浅谈当前汇率制度变迁与改革

中国现行的有管理的浮动汇率制度不能满足维持其存在的充要条件,若继续实施这种僵化的汇率制度,将不能满足内外政策均衡搭配的要求。必须改革金融制度,培育微观市场主体;逐渐规范、谨慎有序地开放资本和金融账户;彻底实行经常账户下的人民币可兑换,强化国际收支预警体系的建设;增大汇率的浮动区间,实行有一定幅度的目标区浮动汇率制度。     

论汇率错位与国际汇率制度改革

论汇率错位与国际汇率制度改革深圳横岗经济发展总公司常贺梅一、汇率错位与浮动汇率制１９４４年７月４４个协约国在美国新罕布什尔州建立的布雷顿森林体系，确定了战后可调整的固定汇率制度。根据该体系，各个国家将其汇率钉住美元并保持在一个狭窄的域间波动范围之内，...     

人民币汇率制度改革方向问题研究

汇率制度的形成走过了一个漫长的过程,经历了固定汇率制度、中间汇率制度和浮动汇率制度。我国从建国以来汇率制度发生了巨大的变化,经历了过去的单一盯住美元的汇率制度到现在实行的以市场供求为基础、参考一篮子货币进行调节、有管理的浮动汇率制度,这是国际金融体制变化的必然结果。国际收支是否平衡作为经济运行状况的考察目标使得汇率的稳定性成为各国关注的重要问题,在国家机制不断完善,国际间交往不断增加,市场竞争逐渐激烈,金融工具不断创新的环境下,实现浮动汇率制度已经成为将来的发展趋势。     

汇率制度新理论——兼议人民币汇率制度改革

近年来,国际学术界对汇率制度的研究有了新的进展。在资本高度流动条件下,新兴经济体的汇率制度问题成为关注的焦点。在新的经济形势下,经济学家对于汇率制度的看法也发生了深刻变化。本文首先回顾了汇率制度新理论的发展,并结合相关的理论,整合了关于人民币汇率制度改革的代表性观点,也提出了自己关于该话题的一些思考。     

人民币汇率制度改革历史研究

作为经济的重要构成成分:汇率。关于他的制度对在对外贸易等方面因素中占据主导作用,在满足市场经济需求方面人民币汇率制度的历史很大程度上体现了他的一般要求,同时全国的人民币汇率制度改革历史也体现着全国的不同阶段下的基本国情。     

人民币汇率制度改革对中美贸易条件的影响

根据传统的贸易条件理论,本币升值会导致本国贸易条件①的改善,有利于增加本国居民的福利。2005年7月21日人民币汇率制度改革以来,人民币汇率不断升值。本文采用汇率制度改革以来的数据进行了VAR建模,计量结果发现人民币的升值没有显著改善中国居民的福利。主要原因是中国出口厂商出口定价方式的选择(当地货币定价),应对措施是中国需要改革国际货币体系或实现人民币国际化。     

现行人民币汇率制度的问题和改革建议

本文提出了现行人民币汇率制度存在的主要问题,即人民币汇率形成机制的市场化程度不足;外汇市场的服务功能不完善;对外部均衡产生不利影响,人民币升值压力依然巨大。面对今后更具弹性的人民币汇率机制改革取向,可以应正确认识和应对人民币汇率形成机制改革;主动应对人民币进一步升值的预期和国际热钱炒作的压力;人民币汇率更趋灵活将加大央行对外汇市场管理的难度;进一步发展和健全外汇市场,利用衍生金融工具规避汇率风险。     

论我国现行人民币汇率制度的改革

本文从我国现行人民币汇率制度面临的挑战入手,通过对人民币汇率制度存在的缺陷进行深入分析,认为我国应该进一步完善中央银行的干预机制,减少央行干预外汇市场的频率,逐步增强人民币汇率的灵活性,进一步完善人民币汇率形成机制,培育健全的外汇市场,逐步推进人民币汇率制度的改革。     

我国汇率制度变化与贸易发展关系的历史分析

文章回顾了自上世纪80年代以来各阶段人民币汇率制度的特征,探讨了各时期汇率变动对进出口影响效应的有效性,揭示了影响贸易变化的实际因素,指出名义汇率可能与进出口关系并不密切,影响贸易的根本问题还在于国内外产品价差、企业竞争力、经济环境、宏观政策等因素,也不能把汇率政策理解为单一地调整名义汇率。     

Gas storage valuation under limited market liquidity: an application in Germany

Natural gas storages may be valued by applying real options theory. However, it is crucial to take into account that most evolving gas markets, like the German spot market, lack liquidity. This implies that large-scale operation of storages reduces the achievable operating margin since storage operators will pay higher prices for injected gas and earn less on withdrawn gas. Optimal storage operation will take this into account. In this context, considering storage operators as price takers does not account for interdependencies of storage operations and market prices. This paper offers a novel approach to storage valuation taking into account the effect of management decisions on market prices. The methodology proposed within this paper determines the optimal production schedule and value by determining the stochastic differential equation describing the storage value and then applying a finite difference scheme. We find that limited liquidity lowers the storage value and reduces withdrawal and injection amounts. Further, we observe decreasing reservation prices for injection and withdrawing for growing illiquidity resulting in a left shift of injection and withdrawing threshold prices.     

Basis variations and regime shifts in the oil futures market

The conditional volatility of crude oil futures returns is modelled as a regime switching process. The model features transition probabilities that are functions of the basis. Consistent with the theory of storage, in volatile periods, an increase in backwardation is associated with an increase in the likellihood of switching to or remaining in the high-volatility state. Conditional on regimes, GARCH persistence is significantly reduced. Out-of-sample tests show that incorporating regime shifts improves the accuracy of short-term volatility forecasts.     

China’s Exchange-Rate Regime Reform and Trade Between China and the Eurozone

This article investigates the effects of China’s exchange-rate regime reform on trade between China and the eurozone. Both the exchange rate between the euro (EUR) and the renminbi (RMB) and exchange-rate volatility are included in the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model, and our empirical work also considers the third-country effect. Our findings show that, during the reform period, China’s exports to the eurozone are affected only by the EUR–RMB exchange rate per se and not by its volatility. However, neither the exchange rate nor its volatility significantly influences the eurozone’s exports to China during the reform period. Such asymmetry might be attributed to the discrepancy between Chinese exporters and their eurozone counterparts in the knowledge and ability to manage exchange-rate risk.     

Impact of exchange rate regime reform on asset returns in China

Employing monthly data over the period 1999–2010, this paper examines the impact of China's exchange rate regime reform in July 2005 on three major asset markets: house, land, and stocks. We test whether the reform, which switches from a fixed exchange rate regime to a managed floating one, has brought forward structural changes to asset return dynamics. The results suggest that the exchange rate regime switch exerted the most significant impact on house and land returns at the national level, in terms of both returns and their volatilities. In contrast, its impact on China's stock market was moderate, with no structural change being detected in its returns and only weak structural change being found in the dynamics of its volatility. We also find that in comparison with other popular explanatory variables, broad money supply and inflation have the largest explanatory power on housing and land returns in China after the policy reform.     

The interbank market after the financial turmoil: Squeezing liquidity in a “lemons market” or asking liquidity “on tap”

After August 2007 the plumbing system that supplied banks with wholesale funding, the interbank market, failed because toxic assets obstructed the pipes. Banks were forced to squeeze liquidity in a “lemons market” or to ask for liquidity “on tap” from central banks. This paper disentangles the two components of the 3-month Euribor–Eonia swap spread, credit and liquidity risk and then evaluates the decomposition. The main finding is that credit risk increased before the key events of the crisis, while liquidity risk was mainly responsible for the subsequent increases in the Euribor spread and then reacted to the systemic responses of the central banks, especially in October 2008. Moreover, the level of the spread between May 2009 and February 2010 was influenced mainly by credit risk, suggesting that European banks were still in a “lemons market” and relied on liquidity “on tap” even before sovereign debt crisis unfolded in Europe.     

Adjustment costs of institutional tax changes from the audit pricing perspective: Empirical evidence from the VAT reform

Institutional changes inevitably impose adjustment costs on firms while also generating benefits. However, empirical evidence regarding the adjustment costs of institutional changes is limited, with much of the focus centered on benefits. Using data on China’s A-share listed companies from 2010 to 2018 and the nation’s staggered adoption of the “business tax to value-added tax reform” (hereafter, “VAT reform”) as a natural experiment, we examine the impact of this reform on a particular corporate cost: audit fees. We find audit fees to be 8.11% higher for VAT reform firms than for non-VAT reform firms. This difference does not exist before or after the reform year. That is, it is only observed in the year of VAT reform implementation. This indicates the existence of an adjustment cost specifically related to the VAT reform. Furthermore, we observe larger fee increases among firms audited by Big 4 international audit firms, firms that require more audit work, firms that are more complex, and firms with weak internal controls. From the audit pricing perspective, we provide evidence of the economic consequences of tax reform. The corporate adjustment costs that arise from institutional changes deserve more attention from decision-makers.     

当前国际金融市场的大幅波动——美国债务问题召唤制度性变革

标普下调美债评级引发国际金融市场大幅动荡,其直接原因在于,市场对美国政府未来削减赤字的前景普遍感到失望,对全球经济可能产生二次探底的忧虑升温。然而,从深层次原因看,近期国际金融市场大幅动荡在相当程度上可视作2008年全球金融危机的延续和余波。文章探讨了美债评级下调对全球以及我国经济金融的影响,反思美国债务问题产生的根源,并提出相关对策建议。     

Futures and forward price differential and the effect of marking‐to‐market: Australian evidence

The objective of this paper is to examine the effects of marking‐to‐market of futures contracts on the price differential between futures and forward contracts based on the predictions of the Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1981) (CIR) model. Cox et al ., (1981) derive a series of propositions with respect to the relationship between futures and forward prices and a set of testable implications. These are tested empirically in this paper using Australian data from November 1991 to June 1997. The results provide evidence of the presence of significant futures and forward price differences, where the futures price is consistently below the forward price. Only partial support is found for the Cox et al ., (1981) propositions, implying that the effect of marking‐to‐market is not able to fully account for the price differential. Therefore, it is not possible to rule out the influence of other institutional factors on the futures‐forward price difference.     

Futures and forward price differential and the effect of marking‐to‐market: Australian evidence

The objective of this paper is to examine the effects of marking‐to‐market of futures contracts on the price differential between futures and forward contracts based on the predictions of the Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1981) (CIR) model. Cox et al ., (1981) derive a series of propositions with respect to the relationship between futures and forward prices and a set of testable implications. These are tested empirically in this paper using Australian data from November 1991 to June 1997. The results provide evidence of the presence of significant futures and forward price differences, where the futures price is consistently below the forward price. Only partial support is found for the Cox et al ., (1981) propositions, implying that the effect of marking‐to‐market is not able to fully account for the price differential. Therefore, it is not possible to rule out the influence of other institutional factors on the futures‐forward price difference.