Advertisement

Does Persistent Learning or Limited Information Matter in Forward Premium Puzzle?

  • Ya-Chi LinEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

Some literature explains the forward premium puzzle by the learning process of agents’ behavior parameters, and this work argues that their conclusions may not be convincing. This study extends their model to the limited information case, resulting in several interesting findings: First, the puzzle happens when the proportion of full information agents is small, even people make expectation near rationally. Second, allowing the proportion of full information agents to be endogenous and highly relied on the performance of forecasting, agents turn to become full information immediately, and the puzzle disappears. These results are similar in different learning gain parameters. Our finding shows that limited information would be more important than learning, when explaining forward premium puzzle . Third, the multi-period test of Fama equation is also examined by the exchange rate simulated by learning in the limited information case. The Fama coefficients are positive, and the puzzle will not remain. It is consistent with the stylized facts in the multi-period version of Fama regression, which is found in McCallum (J Monet Econ 33(1):105–132, 1994). Finally, we also find that if agents rely on the recent data too much when forecasting, they tend to overreact on their arbitrage behavior. The Fama coefficient deviates further from unity. People might not benefit from having more information.

Keywords

Limited information Persistent learning Market efficiency Forward premium puzzle Dual learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Bacchetta, P., & Wincoop, E. V. (2009). On the Unstable Relationship between Exchange Rates and Macroeconomic Fundamentals. NBER Working Papers 15008, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baillie, R. T., & Bollerslev, T. (2000). The forward premium anomaly is not as bad as you think. Journal of International Money and Finance, 19, 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, F. (1986). Noise. Journal of Finance, 41, 529–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branch, W. A. (2007). Sticky information and model uncertainty in survey data on inflation expectations. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Branch, W. A., & Evans, G. W. (2007). Model uncertainty and endogenous volatility. Review of Economic Dynamics, 10(2), 207–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brock, W. A., & Hommes, C. H. (1997). A rational route to randomness. Econometrica, 65(5), 1059–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burnside, C., Han, B., Hirshleifer, D., & Wang, T. Y. (2011). Investor overconfidence and the forward premium puzzle. Review of Economic Studies, 78, 523–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakraborty, A., & Evans, G. W. (2008). Can perpetual learning explain the forward-premium puzzle? Journal of Monetary Economics, 55(3), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engel, C. (1992). On the foreign exchange risk premium in a general equilibrium model. Journal of International Economics, 32(3–4), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans, G. W., & Honkapohja, S. (2001). Learning and expectations in macroeconomics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25, 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gourinchas, P. O., & Tornell, A. (2004). Exchange rate puzzles and distorted beliefs. Journal of International Economics, 64(2), 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodrick, R. J. (1987). The empirical evidence on the efficiency of forward and futures foreign exchange markets. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kellard, N., & Sarantis, N. (2008). Can exchange rate volatility explain persistence in the forward premium? Journal of Empirical Finance, 15(4), 714–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krasker, W. S. (1980). The ‘peso problem’ in testing the efficiency of forward exchange markets. Journal of Monetary Economics, 6(2), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, K. (1989). Changing beliefs and systematic rational forecast errors with evidence from foreign exchange. American Economic Review, 79, 621–36.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lo, A. (2004). The adaptive markets hypothesis: Market efficiency from an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Portfolio Management, 30, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mankiw, N. G., & Reis, R. (2002). Sticky information versus sticky prices: A proposal to replace the New Keynesian Phillips curve. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1295–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mark, N. C. (2009). Changing monetary policy rules, learning, and real exchange rate dynamics. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 41(6), 1047–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mark, N. C., & Wu, Y. (1998). Rethinking deviations from uncovered interest parity: The role of covariance risk and noise. Economic Journal, 108(451), 1686–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCallum, B. T. (1994). A reconsideration of the uncovered interest parity relationship. Journal of Monetary Economics, 33(1), 105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orphanides, A., & Williams, J. C. (2005). The decline of activist stabilization policy: Natural rate misperceptions, learning, and expectations. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 29(11), 1927–1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scholl, A., & Uhlig, H. (2008). New evidence on the puzzles: Results from agnostic identification on monetary policy and exchange rates. Journal of International Economics, 76(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hubei University of EconomicsWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations