Singapore Airlines

[ACTIVIST SPEAKS]

Hazarding a Guess...

As the fuel hedging ineffectiveness is recorded as non-cash item, it should be a revaluation exercise (mark to market) rather than a realized loss.  In extension, it is logical to assume that the hedge contracts (be it a swap, option or collar) should still be operative which exposed the company to either gain or further loss (as mgt expected) depending on the fuel prices.

Great stuff written here in the last couple days....

Put it simply ... a hedge is a bet in layman terms. If you loose a bet, you lost it. It does not matter if you continue to bet and hoping to win the next bet.
SIA have lost the hedge and it is a confirmed loss and no need to say in future we may win. 
That is for the future and no one knows it is a win or a loss.

The question is whether the bet is still on or there is no more bet....from the financial statements, it suggests the position is not closed.  SQ acknowledges they have lost and that is why there is a charge to the income statement as Fuel Hedging Ineffectiveness.
But I do agree that this $710 million charge does appear to be irreversible even if price does go up