Liberty Street Economics

« | Main | »

January 6, 2016

Hedging Income Fluctuations with Foreign Currency Assets

The world has gone through a process of financial globalization over the past decades, with countries increasing their holdings of foreign assets and liabilities. At the same time, countries have started to have a more positive foreign currency exposure by reducing their bias toward holding assets in domestic currency instead of foreign currency. One possible reason for these changes is that nations view demand shocks as more likely than supply shocks. That is, a dip in output will be accompanied by lower inflation rather than higher inflation. Monetary policy responds to demand shocks by cutting interest rates and letting the domestic currency depreciate. As a consequence, shifting the currency composition of assets and liabilities to increase net foreign currency holdings is a hedging strategy to protect the country’s income and wealth during downturns.

In 1994, the majority of countries had a negative net foreign currency exposure, meaning that a weaker domestic currency would reduce the country’s net asset position because the country’s foreign-currency-denominated liabilities exceeded its foreign-currency-denominated assets. By 2004, countries had moved toward a more balanced exposure, though developing countries maintained a net (albeit less) negative exposure. The move toward less foreign currency exposure—or a decrease in the so-called home bias in currency positions—was supported by both an increase in the amount of foreign-currency-denominated assets and an increase in the share of foreign liabilities that were denominated in domestic currency. A recent paper that incorporates data through 2012 suggests that the trend of having a larger foreign currency exposure remains intact.

In a recent Staff Report, we present a model of international portfolio choice offering a theoretical explanation for these observations. We consider a simple exercise in which countries can choose their holding of domestic-currency-denominated bonds and foreign-currency-denominated bonds. The portfolio decision depends on how these currencies co-move with agents’ income, a hedging motive shown to be empirically important. This co-movement changes depending on the economic environment—namely, the sources of economic fluctuations—and the monetary policy environment.

Our exercise shows that a move toward longer and larger positions in foreign currency cannot be explained if economic fluctuations are driven by supply shocks—that is, during periods when weaker activity is accompanied by higher inflation and so the stronger the policy commitment to offset the inflation, the stronger the domestic currency gets. Clearly, in this environment, having bonds denominated in foreign currencies is a bad hedge.

Instead, recent international portfolio positions data are consistent with a world in which the economic environment is often affected by demand shocks. It would then be rational for investors to hold foreign currency bonds because adverse shocks to demand are accompanied by lower interest rates and a weaker domestic currency. Moreover, the stronger the central banks’ commitment is to offsetting the effect of lower demand on inflation by decreasing interest rates, the larger is the likely depreciation, justifying longer positions in foreign currency.

Looking at developments in international portfolio positions through the lens of our model suggests that fluctuations in demand are affecting investors’ portfolio decisions. Of course, there could be other factors guiding international portfolio choices, but recent empirical analyses looking for the key sources of economic fluctuations in the United States and other countries seem to corroborate the importance of demand-side shocks. In fact, the empirical evidence suggests that demand shocks create considerable macroeconomic fluctuations. Economists trying to explain domestic or international business cycle properties, features of asset prices, and nominal and real exchange rates have shown the relevance of these shocks. Our analysis of portfolio positions suggests another area in which such shocks can explain the data.


The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

Depaoli_biancaBianca De Paoli is a senior economist in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Hande Küçük is an economist at the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.

About the Blog

Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Image of NYFED Economic Research Tracker Icon Liberty Street Economics is available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Economic Inequality

image of inequality icons for the Economic Inequality: A Research Series

This ongoing Liberty Street Economics series analyzes disparities in economic and policy outcomes by race, gender, age, region, income, and other factors.

Most Read this Year

Comment Guidelines


We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:

Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1,500 characters.

Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.

Please be relevant: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post.

Please be respectful: We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will
not be posted.‎

Comments with links: Please do not include any links in your comment, even if you feel the links will contribute to the discussion. Comments with links will not be posted.

Send Us Feedback

Disclosure Policy

The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.