Who Gains From Nominal Devaluation? An Empirical Assessment of Euro‐area Exports and Imports

In early 2013, rumours about the euro‐appreciation gained momentum, which may lead to decreases in exports and increases in imports of the member states. Therefore, we investigate the impact of changes in the nominal euro exchange rate vis‐à‐vis major currencies on export and import performance of nine different euro‐area countries. To disentangle the ‘true’ equilibrium elasticities Stein's unbiased risk estimate (SURE) system error correction models (SSECM) are estimated for nominal exchange rate changes versus the rest of the world or other major currencies. To differentiate between price level changes and changes of the nominal exchange rate, a country's export and import equation is estimated using separately the nominal rate and the relative price/unit labour cost as regressors. Results of Wald tests indicate that assuming both variables to have the same influence on exports and imports is misleading. Whether the relative price/unit labour costs elasticities are high or low depends crucially on which indicator is chosen, while the effect of nominal exchange rate changes can be estimated robustly for all countries in the sample. In particular, France and Spain are hit by a euro‐appreciation since their exports are highly exchange rate elastic. However, for France, this effect is at least partly offset by an also negative exchange rate elasticity of imports.     

Nominal exchange rate volatility,relative price volatility,and the real exchange rate

We model real exchange rate, nominal exchange rate, and relative price volatility using real and nominal factors. We analyze these volatility measures across developing and industrialized countries. We find that the inclusion of nominal factors achieves a sizable reduction in the real exchange rate volatility spread between developing and industrialized countries. In addition, we find that nominal factors matter to real exchange rate volatility in the short run and the long run, and that for developing countries, a higher share of real exchange rate volatility stems from relative price volatility.     

Retail banking and behavioral financial engineering: The case of structured products

We apply cumulative prospect theory and hedonic framing to evaluate discount reverse convertibles (DRCs) and reverse convertible bonds (RCBs) as important examples of structured products from a boundedly rational investor’s point of view. While common expected utility theory would also conclude that DRCs and RCBs are of interest to investors with moderate return expectations and underestimated stock return volatility, that theory would overestimate the market success of DRCs and underestimate that of RCBs in comparison to a situation with bounded rationality. Hedonic framing and relatively low subjectively felt competence levels of investors are decisive for the demand for RCBs.     

Internal Relative Price Stationarity in Long-Run Purchasing Power Parity

This study demonstrates that the joint relationship among domestic traded-goods prices, dometic nontraded-goods prices, foreign traded-goods prices, and foreign nontraded-goods prices is important to understanding rejections or confirmations of long-run PPP. This joint relationship is defined as the "cross-country internal relative price structure." For nine of the ten pairs of countries studied, the cross-country internal relative price structure is found to be stationary; thus, factors other than the influence of nontraded-goods prices must be responsible for the rejections of long-run PPP.     

Estimating cost of capital in firm valuations with arithmetic or geometric mean – or better use the Cooper estimator?

We test the extent and determinants of bias effects of the arithmetic as well as the geometric mean estimator and the estimator of Cooper [1996. Arithmetic versus geometric mean estimators: Setting discount rates for capital budgeting. European Financial Management 2 (July): 157–67] regarding discount rate estimation for firm valuation by way of a bootstrap approach for 13 different countries. The Cooper estimator is superior to both the geometric and the (conventional) arithmetic mean estimator. However, a ‘truncated’ version of the arithmetic mean estimator leads generally to better estimation outcomes than the Cooper estimator. This means that, in order to reduce problems of upward-biased firm value estimates, expected cash flows beyond a certain time horizon are completely neglected in terminal value estimation. Such an approach seems particularly reasonable for the valuation of young growth companies as well as for companies from quickly developing countries such as Brazil, China, or Thailand, because the bias in terminal value estimation is increasing in the growth rate of future expected cash flows.