.
When you’re pricing or managing risk on a swap portfolio for, say, a big pension fund, you might indeed track how your net risk is distributed across each “leg,” or each forward period. That’s where quant finance and risk management teams get super busy building complex term structure models. The short version: if you ever see an exam question about “Swaps as a Series of Forward Contracts,” just remember the decomposition approach is at the core of the standard pricing method, no matter how complicated it might look.
For official CFA curriculum references, check out the readings on derivatives and fixed income in the CFA Program Curriculum. That’s always the best place to confirm how exam questions might be formatted or cross-referenced.
And speaking from personal experience, practicing with real-world yield curve data can help you see the difference between theory and daily market noise. My first attempt at building a spreadsheet for swaps had me going in circles. But once it clicked—tying each payment date to a forward rate and discounting—it felt both elegant and hugely empowering. Possibly a little geeky, I know, but hopefully you’ll also appreciate that sense of “Oh, so that’s how it works!”
Important Notice: FinancialAnalystGuide.com provides supplemental CFA study materials, including mock exams, sample exam questions, and other practice resources to aid your exam preparation. These resources are not affiliated with or endorsed by the CFA Institute. CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are registered trademarks owned exclusively by CFA Institute. Our content is independent, and we do not guarantee exam success. CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, or warrant the accuracy or quality of our products.