You can view the full text of this article for free using the link below.

Title: The US$ 2.1 billion derivative loss that ruined the Brazilian Aracruz

Authors: Fernando Dal-Ri Murcia; Flávia Cruz De Souza Murcia; Elisete Dahmer Pfitscher

Addresses: University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908, FEA 3, 237 – Butantã, São Paulo, SP 05508-010, Brazil ' Federal University of Santa Catarina, Centro Socioeconômico – Bloco F, Campus Universitário – Trindade, Florianópolis – Santa Catarina, SC 88040-970, Brazil ' Federal University of Santa Catarina, Centro Socioeconômico – Bloco F, Campus Universitário – Trindade, Florianópolis – Santa Catarina, SC 88040-970, Brazil

Abstract: This paper critically analyses the case of the Brazil-based Aracruz Celulose S.A., which was one of the world's largest producer of bleached eucalyptus pulp. In 2008, it posted a derivate loss of US$ 2.1 billion dollars, which is considered the 7th largest derivative loss for all time. For these, we use publicly available information about the case that includes: 1) financial statements; 2) notices of material events announced at the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and in the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (Brazilian Exchange Commission); 3) the administrative proceeding process conducted by Comissão de Valores Mobiliários; 4) the company's website; 5) newspaper and website articles; 6) academic journals. Just before the crisis, Aracruz was a very successful company and its financial structure was solid. That loss caused a huge solvency problem that lead to end of the company. Aracruz went from being a history of success to a situation of financial insolvency. Our analysis evidences that Aracruz was operating as a 'bank', using derivatives to speculate against the US dollar and not really to hedge its revenues, as it was heavily leveraged. The results show the misuse of derivatives can damage a company and even lead to bankruptcy.

Keywords: Aracruz; Brazil; derivatives.

DOI: 10.1504/IJAUDIT.2017.086756

International Journal of Auditing Technology, 2017 Vol.3 No.3, pp.217 - 230

Received: 29 May 2017
Accepted: 10 Jun 2017

Published online: 24 Sep 2017 *

Full-text access for editors Full-text access for subscribers Free access Comment on this article