Talk:Carry (investment)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as low-importance on the assessment scale |
Just to mention the last part of the text is almost the same as : http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencycarrytrade.asp
Maybe one site or the other should mention credits !!
++ Guillaume
Contents |
[edit] Yen Carry Trade 'Myth'
Interesting claims 70.73.4.197, however I would be interested to see some references, not just to improve the article, but for my own personal benefit. Cheers. Suicup
Hi. I will work through an example for you. In most Western economies, money borrowed to invest is tax deductible. In other words, you are only taxed on net profits associated with a business or investment venture such as a 'carry trade' in assets, cash, bonds, or commodities.
So let's say the hypothetical 'carry trader', as typically depicted in the financial media, is borrowing Yen at 0%, and investing in US treasuries or overnight repos at 5.25%. Sounds like a profitable trade, right? Read on.
Now, consider that said trader pays a marginal income tax rate of 40%. And consider that Japan has been in deflation for the past number of years, at deflationary rate of -1%. In the same time period, US inflation has been running at roughly 2.5%.
The 'real' cost after-tax cost of Yen = nominal after-tax cost - rate of inflation. The 'real' return on USD assets = nominal after-tax returns - rate of inflation.
So, for the Yen borrowing, the calculation is 0% * (1-40%) = 0% - (-1%) = 1% And for the USD investment = 5.25% (1-40%) = 3.15% - 2.5% = 0.65%
So the real rate of return on USD investment is 0.65%, while the real cost of Yen borrowing is 1%. Since the real cost of Yen borrowing exceeds the real return on USD investment, a so-called 'carry trade' should not have an expectation of profit.
Hedge funds and other institutional players are usually intelligent enough not to engage in activities that do not have expectations of profit.
Therefore, it can be argued that all the talk in the financial 'media' or even in the 'Economist' about a so-called profitable 'carry trade' is complete nonsense. It is true that there might be some speculators who have placed (and done well with) bets against the Yen in recent years since the bubble burst in the 90s, but to confuse such with a profitable 'carry trade' defies logic.
Another common theme of the financial 'media' is to claim that Japan is a source of liquidity to the world. Low interest rates actually reduce liquidity as interest payments are not being made on loans, and thus, money isn't available for financial intermediaries to recycle back into making new loans. The money supply in Japan has been steadily declining for at least the past few years, yet world stock markets have been reaching new highs, and assets of all kinds have been bid to sky-high valuations. Thus, it can be argued that the asset bubble is being driven by money supply expansion in Europe and the United States, and not by the shrinking money supply in Japan.
The bottom line is that I don't feel this will have a happy ending for the United States. The dollar has dropped 5.5% in the past week, which, for the world's largest economy, is pretty much on the threshold of a currency crisis.
Hi there: The above example does not tell the full story. It only gives a US example. In New Zealand, you can get a 8.5 per cent interest just by plonking your cash in the bank. So that alters the figures drastically.
70.73.4.197 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is all very well, however a couple of things: Japan is not experiencing deflation right now, hence the positive interest rate bias of the last few months. Thus, even if the profitability of the 'trade' is less due to tax etc as you claim, it would still be profitable. Secondly, you say 'many economists' in the article, so there must surely be considerable citable evidence debunking this 'myth'. If there isn't, 'many' would be against Wikipedia's weasel words policy. Either way, thanks for your input and I look forward to those sources - as a finance student I am interested in these issues. PS you seem to do a lot of edits, perhaps you should consider creating an account. Suicup 11:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the following passage because it is not cited. If cites can be found to support it, add it back. Abe Froman 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
However, many economists have debunked the myth of so-called 'carry trades' by noting that, in global finance, interest rates and the values of currencies eventually converge, thus making it impossible, on average, to realize a profit through a 'carry trade' in currency alone in the long run.[citation needed] Taxation also makes the prospect of a 'carry trade' in Japanese Yen very unlikely. For example, a trader borrows Japanese Yen at 0%, and invests in USD$ assets at 5.25%. The trader does not receive a tax write-off for the Japanese Yen borrowed at 0%, since no interest is actually payable, but the trader must declare interest and capital gains in USD$ assets. The combined effects of taxation, as well as an expected appreciation in the value of the Yen due to deflation results in a so-called "yen carry trade" being a net destroyer of value. Thus hedge funds or investors are unlikely to engage in such transactions, debunking the myth of the 'yen carry trade' in the media.[citation needed]
[edit] Low yield currency
I think this article could benefit from some explanation or link to what a "low yield currency" is, as described in the "Currency" section. Is it referring to the yield of a debt instrument, or is the currency itself low yield? If so, what does that mean? Organ123 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright violation?
I found this section to be nearly word-by-word identical to Investopedia:
- For example, a trader borrows 1,000 yen from a Japanese bank, converts the funds into U.S. dollars and buys a bond for the equivalent amount. Assuming the bond pays 4.5% and the Japanese interest rate is set at 0%,[1] the trader stands to make a profit of 4.5% (i.e. 4.5% - 0%), as long as the exchange rate between the countries does not change. Leverage can make this type of trade very profitable. If the trader above uses a leverage factor of 10:1, then he/she can stand to make a profit of 45% (i.e. 4.5% * 10). However, if the U.S. dollar were to fall in value relative to the Japanese yen, then the trader would run the risk of losing money. Furthermore, because of the leverage, small movements in exchange rates can magnify these losses immensely unless hedged appropriately.
I removed it from this article and now ask the contributors to check, who copied from whom. Awolf002 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not Convinced
It's been a while since I've looked at this side of things, but on first look am not sure I'm convinced 'Carry (investment)' quite meets the level of ROI. ROI is a term traditionally used by all businesses, not just banks. It incorporates both the investment a business makes into it's own product and other investments - as that business sees fit. It's this latter part of ROI, I believe you may be addressing. Now, I have to use the term traditional 'with tongue and cheek' as I have experienced many surveys with major corporate organizations where the CFO did know what the term ROI meant. None the less, my education in the matter and some years of teaching the subject matter tell me that while the two have some similiarities, they are not necessarily the same. DHPatrick 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
