No abstract

No abstract

We report findings from a survey of United States foreign exchange traders. Our results indicate that: (i) in recent years electronically-brokered transactions have risen substantially, mostly at the expense of traditional brokers; (ii) the market norm is an important determinant of interbank bid-ask spread and the most widely-cited reason for deviating from the conventional bid-ask spread is a thin/hectic market; (iii) half or more of market respondents believe that large players dominate in the dollar-pound and dollar-Swiss franc markets; (iv) technical trading best characterizes about 30% of traders, with this proportion rising from five years ago; (v) news about macroeconomic variables is rapidly incorporated into exchange rates; (vi) the importance of individual macroeconomic variables shifts over time, although interest rates always appear to be important; (vii) economic fundamentals are perceived to be more important at longer horizons, while short-run deviations from the fundamentals are attributed to excess speculation and institutional customer/hedge fund manipulation; (viii) speculation is generally viewed positively, as enhancing market efficiency and liquidity, even though it exacerbates volatility; (ix) central bank intervention does not appear to have substantial effect, although there is general agreement that it increases volatility, and finally; (x) traders do not view purchasing power parity as a useful concept, even though a significant proportion (40%) believe that it affects exchange rates at horizons of over six months.

No abstract

Previous assessments of nominal exchange rate determination have focused upon a narrow set of models typically of the 1970's vintage. The canonical papers in this literature are by Rogoff (1983, 1988), who examined monetary and portfolio balance models. Succeeding works by Mark (1995) and Chinn and Meese (1995) focused on similar models. In this paper we re-assess exchange rate prediction using a wider set of models that have been proposed in the last decade: interest rate parity, productivity based models, and "behavioral equilibrium exchange rate" models. The performance of these models is compared against a benchmark model -the Dornbusch-Frankel sticky price monetary model. The models are estimated in error correction and first-difference specifications. Rather than estimating the cointegrating vector over the entire sample and treating it as part of the ex ante information set as is commonly done in the literature, we recursively update the cointegrating vector, thereby generating true ex ante forecasts. We examine model performance at various forecast horizons (1 quarter, 4 quarters, 20 quarters) using differing metrics (mean squared error, direction of change), as well as the Aconsistency@ test of Cheung and Chinn (1998). No model consistently outperforms a random walk, by a mean squared error measure; however, along a direction-of-change dimension, certain structural models do outperform a random walk with statistical significance. Moreover, one finds that these forecasts are cointegrated with the actual values of exchange rates, although in a large number of cases, the elasticity of the forecasts with respect to the actual values is different from unity. Overall, model/specification/currency combinations that work well in one period will not necessarily work well in another period.