Can currency risk be a source of risk premium in explaining forward premium puzzle?

Author(s):  
Chu-Sheng Tai
2017 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 1750010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham A. Al-Zoubi

We show that carry trade excess returns and forward premia of exchange rates possess persistent and clear business-cycle patterns. Our results contradict the peso model of hedged carry trade developed by [Burnside, C., M. Eichenbaum, I. Kleshchelski, and S. Rebelo, 2011, Do Peso Problems Explain the Returns to the Carry Trade?, Review of Financial Studies 24(3), 853–891.] and the overconfidence model of carry trade developed by [Burnside, C., B. Han, D. Hirshleifer, and T. Y. Wang, 2011, Investor Overconfidence and the Forward Premium Puzzle, Review of Economic Studies 78(2), 523–558.]. Our results support equilibrium asset pricing models and share the habit formation view of [Verdelhan, A., 2010, A Habit-Based Explanation of the Exchange Rate Risk Premium, Journal of Finance 65(1), 123–145.] that requires countercyclical risk premia. In bad times, when risk aversion is high and domestic interest rates are low, investors require positive currency excess returns. Consistent with [Lustig, H., N. Roussanov, and A. Verdelhan, 2014, Countercyclical Currency Risk Premia, Journal of Financial Economics 111(3), 527–553.] the cyclicality of excess returns is associated with the cyclicality of forward premia. We find that the persistence in forward premia and excess returns is related to their cyclicality. Our results are robust to the [Lustig, H., N. Roussanov, and A. Verdelhan, 2011, Common Risk Factors in Currency Market, Review of Financial Studies 24(11), 3731–3777; Lustig, H., N. Roussanov, and A. Verdelhan, 2014, Countercyclical Currency Risk Premia, Journal of Financial Economics 111(3), 527–553.] high-minus-low (HML) and “dollar carry trade” portfolios.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 446-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos E. da Costa ◽  
João V. Issler ◽  
Paulo F. Matos

We build a stochastic discount factor—SDF—using U.S. domestic financial data only, and provide evidence that it accounts for stylized facts about foreign markets that escape SDFs generated by consumption-based models. When our SDF is interpreted as the projection of the pricing kernel from a fully specified model in the space of returns, our results indicate that a model that accounts for the behavior of domestic assets goes a long way toward accounting for the behavior of foreign asset prices. In our tests, we address predictability, a defining feature of the forward premium puzzle—FPP—by using instruments that are known to forecast excess returns in the moment restrictions associated with Euler equations both in the equity and in the foreign markets.


2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (7) ◽  
pp. 3456-3476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Burnside

Lustig and Verdelhan (2007) argue that the excess returns to borrowing US dollars and lending in foreign currency “compensate US investors for taking on more US consumption growth risk,” yet the stochastic discount factor corresponding to their benchmark model is approximately uncorrelated with the returns they study. Hence, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that their model explains none of the cross sectional variation of the expected returns. Given this finding, and other evidence, I argue that the forward premium puzzle remains a puzzle. JEL: C58, E21, F31, G11, G12


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document