1- Ph.D. in Economics, Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Tarbiat Modares , mjksereshki@gmail.com
2- Ph.D. in Economics, Faculty of Economics, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch.
Abstract: (167 Views)
Introduction:
In managed floating exchange rate systems, one of the important issues facing monetary policymakers is defining the exchange rate corridor and committing to it. In developing countries (with a low flow of foreign capital and limited access to international financial markets), it is difficult to follow committed policies. Iran is not only an oil-exporting country but also has limited access to export earnings due to sanctions. The central bank is dependent on the government. Consequently, these causes have led to 5 currency crises since 1991. Therefore, having an early warning system for Iran’s exchange market is essential for monetary policymakers. One of the prominent aspects of this study is the definition of the crisis index, which considers not only the direct intervention of the central bank in the exchange market but also both the exchange rate growth and the central bank’s foreign reserve growth rate. Finally, using the Probit approach, an early warning system with a low noise-to-signal ratio was proposed.
Methodology:
Quarterly data from 1990q2 to 2023q1 for Iran and the United States were used in the model. Domestic data represent the real and monetary sectors of Iran’s economy, and U.S. data represent the world economy.
First, using Bai-Perron (1997) and oil revenue as a state variable of the economy, the duration was divided into three periods: low oil revenue, high oil revenue, and sanctions. The random walk equation was estimated.
logoilt=a+b logoilt-1+εt (1)
Second, for each period, according to Weymark's (1995) model, the exchange market pressure (EMP) and direct intervention indices were calculated. Then the average and standard deviation of both the exchange rate growth and the central bank’s foreign reserve growth rate were calculated.
Third, the situation in each quarter is determined as shown in Tables 1 and 2:
Table 1: The situation in each quarter in leaning with the wall intervention type
rt≥r-σr |
rt<r-σr |
Type of intervention:
leaning with the wall |
Crisis type (1) |
Mega-Crisis type (1) |
et≥e+σe |
Favorable |
Ordinary |
et<e+σe |
Table 2. The situation in each quarter in leaning against the wall intervention type
rt≥r-σr |
rt<r-σr |
Type of intervention:
leaning against the wall |
Ordinary |
Mega-Crisis type (2) |
et≥e+σe |
Favorable |
Crisis type (2) |
et<e+σe |
et is the exchange rate growth, and rt is the central bank’s foreign reserve growth. e and σe are the average and standard deviation of the exchange rate growth, respectively. r and σr are the average and standard deviation of the central bank’s foreign reserve growth, respectively. Ordinary and favorable situations are considered the same. But, the other situations are different.
Fifth, equation 2 was proposed as an early warning system.
CRIt=α+ß1 CRIt-3+ß2 SCNt+ß3COVt+ß4FRGt-2+ß5ERGt-2+ß6ERGENt-2+ß7BFRLiqt-2+ß8GBDLiqGt-2+ß9GDBLiqGt-2+ß10LiqGt-2+ß11GDPGt-2+ß12 OilGDPt-2+ß13 OilGt-2+ß14 USAGDPGt-2+ß15 USAInft-2+εt (2)
All variables are I(0). CRIt is the quarterly situation. SCNt and COVt are the dummy variables for sanctions and COVID-19 respectively. The 2 lag variables are:
FRG is the central bank's foreign reserve growth. ERG is the exchange rate growth. ERGEN is the deviation of exchange rate growth from its long-term trend. BFRLiq is the ratio of the central bank's foreign reserve to liquidity. GBDliqG is the growth of the ratio of the government budget deficit to liquidity. GDBliqG is the growth of the ratio of the government debt to the central bank to liquidity. LiqG is the liquidity growth. GDPG is the growth of GDP. OilGDP is the ratio of oil revenue to GDP. OilG is the oil revenue growth. USAGDPG is the growth of the USA's GDP. USAInf is the USA's CPI.
Sixth, the forecasted variable is compared with the actual. Then, the NSR was calculated. NSR is between [0,1]. The less NSR, the better fitted the forecasted variable.
Results and Discussion:
There were no crisis type 1 and also mega-crises type 1 and 2. Therefore, the situation in each quarter is either crisis type 2 or ordinary. The crises are 1994q1, 1995q2, 2012q1, 2012q4, 2018q3 and q4, 2020q1 to q4, and 2023q1.
The Probit model is:
CRIt = -48.154 - 4.717*CRIt-3 + 1.718*SCNt + 11.496*COVt + 2.859*FRGt-2 + 302.002*ERGt-2 - 308.849*ERGENt-2 - 40.659*BFRLiqt-2 - 36.540*GBDLiqGt-2 + 40.174*GDBLiqGt-2 + 99.098*LiqGt-2 - 14.066*GDPGt-2 + 98.677*OilGDPt-2 - 0.482*OilGt-2 - 4.932*USAGDPGt-2 + 9.820*USAInft-2+εt
The above equation can predict all crises. The NSR is 0.143 which means that the model can good predict the crises.
Conclusion:
In this article, in addition to examining the exchange rates' seasonal growth and the central bank's foreign reserves' seasonal growth, the central bank's performance in the face of currency crises has been determined. Then, a model to predict currency crises with the Probit approach is also provided. The results show that the Central Bank and other economic agents do not consider the same seasons as critical. The economic agents expected a crisis in any season in which the sanction is approved, regardless of the time of its implementation. In most of the currency crises, the central bank has aggravated the currency crisis by buying foreign currency to increase its foreign exchange reserves. The crisis period has not exceeded two seasons in all cases except the Corona period. Among the internal variables of the model, the variables of liquidity growth, exchange rate growth, foreign exchange reserve growth, oil income to GDP ratio, and sanctions are effective factors in predicting a currency crisis. Also, the GDP growth, oil income growth, and the difference in exchange rate growth from the long-term trend are more effective variables in reducing the possibility of currency crises. The proposed early warning currency crisis system could predict all currency crises. Finally, as a policy recommendation, it is suggested that instead of stabilizing the exchange rate level, the central bank should stabilize the exchange rate growth in the mid-term to increase its credibility among economic agents by reducing the inflationary environment and currency fluctuations.Introduction:
In managed floating exchange rate systems, one of the important issues facing monetary policymakers is defining the exchange rate corridor and committing to it. In developing countries (with a low flow of foreign capital and limited access to international financial markets), it is difficult to follow committed policies. Iran is not only an oil-exporting country but also has limited access to export earnings due to sanctions. The central bank is dependent on the government. Consequently, these causes have led to 5 currency crises since 1991. Therefore, having an early warning system for Iran’s exchange market is essential for monetary policymakers. One of the prominent aspects of this study is the definition of the crisis index, which considers not only the direct intervention of the central bank in the exchange market but also both the exchange rate growth and the central bank’s foreign reserve growth rate. Finally, using the Probit approach, an early warning system with a low noise-to-signal ratio was proposed.
Methodology:
Quarterly data from 1990q2 to 2023q1 for Iran and the United States were used in the model. Domestic data represent the real and monetary sectors of Iran’s economy, and U.S. data represent the world economy.
First, using Bai-Perron (1997) and oil revenue as a state variable of the economy, the duration was divided into three periods: low oil revenue, high oil revenue, and sanctions. The random walk equation was estimated.
logoilt=a+b logoilt-1+εt (1)
Second, for each period, according to Weymark's (1995) model, the exchange market pressure (EMP) and direct intervention indices were calculated. Then the average and standard deviation of both the exchange rate growth and the central bank’s foreign reserve growth rate were calculated.
Third, the situation in each quarter is determined as shown in Tables 1 and 2:
Table 1: The situation in each quarter in leaning with the wall intervention type
rt≥r-σr |
rt<r-σr |
Type of intervention:
leaning with the wall |
Crisis type (1) |
Mega-Crisis type (1) |
et≥e+σe |
Favorable |
Ordinary |
et<e+σe |
Table 2. The situation in each quarter in leaning against the wall intervention type
rt≥r-σr |
rt<r-σr |
Type of intervention:
leaning against the wall |
Ordinary |
Mega-Crisis type (2) |
et≥e+σe |
Favorable |
Crisis type (2) |
et<e+σe |
et is the exchange rate growth, and rt is the central bank’s foreign reserve growth. e and σe are the average and standard deviation of the exchange rate growth, respectively. r and σr are the average and standard deviation of the central bank’s foreign reserve growth, respectively. Ordinary and favorable situations are considered the same. But, the other situations are different.
Fifth, equation 2 was proposed as an early warning system.
CRIt=α+ß1 CRIt-3+ß2 SCNt+ß3COVt+ß4FRGt-2+ß5ERGt-2+ß6ERGENt-2+ß7BFRLiqt-2+ß8GBDLiqGt-2+ß9GDBLiqGt-2+ß10LiqGt-2+ß11GDPGt-2+ß12 OilGDPt-2+ß13 OilGt-2+ß14 USAGDPGt-2+ß15 USAInft-2+εt (2)
All variables are I(0). CRIt is the quarterly situation. SCNt and COVt are the dummy variables for sanctions and COVID-19 respectively. The 2 lag variables are:
FRG is the central bank's foreign reserve growth. ERG is the exchange rate growth. ERGEN is the deviation of exchange rate growth from its long-term trend. BFRLiq is the ratio of the central bank's foreign reserve to liquidity. GBDliqG is the growth of the ratio of the government budget deficit to liquidity. GDBliqG is the growth of the ratio of the government debt to the central bank to liquidity. LiqG is the liquidity growth. GDPG is the growth of GDP. OilGDP is the ratio of oil revenue to GDP. OilG is the oil revenue growth. USAGDPG is the growth of the USA's GDP. USAInf is the USA's CPI.
Sixth, the forecasted variable is compared with the actual. Then, the NSR was calculated. NSR is between [0,1]. The less NSR, the better fitted the forecasted variable.
Results and Discussion:
There were no crisis type 1 and also mega-crises type 1 and 2. Therefore, the situation in each quarter is either crisis type 2 or ordinary. The crises are 1994q1, 1995q2, 2012q1, 2012q4, 2018q3 and q4, 2020q1 to q4, and 2023q1.
The Probit model is:
CRIt = -48.154 - 4.717*CRIt-3 + 1.718*SCNt + 11.496*COVt + 2.859*FRGt-2 + 302.002*ERGt-2 - 308.849*ERGENt-2 - 40.659*BFRLiqt-2 - 36.540*GBDLiqGt-2 + 40.174*GDBLiqGt-2 + 99.098*LiqGt-2 - 14.066*GDPGt-2 + 98.677*OilGDPt-2 - 0.482*OilGt-2 - 4.932*USAGDPGt-2 + 9.820*USAInft-2+εt
The above equation can predict all crises. The NSR is 0.143 which means that the model can good predict the crises.
Conclusion:
In this article, in addition to examining the exchange rates' seasonal growth and the central bank's foreign reserves' seasonal growth, the central bank's performance in the face of currency crises has been determined. Then, a model to predict currency crises with the Probit approach is also provided. The results show that the Central Bank and other economic agents do not consider the same seasons as critical. The economic agents expected a crisis in any season in which the sanction is approved, regardless of the time of its implementation. In most of the currency crises, the central bank has aggravated the currency crisis by buying foreign currency to increase its foreign exchange reserves. The crisis period has not exceeded two seasons in all cases except the Corona period. Among the internal variables of the model, the variables of liquidity growth, exchange rate growth, foreign exchange reserve growth, oil income to GDP ratio, and sanctions are effective factors in predicting a currency crisis. Also, the GDP growth, oil income growth, and the difference in exchange rate growth from the long-term trend are more effective variables in reducing the possibility of currency crises. The proposed early warning currency crisis system could predict all currency crises. Finally, as a policy recommendation, it is suggested that instead of stabilizing the exchange rate level, the central bank should stabilize the exchange rate growth in the mid-term to increase its credibility among economic agents by reducing the inflationary environment and currency fluctuations.
Article Type:
Original Research |
Subject:
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics Received: 2023/11/24 | Accepted: 2023/12/17