See Search Box
lower down this column for searches of Finfacts news pages. Where there may be
the odd special character missing from an older page, it's a problem that
developed when Interactive Tools upgraded to a new content management system.
Finfacts is Ireland's leading business information site and
you are in its business news section.
More than a dozen countries, including some of the largest, have
been intervening in the foreign exchange markets to weaken their
currencies. This raises fears of “currency wars” like those that
devastated the world economy in the 1930s.
A new study by the Peterson Institute for International
Economics, based in Washington DC, distinguishes sharply between those countries
whose intervention is justified, because their currencies are already stronger
than called for by the economic fundamentals, and those who are violating their
international obligation to avoid “competitive devaluation” because their
exchange rates are now substantially undervalued.
The study updates the Institution’s estimates of “fundamental
equilibrium exchange rates” and concludes that the major countries in Chart
1 above, should be censured for their intervention policies because they are
already undervalued by the amounts indicated (in percentage).
China’s undervaluation has increased since it announced
“greater flexibility” for its currency in June because its appreciation
against the dollar has been more than offset by its depreciation against other
currencies as it “rode the dollar down” against them.
On the other hand, several countries that have been intervening
are doing so because their currencies are already overvalued by the indicated
amounts or are very close to equilibrium: see Chart 2 above.
These distinctions have crucial implications for several major
policy decisions that may be made over the coming days and months:
the G-20 summit
in Seoul, in pursuit of its agreed rebalancing of the world economy to
reduce excessive current account surpluses and deficits, may seek to limit
currency interventions that impede achievement of that goal;
the US Congress,
in considering legislation that would authorize trade sanctions against
countries that deliberately undervalue their currencies, must take full
account of the distinction; and
the US Treasury,
in preparing its next Report to Congress on International Economic and
Exchange Rate Policies and considering whether to designate countries as
“manipulating” their currencies, must do so as well.
Neither the United States, the Eurozone, Canada nor the United
Kingdom has intervened in the exchange markets. The new estimates suggest that
all four are modestly overvalued on a trade-weighted basis: the dollar by 2½%,
the euro by 5½% and the pound and the Canadian dollar by about 1½%. The latter
two are also slightly overvalued against the dollar with the euro most
misaligned at about 5½%. Australia and New Zealand, who also have refrained from
intervening, have the two most overvalued currencies at about 20 and 25%,
William R. Cline and John Williamson, the authors of the new
study Currency Wars?,
argue that intervention is unjustified f a currency is substantially undervalued
and a country is aggressively intervening to prevent appreciation. If instead
the currency is already overvalued relative to its estimated equilibrium rate,
“intervention to prevent further appreciation may be seen as benign and
consistent with cooperative international behavior.”
Table 2 of the study categorizes the 30 countries studied
against two metrics: the position of the currency vis-à-vis its equilibrium
level and whether the country has been reported as intervening to affect the
market level of its rate. Of the 17 economies that have reportedly been
intervening, China and the five others listed in the initial table above fall
into the category of “competitive undervaluation” while 11 are operating
consistently with their international obligations.
The authors conclude that
“It is quite wrong to condemn countries for resisting appreciation irrespective
of their situation. Any agreement at Seoul to prevent an exchange rate war
should be based on a distinction between countries with overvalued and
undervalued currencies, and should be designed to seek appreciation of the
latter but not to debar the former from actions to prevent a further
magnification of disequilibrium."
“We are in a situation where global flows of capital are making it impossible for central banks to control their currency,” Luca Silipo, chief economist at Natixis told CNBC on Oct 25th, after finance ministers at the G20 vowed to avoid currency wars: