The Economics of Uncovered Interest Parity Condition for Emerging Markets: A Survey



output and interest rate movements. Her results suggest a negative β1 coefficient when the
central bank pursues interest rate smoothing. Moreover, Mark and Moh (2007) develop a
continuous-time model of UIP in which central banks’ policies to contain interest differen-
tial within a certain band can lead to forward premium bias. They are able to corroborate
the empirical evidence that forward premium bias intensifies during periods in which cen-
tral banks are intervening. In addition, Anker (1999) documents that a pure interest rate
smoothing policy of a central bank cannot account for the observed forward premium bias
in its entirety. Baillie and Osterberg (2000) estimate the effect of interventions in the for-
eign exchange market by central banks on the level and variance of
ex post deviations from
the UIP condition within a FIGARCH framework. They report for the U.S. and Germany
that these interventions drive excess currency returns over the UIP-implied level for some
certain sub-periods.6

Limits to speculation hypothesis (LSH) suggests that investors engage in a specific
trading strategy only if that strategy yields a sufficiently large excess return per unit of
risk (Sharpe ratio). This hypothesis suggests the possibility of a band of inaction in which
the forward premium bias does not imply a profitable opportunity to exploit (Lyons, 2001;
Sarno et al., 2006). This implication of LSH is confirmed by Villanueva (2005). In particular,
Villanueva documents that spot exchange rate undershoots in response to a positive interest
differential shock, which is possibly due to the aforementioned band of inaction.

When rational risk-neutral agents care about real rather than nominal returns on finan-
cial assets, then the no-arbitrage condition for the forward exchange market becomes

EtF   St+k # = 0.

πt,t+k

where πt,t+k is the k-period domestic inflation. Under the assumption that all the variables
are log-normally distributed, the basic estimable UIP equation (3b) becomes:

δ k st+k = β0 + β 1 f fk - st + θ1 vart (st+k) + θ2 covt (st+k, πt+k) + ut+k             (6)
where the variance and covariance terms arise from Jensen’s inequality, and ut+k is white
noise. Yet, many researchers have reported insignificant Jensen’s inequality terms (JIT),



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Higher education funding reforms in England: the distributional effects and the shifting balance of costs
3. The name is absent
4. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
5. Midwest prospects and the new economy
6. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION
7. Optimal Vehicle Size, Haulage Length, and the Structure of Transport Costs
8. Modellgestützte Politikberatung im Naturschutz: Zur „optimalen“ Flächennutzung in der Agrarlandschaft des Biosphärenreservates „Mittlere Elbe“
9. Female Empowerment: Impact of a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines
10. Why unwinding preferences is not the same as liberalisation: the case of sugar
11. Large-N and Large-T Properties of Panel Data Estimators and the Hausman Test
12. The name is absent
13. CGE modelling of the resources boom in Indonesia and Australia using TERM
14. The demand for urban transport: An application of discrete choice model for Cadiz
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. An Intertemporal Benchmark Model for Turkey’s Current Account
18. Eigentumsrechtliche Dezentralisierung und institutioneller Wettbewerb
19. A Note on Productivity Change in European Co-operative Banks: The Luenberger Indicator Approach
20. The name is absent