Siegel's paradox

Last updated

Siegel's paradox is the phenomenon that uncertainty about future prices can theoretically push rational consumers to temporarily trade away their preferred consumption goods (or currency) for non-preferred goods (or currency), as part of a plan to trade back to the preferred consumption goods after prices become clearer. For example, in some models, Americans can expect to earn more American dollars on average by investing in Euros, while Europeans can expect to earn more Euros on average by investing in American dollars. The paradox was identified by economist Jeremy Siegel in 1972. [1]

Contents

Like the related two envelopes problem, the phenomenon is sometimes labeled a paradox because an agent can seem to trade for something of equal monetary value and yet, paradoxically, seem at the same time to gain monetary value from the trade. Closer analysis shows that the "monetary value" of the trade is ambiguous but that nevertheless such trades are often favorable, depending on the scenario.

Apple/orange example

Economist Fischer Black gave the following illustration in 1995. Suppose that the exchange rate between an "apple" country where consumers prefer apples, and an "orange" country where consumers prefer valuable oranges, is currently 1:1, but will change next year to 2:1 or 1:2 with equal probability. Suppose an apple consumer trades an apple to an orange consumer in exchange for an orange. The apple consumer now has given up an apple for an orange, which next year has an expected value of 1.25 apples. The orange consumer now has given up an orange for an apple, which next year has an expected value of 1.25 oranges. Thus both appear to have benefited from the exchange on average. [1] Mathematically, the apparent surplus is related to Jensen's inequality. [2] [3]

Wine example

A more detailed example is a simplified efficient market with two wines, an American wine and a German wine. In November the wines trade 1:1. In December, most consumers will put exactly twice as much value on the trendier wine than the non-trendy wine; there is a 50/50 chance that either wine will become the trendy one in December. Thus, the wines are equally likely to trade 1:2 or 2:1 in December. Most consumers care about the nationality only insofar as it influences which wine is trendy. The only exceptions are a single loyalist American consumer, who only drinks American wine and is indifferent to trendiness, and a single loyalist German consumer, whose only drinks German wine and is likewise indifferent to trendiness.

The American loyalist counter-intuitively prefers to hold a German rather than an American wine in November, as it has a 50% chance of being tradeable for 0.5 American wines, and a 50% chance of being tradeable for 2 American wines, and thus has an expected value of 1.25 American wines. (All the consumers in this scenario are risk-neutral). Similarly, the German, if she holds an American wine, can be considered to be in possession of an expected value of 1.25 German wines. In this case, the gains from Siegel's paradox are real, and each loyalist gains utility on average by temporarily trading away from their preferred consumption good, due to the large utility gain should they succeed in the gambit of saving up in hopes of buying multiple bottles of the preferred wine should the price plummet in December.

Analyzing the case of the trendy consumers, who are indifferent to the nationality apart from its trendiness, is more complex. Such a consumer, if in possession of American wine, might fallaciously reason: "I currently have 1 American wine. If I trade for a German wine, I will have an expected value of 1.25 American wines. Therefore, I will be better off on average if I adopt a strategy to temporarily trade away, as the American loyalist did." However, this is similar to the "two envelopes problem", and the gains from Siegel's paradox in this case are illusory. The trendy consumer who uses the American loyalist's strategy is left with a 50% chance of 0.5 bottles of a newly popular trendy American wine, and a 50% chance of 2 bottles of a newly unpopular non-trendy American wine; to the trendy consumer this is not a material improvement over having a 50% chance of a bottle of trendy American wine and a 50% chance of having a bottle of non-trendy American wine. Thus, the trendy consumer has merely broken even, on average. Similarly, the trendy consumer also would not gain utility from adopting the German loyalist's strategy. [4]

Applications

While the wine and the apples are toy examples, the paradox has a real-world application to what currencies investors should choose to hold. Fischer Black concluded from analyses similar to the apple/orange example that when investing overseas, investors should not seek to hedge all their currency risk. [1] Other researchers consider such an analysis simplistic. In many circumstances, Siegel's paradox should indeed drive a rational investor to become more willing to embrace modest currency risk. In many other circumstances, they should not; for example, if the exchange rate uncertainty is due to differing rates of inflation with the imposition of purchasing power parity, then something like the "two envelopes" analysis applies, and there may be no particular reason to embrace currency risk. [4]

Geometric mean and reciprocity functions

A different approach to Siegel's paradox is proposed by K. Mallahi-Karai and P. Safari, [5] where they show that the only possible way to avoid making risk-less money in such future-based currency exchanges is to settle on the (weighted) geometric mean of the future exchange rates, or more generally a product of the weighted geometric mean and a so-called reciprocity function. The weights of the geometric mean depend on the probability of the rates occurring in the future, while the reciprocity function can always be taken to be the unit function. What this implies, for instance, in the case of apple/orange example above, is that the consumers should trade their products for √(2)(1/2) = 1 units of the other product to avoid an arbitrage. This method will provide currency traders on both sides with a common exchange rate they can safely agree on.

Related Research Articles

In economics and finance, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a difference in prices in two or more markets; striking a combination of matching deals to capitalise on the difference, the profit being the difference between the market prices at which the unit is traded. When used by academics, an arbitrage is a transaction that involves no negative cash flow at any probabilistic or temporal state and a positive cash flow in at least one state; in simple terms, it is the possibility of a risk-free profit after transaction costs. For example, an arbitrage opportunity is present when there is the possibility to instantaneously buy something for a low price and sell it for a higher price.

Investment is traditionally defined as the "commitment of resources to achieve later benefits". If an investment involves money, then it can be defined as a "commitment of money to receive more money later". From a broader viewpoint, an investment can be defined as "to tailor the pattern of expenditure and receipt of resources to optimise the desirable patterns of these flows". When expenditure and receipts are defined in terms of money, then the net monetary receipt in a time period is termed as cash flow, while money received in a series of several time periods is termed as cash flow stream.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government bond</span> Bond issued by a government

A government bond or sovereign bond is a form of bond issued by a government to support public spending. It generally includes a commitment to pay periodic interest, called coupon payments, and to repay the face value on the maturity date.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Futures contract</span> Standard forward contract

In finance, a futures contract is a standardized legal contract to buy or sell something at a predetermined price for delivery at a specified time in the future, between parties not yet known to each other. The asset transacted is usually a commodity or financial instrument. The predetermined price of the contract is known as the forward price. The specified time in the future when delivery and payment occur is known as the delivery date. Because it derives its value from the value of the underlying asset, a futures contract is a derivative.

In macroeconomics, hard currency, safe-haven currency, or strong currency is any globally traded currency that serves as a reliable and stable store of value. Factors contributing to a currency's hard status might include the stability and reliability of the respective state's legal and bureaucratic institutions, level of corruption, long-term stability of its purchasing power, the associated country's political and fiscal condition and outlook, and the policy posture of the issuing central bank.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hedge (finance)</span> Concept in investing

A hedge is an investment position intended to offset potential losses or gains that may be incurred by a companion investment. A hedge can be constructed from many types of financial instruments, including stocks, exchange-traded funds, insurance, forward contracts, swaps, options, gambles, many types of over-the-counter and derivative products, and futures contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convertible bond</span> Type of bond

In finance, a convertible bond, convertible note, or convertible debt is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering.

The terms of trade (TOT) is the relative price of exports in terms of imports and is defined as the ratio of export prices to import prices. It can be interpreted as the amount of import goods an economy can purchase per unit of export goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swap (finance)</span> Exchange of derivatives or other financial instruments

In finance, a swap is an agreement between two counterparties to exchange financial instruments, cashflows, or payments for a certain time. The instruments can be almost anything but most swaps involve cash based on a notional principal amount.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixed income</span> Type of investment

Fixed income refers to any type of investment under which the borrower or issuer is obliged to make payments of a fixed amount on a fixed schedule. For example, the borrower may have to pay interest at a fixed rate once a year and repay the principal amount on maturity. Fixed-income securities — more commonly known as bonds — can be contrasted with equity securities – often referred to as stocks and shares – that create no obligation to pay dividends or any other form of income. Bonds carry a level of legal protections for investors that equity securities do not — in the event of a bankruptcy, bond holders would be repaid after liquidation of assets, whereas shareholders with stock often receive nothing.

In finance, a foreign exchange option is a derivative financial instrument that gives the right but not the obligation to exchange money denominated in one currency into another currency at a pre-agreed exchange rate on a specified date. See Foreign exchange derivative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two envelopes problem</span> Puzzle in logic and mathematics

The two envelopes problem, also known as the exchange paradox, is a paradox in probability theory. It is of special interest in decision theory and for the Bayesian interpretation of probability theory. It is a variant of an older problem known as the necktie paradox. The problem is typically introduced by formulating a hypothetical challenge like the following example:

Imagine you are given two identical envelopes, each containing money. One contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep the money it contains. Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch?

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J curve</span>

A J curve is any of a variety of J-shaped diagrams where a curve initially falls, then steeply rises above the starting point.

Uncovered interest arbitrage is an arbitrage trading strategy whereby an investor capitalizes on the interest rate differential between two countries. Unlike covered interest arbitrage, uncovered interest arbitrage involves no hedging of foreign exchange risk with the use of forward contracts or any other contract. The strategy involves risk, as an investor exposed to exchange rate fluctuations is speculating that exchange rates will remain favorable enough for arbitrage to be profitable. The opportunity to earn profits arises from the reality that the uncovered interest rate parity condition does not constantly hold—that is, the interest rate on investments in one country's currency does not always equal the interest rate on foreign-currency investments plus the rate of appreciation that is expected for the foreign currency relative to the domestic currency. When a discrepancy between these occurs, investors who are willing to take on risk will not be indifferent between the two possible locations of investment, and will invest in whichever currency is expected to offer a higher rate of return including currency exchange gains or losses.

Foreign exchange risk is a financial risk that exists when a financial transaction is denominated in a currency other than the domestic currency of the company. The exchange risk arises when there is a risk of an unfavourable change in exchange rate between the domestic currency and the denominated currency before the date when the transaction is completed.

The forward exchange rate is the exchange rate at which a bank agrees to exchange one currency for another at a future date when it enters into a forward contract with an investor. Multinational corporations, banks, and other financial institutions enter into forward contracts to take advantage of the forward rate for hedging purposes. The forward exchange rate is determined by a parity relationship among the spot exchange rate and differences in interest rates between two countries, which reflects an economic equilibrium in the foreign exchange market under which arbitrage opportunities are eliminated. When in equilibrium, and when interest rates vary across two countries, the parity condition implies that the forward rate includes a premium or discount reflecting the interest rate differential. Forward exchange rates have important theoretical implications for forecasting future spot exchange rates. Financial economists have put forth a hypothesis that the forward rate accurately predicts the future spot rate, for which empirical evidence is mixed.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to finance:

A foreign exchange derivative is a financial derivative whose payoff depends on the foreign exchange rates of two currencies. These instruments are commonly used for currency speculation and arbitrage or for hedging foreign exchange risk.

Fixed-Income Relative-Value Investing (FI-RV) is a hedge fund investment strategy made popular by the failed hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management. FI-RV Investors most commonly exploit interest-rate anomalies in the large, liquid markets of North America, Europe and the Pacific Rim. The financial instruments traded include government bonds, interest rate swaps and futures contracts.

Jeremy James Siegel is the Russell E. Palmer Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Siegel comments extensively on the economy and financial markets. He appears regularly on networks including CNN, CNBC and NPR, and writes regular columns for Kiplinger's Personal Finance and Yahoo! Finance. Siegel's paradox is named after him.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Black, Fischer S. (Jan–Feb 1995). "Universal Hedging: Optimizing Currency Risk and Reward in International Equity Portfolios" (PDF). Financial Analysts Journal. 51: 161–167. doi:10.2469/faj.v51.n1.1872.
  2. ↑ Beenstock, Michael. "Forward Exchange Rates and Siegel's Paradox .Oxford Economic Papers 37.2 (1985): 298-303.
  3. ↑ Chu, Kam Hon (October 2005). "Solution to the Siegel Paradox". Open Economies Review. 16 (4): 399–405. doi:10.1007/s11079-005-4742-4. S2CID   155056834.
  4. 1 2 Edlin, Aaron S. "Forward Discount Bias, Nalebuff's Envelope Puzzle, and the Siegel Paradox in Foreign Exchange." Topics in Theoretical Economics 2.1 (2002).
  5. ↑ Mallahi-Karai, Keivan; Safari, Pedram (August 2018). "Future exchange rates and Siegel's paradox". Global Finance Journal. 37: 168–172. arXiv: 1805.03347 . doi:10.1016/j.gfj.2018.04.007. S2CID   158217351.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.