capital controls and interest rate parity · 2015-07-14 · interest rate parity theory • jeff...
TRANSCRIPT
Capital Controls and Interest Rate Parity
Evidences from China, 1999-2004
LIU Li-Gang&
Ichiro Otani
Recent Discussions on Capital Controls
• During and after the Asian Financial Crises• Example. Malaysia• Impossible Trinity
--Fixed exchange rate--Free capital mobility--Independent monetary policy
Previous Empirical Studies on China’ Capital Controls
• Mostly legalistic interpretation of rules and regulations w.r.t. effectiveness and market integration.
• Quantitative studies—just a few.(1) Cheung, Chinn and Fujii (2003)(2) Ma, Ho, and McCauley (2004)
Interest Rate Parity Theory
• Jeff Frankel (1992): Theory provides a useful framework for analyzing capital mobility quantitatively.
• Strictly speaking, the covered interest rate parity condition does not hold in the real world.
Deviations from Covered Interest Rate Parity
[ kti -
*kti - ( tktt sf −+, )] = [( k
ti - *kti ) - e
kts +∆ ] + ( ekts + - ft,t+k)
Components of Deviations from the Parity Condition
• Deviations represent the cost of transactions
• Total, TC,• Of which:
--TCr,Arbitrate risks and exchange risks--TCp, Pure transaction costs
Comparisons of Market Places
• Hong Kong: known to be one of the most open markets.--TC,hk = TCp, hk
• Onshore market in China.--TC,on = TCp,on +TCr,on.
• Cross-border market in China.--TC,cb = TCp,cb + TCr,cb.
• Approximation, TCp,hk = TCp,on = TCp,cb
Chart 1: Deviations from Parity,Q4 1999-Q4 2004
Chart 1: Deviations from Interest Rate Parity, Q4 1999 - Q4 2004
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1999
Q420
00Q1
2000
Q220
00Q3
2000
Q420
01Q1
2001
Q220
01Q3
2001
Q420
02Q1
2002
Q220
02Q3
2002
Q420
03Q1
2003
Q220
03Q3
2003
Q420
04Q1
2004
Q220
04Q3
2004
Q4in
per
cent
Hong Hong Onshore Cross-Border
Deviations from Parity
• Negligible deviations for Hong Kong.Free capital mobility.
• Negative deviations for China’s cross-border in early 1999. Controls to discourage outflows from China.
• Positive deviations for China since 2000: Controls to discourage inflows into China.
Chart 1a: Cost of Transactions,Absolute Values of Deviations
Chart 1a: Cost of Transactions, Q4 1999 - Q4 2004
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1999
Q420
00Q1
2000
Q220
00Q3
2000
Q420
01Q1
2001
Q220
01Q3
2001
Q420
02Q1
2002
Q220
02Q3
2002
Q420
03Q1
2003
Q220
03Q3
2003
Q420
04Q1
2004
Q220
04Q3
2004
Q4
in te
rcen
t
Hong Kong Onshore Cross-Border
Cost of Transactions• Hong Kong:
Very small: 0.013% at quarterly rate, mainly fees and charges.
• China:Dominated by market pressures.Cross-border TC > Onshore TCAdditional cost for cross-border transactions, driving a wedge between RMB interest rate for onshore and for cross-border transactions.
Chart 1b: Cost Differentials btw Cross-Border and Onshore,
Q4 1999 – Q4 2004
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1999
Q4
2000
Q1
2000
Q2
2000
Q3
2000
Q4
2001
Q1
2001
Q2
2001
Q3
2001
Q4
2002
Q1
2002
Q2
2002
Q3
2002
Q4
2003
Q1
2003
Q2
2003
Q3
2003
Q4
2004
Q1
2004
Q2
2004
Q3
2004
Q4
in p
erce
nt
Series1
Table 3: Cost of Capital Controls and E&O, 2000-04
Table 3: Cost of Capital Controls and E&O, 1H 2000 - 2H 2004
TC of Capital E&O as % ofControls, in % Trade
1H 2000 0.25 1.802H 2000 0.20 3.201H 2001 0.25 3.602H 2001 0.11 1.871H 2002 0.18 2.002H 2002 0.19 0.731H 2003 0.11 1.282H 2003 0.12 3.961H 2004 0.12 1.432H 2004 1/ 0.07 4.43
Sources; SAFE, PRC and The authors' calculation
1/ Eatimates
Some Observations
• Transaction costs affected by capital controls on a declining trend.
• Apparent negative correlation between the intensity of capital controls and the degree of illegal capital movements
Chart 2: E&O vs Cost of Capital Controls, 1H 2000 – 2H 2004
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Cost or Capital Controls
E&O
as
% tr
ade
Series1Linear (Series1)
Assessing Money Market Integration: Uncovered Interest
Rate Differentials
)()]([)( ,,** e
ktktttkttkt
kt
ekt
kt
kt sfsfiisii ++++ −+−−−=∆−−
Properties
• A) Are uncovered interest differentials mean reverting?
• B) Are the differentials predictable?
• C) Are absolute differentials shrinking?
A: Are uncovered Interest Differentials mean reverting?
• Unit root test:• Dicky-Fuller test: Phillips-Perron Test
t-statistics: t-statistics:DUIP (12): -0.6 DUIP(12): -1.85DUIP (24): -0.75 DUIP(24): -1.28DUIP (48): -0.22 DUIP(48): -1.1
B: Are the differentials predictable?
• Predictability regression results:• AR(1): -0.12 (-4.16)***• AR(3): -0.1 (-3.56)***• AR(5): 0.1 (3.56)***• AR(7): 0.006(0.07)• AR(9): -0.03(-1.3)• AR(11): -0.07 (-2.62)**
C: Are the differentials shrinking?
• Dependent variable: Absolute value of Differentials:
Reg. (1) Reg. (2)Time trend: 0.00005(14.3)*** Year99 -.003(-6.43)***Year00 -.005 (-16.4)***Year01 -.01 (-33.5)***Year02 -.009(-32.3)***Year03 -.005(-16.1)*Adjusted R SQ: 0.13 0.54
Effectiveness of Capital Controlsin Recent Years: Summary
• Qualitatively speaking, changes in capital controls had desired impact on illegal capital movements (as represented by Es&Os).
• Quantitatively, the impact was not significant and seems to be waning over time.
• Capital controls drove a wedge btw onshore and offshore interest rates.
• Deviations from uncovered interest rate parity are not random and predictable, but arbitrages could not make onshore and offshore interest rates to converge.
• Some signs of shrinking differentials.
Road Map for Further Integration of the Capital Market
• Increase RMB interest rate and exchange rate flexibility and deepening of markets for RMB assets and Forex.
• Reduce impediments of financial movements associated with:– current transactions,– long-term equity transactions, &– Short-term portfolio transactions.