Monday, November 9, 2015

Whither the tenge?




Is the exchange rate headed for 400 tenge per US dollar?

Since its inception in late 1993, the tenge has been devalued sharply by the National Bank of Kazakhstan in April 1999, February 2009, February 2014 and August 2015.  Of these decisions, the most significant by far was this year’s policy to let the foreign exchange market set the exchange rate -- albeit with Bank interventions when the tenge began falling off a cliff in September, with some Almaty kiosks selling a United States dollar for 300 tenge.  Before the float, the exchange rate had been 185 or a bit higher. 

My statistical model finds that the devaluations before 2015 did not permanently affect the change in the exchange rate from one month to the next.  Only the August 2015 decision mattered (Table 1, in the appendix).  The devaluations in 1999, 2009 and 2014 were once-and-for-all increases in the exchange rate, with no impact on the long-run rate of depreciation.  But the August 2015 decision touched off a rise in the exchange rate that continued throughout September.   

The stability, or lack of it, in the exchange rate is due primarily to the National Bank.  Before 2015, the amount of monthly change in the exchange rate (measured in tenge) was extreme only when the Bank devalued; non-Bank shocks were small and fleeting.   Even when the Bank stepped in, the fluctuation in the tenge rapidly disappeared – within one month, for the 2009 and 2014 devaluations; in two or three months, for the 1999 devaluation.  The only time that the exchange rate threatened to become volatile for a long time was when the Bank put it on a float on August 20. 

In my forecast, the August decision to float the tenge may continue to weaken it throughout 2016.  The monthly exchange rate rises at a steady but slowing rate to about 297 in December 2016.  The 95% confidence interval is fairly tight.  For example, in December 2015, the expected exchange rate is 289.06, but other likely values range from 288.1 to 290.02.

Straying the course?

These predictions assume that the new governor of the National Bank, Daniyar Akyshev, continues the exchange-rate policy of his predecessor, Kairat Kelimbetov, who was very publicly sacked on November 3.  Two days after the dismissal, the Bank said it would continue to float the tenge but “reserve[d] the right to smooth large fluctuations that do not reflect supply and demand balance as well as fundamental factors.”  This is what the Bank had been doing under Kelimbetov, and indeed the Bank called its new stance “consistent” with its old policy.  

This declaration of staying the course leads to troubling questions.  First, if the Bank plans to stick to Kelimbetov’s policy, what was the point of firing him? 

Second, if the Bank governor serves only at the pleasure of the President, then can it commit to policies with long-run benefits but short-run costs?  The Bank has had four governors in less than a decade.  The answer is murky because at times political intervention may have helped the economy in the long run.  For example, in 2009, when the tenge was over-valued to the point of a near collapse, the brand-new governor, Gregory Marchenko, devalued it by 25%, which may have ameliorated an ensuing economic slowdown.  But Western doctrine holds that a central bank should be free of short-run politics.

The panic bank

Most troubling of all was the Bank’s rationale for its November 5 policy.  The Bank said it was minimizing intervention in the forex market “in order to preserve its foreign exchange assets of the National Bank and the National Fund.” (The National Fund is the government’s coffers of oil-export tax revenues.)  One may interpret this as an admission that the Bank can no longer defend the tenge, undermining its implicit vow to intervene when the tenge yo-yos.  Also, the Bank postponed indefinitely its monetary policy meeting, which had been scheduled for November 6.  This suggests that the Bank is not sure of what to do.  These admissions of the Bank’s weakness and uncertainty can only lead to depreciation of the tenge. 

How much depreciation?  That’s not clear.  One possibility is that the market on November 5 had anticipated the Bank’s announcement.  In that event, the depreciation that day of 14.2 tenge per dollar is a once-and-for-all leap in the exchange rate.  Another possibility is that the announcement itself creates uncertainty about what the Bank will do in the months to come, so people will rush to sell tenge.  In that event, the equilibrium exchange rate is not clear, but the most conspicuous candidate is 400 tenge per dollar – just as 300 tenge per dollar in recent weeks had provided a focal point.  As I write this – Monday, November 9 – the immediate exchange rate has jumped to 312.65 tenge, so I think that an eventual monthly rate of 400 tenge is not impossible.

A moderate approach assumes that the November 5 event was a once-and-for-all depreciation that took until November 9 to fully unfold.  This amounts to a onetime increase in the monthly exchange rate of 28-29 tenge, a rise of more than 10%.  The exchange rate is headed for a medium-run equilibrium of 326-327 by the spring of 2017.    

In the forex market for the tenge, conditions are ideal for the perfect storm.  The National Bank says it will stick to a policy that the government has denounced as a failure, because the Bank doesn’t know what else to do.  Bank officials also say they don’t know when they will meet in order to discuss a new plan.  Thus the Bank has turned over the forex market to speculators.  Although the Bank says it “reserves the right” to intervene to stop sharp fluctuations of the exchange rate, it says in the same breath that it can’t afford routine interventions.  How then can it afford a major one?

The Bank’s confused policy signals to speculators the opportunity for a killing.  Since late August, the tenge has become one of the world’s most volatile currencies.  The market is thin, and a large short sale of tenge can appreciably affect the exchange rate – particularly because the Bank, which had recently accounted for 60% of the volume of transactions, has said that it has pulled out of the market.  Leon Taylor, tayloralmaty@gmail.com

Notes
All tenge statistics are from the National Bank of Kazakhstan on its Web page www.nationalbank.kz .

     
Appendix

Dependent Variable: DTENGE


Method: Least Squares


Date: 11/03/15   Time: 18:43


Sample (adjusted): 1995M06 2015M09

Included observations: 244 after adjustments











Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.  










DTENGE(-1)
0.488
0.113
4.302
0.000
DTENGE(-18)
0.170
0.060
2.833
0.005
NEWDAUG15
44.828
3.507
12.782
0.000
NEWDFEB09
-5.286
3.969
-1.332
0.184
NEWDFEB14
-0.061
3.585
-0.017
0.987
NEWDAPRIL99
-4.399
4.012
-1.096
0.274










R-squared
0.615
    Mean dependent var
0.799
Adjusted R-squared
0.607
    S.D. dependent var
4.650
S.E. of regression
2.917
    Akaike info criterion
5.003
Sum squared resid
2024.612
    Schwarz criterion
5.089
Log likelihood
-604.369
    Hannan-Quinn criter.
5.038















Table 1:  Regresses the first difference of the exchange rate on its first and 18th lags as well as on first differences of the four intervention dummies.

In Table 1, DTENGE(-k) denotes the kth lag of the first difference of the monthly exchange rate, which is the dependent variable.  Both lags are statistically significant.  I don’t know why the 18th lag matters, but evidently it is not because of seasonality, since the simple and partial autocorrelation functions indicated that no other lags beyond the first affected the current first difference by much.
The other four independent variables in Table 1 are first differences of the dummies for interventions by the National Bank of Kazakhstan in the foreign exchange market.  The interventions – all of them devaluations -- occurred in April 1999, during the ruble crisis; February 2009, during the global financial crisis; February 2014, after depreciation of the ruble; and August 2015, when annual oil prices were plunging on the spot market.  Of the four interventions, only the most recent one affected the month-to-month increase in the exchange rate with statistical significance. And its practical significance, measured by its coefficient, is quadruple that of the other three interventions.

Table 2 below is the model used for the forecasts.

Dependent Variable: DTENGE


Method: Least Squares


Date: 11/03/15   Time: 18:47


Sample (adjusted): 1995M06 2015M09

Included observations: 244 after adjustments











Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.  










DTENGE(-1)
0.379
0.063
6.038
0.000
DTENGE(-18)
0.176
0.060
2.955
0.003
NEWDAUG15
46.591
3.143
14.822
0.000










R-squared
0.610
    Mean dependent var
0.799
Adjusted R-squared
0.607
    S.D. dependent var
4.650
S.E. of regression
2.914
    Akaike info criterion
4.989
Sum squared resid
2046.596
    Schwarz criterion
5.032
Log likelihood
-605.686
    Hannan-Quinn criter.
5.007
















Table 2: Regresses the first difference of the exchange rate on its own first and eighteenth lags as well as on the first difference of an intervention dummy. 

Date: 10/31/15   Time: 20:04



Sample: 1993M11 2015M09





Included observations: 263


















Autocorrelation
Partial Correlation

AC 
 PAC
 Q-Stat
 Prob














       .|*******
       .|*******
1
0.956
0.956
242.91
0.000
       .|*******
       .|*     |
2
0.924
0.123
470.80
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
3
0.896
0.054
686.19
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
4
0.869
0.007
889.55
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
5
0.843
0.003
1081.6
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
6
0.818
0.006
1263.1
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
7
0.796
0.026
1435.6
0.000
       .|******|
       .|.     |
8
0.775
0.015
1599.8
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
9
0.755
0.006
1756.1
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
10
0.735
-0.000
1904.9
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
11
0.715
-0.003
2046.3
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
12
0.695
-0.009
2180.5
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
13
0.675
-0.005
2307.7
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
14
0.657
0.001
2428.4
0.000
       .|***** |
       .|.     |
15
0.638
-0.006
2542.7
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
16
0.620
-0.000
2651.0
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
17
0.602
0.001
2753.6
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
18
0.585
-0.004
2850.9
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
19
0.565
-0.030
2942.2
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
20
0.546
-0.014
3027.7
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
21
0.532
0.044
3109.2
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
22
0.516
-0.010
3186.3
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
23
0.502
0.009
3259.3
0.000
       .|****  |
       .|.     |
24
0.487
-0.003
3328.6
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
25
0.473
0.002
3394.2
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
26
0.460
-0.002
3456.4
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
27
0.446
-0.005
3515.1
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
28
0.432
-0.004
3570.6
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
29
0.419
-0.010
3622.8
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
30
0.404
-0.015
3671.6
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
31
0.389
-0.016
3717.0
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
32
0.374
-0.014
3759.2
0.000
       .|***   |
       .|.     |
33
0.358
-0.014
3798.1
0.000
       .|**    |
       .|.     |
34
0.343
-0.009
3834.0
0.000
       .|**    |
       .|.     |
35
0.328
-0.011
3866.9
0.000
       .|**    |
       .|.     |
36
0.313
-0.009
3897.1
0.000















Figure 1: Autocorrelation functions for the monthly rate of exchange of tenge for a US dollar, November 1993 through September 2015. 

The last two figures concern how I selected the forecast model.  Figure 1 suggests that an autoregressive function of the exchange rate with one or two lags might be stationary.  No seasonal effect is evident.  The simple autocorrelation function dies down slowly, and the partial autocorrelation function cuts off after one or two lags.

Date: 10/31/15   Time: 20:18



Sample: 1993M11 2015M09





Included observations: 262


















Autocorrelation
Partial Correlation

AC 
 PAC
 Q-Stat
 Prob














       .|**    |
       .|**    |
1
0.332
0.332
29.245
0.000
       .|*     |
       .|.     |
2
0.090
-0.023
31.388
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
3
0.029
0.007
31.607
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
4
0.027
0.019
31.797
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
5
0.025
0.011
31.963
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
6
0.026
0.015
32.148
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
7
0.019
0.006
32.248
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
8
0.023
0.015
32.386
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
9
0.019
0.006
32.481
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
10
0.007
-0.003
32.497
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
11
0.010
0.008
32.526
0.001
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
12
-0.005
-0.014
32.534
0.001
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
13
-0.036
-0.035
32.892
0.002
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
14
-0.016
0.007
32.967
0.003
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
15
-0.007
-0.002
32.979
0.005
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
16
-0.010
-0.008
33.006
0.007
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
17
0.006
0.014
33.015
0.011
       .|*     |
       .|*     |
18
0.143
0.157
38.847
0.003
       .|*     |
       .|*     |
19
0.191
0.111
49.257
0.000
       .|.     |
       *|.     |
20
0.026
-0.090
49.458
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
21
-0.007
0.004
49.471
0.000
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
22
-0.029
-0.030
49.707
0.001
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
23
-0.012
-0.002
49.750
0.001
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
24
-0.014
-0.017
49.805
0.001
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
25
-0.012
-0.010
49.847
0.002
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
26
0.011
0.017
49.882
0.003
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
27
0.011
-0.002
49.920
0.005
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
28
0.023
0.022
50.073
0.006
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
29
0.032
0.022
50.376
0.008
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
30
0.039
0.024
50.839
0.010
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
31
0.006
-0.004
50.850
0.014
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
32
-0.004
0.006
50.856
0.018
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
33
-0.020
-0.026
50.974
0.024
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
34
-0.010
0.002
51.004
0.031
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
35
-0.006
0.001
51.013
0.039
       .|.     |
       .|.     |
36
-0.014
-0.031
51.075
0.049















 Figure 2:  Autocorrelation functions for the first difference of the monthly rate of exchange of tenge for a US dollar.

In Figure 2, the simple autocorrelation function for the monthly change in the exchange rate dies down, or cuts off, after one lag.  The partial autocorrelation function cuts off after one lag.  Weak correlations occur at the eighteenth and nineteenth lags.  No seasonal effect is evident.  The patterns suggest that the first difference of the exchange rate is an autoregressive function of the first, eighteenth and nineteenth lags.  In my OLS model, I dropped the nineteenth lag because of statistical insignificance.


Dataset:  November 1993 through September 2015 

Month
Tenge
1
4.69
2
5.82
3
8.17
4
11.41
5
16.70
6
23.59
7
35.60
8
41.73
9
44.66
10
45.69
11
47.04
12
48.62
13
51.02
14
53.47
15
55.43
16
58.67
17
60.49
18
62.09
19
63.11
20
63.54
21
62.62
22
56.69
23
59.91
24
61.54
25
63.35
26
63.97
27
64.30
28
65.20
29
65.22
30
65.50
31
66.44
32
66.80
33
67.03
34
67.34
35
68.14
36
69.18
37
69.96
38
72.54
39
74.70
40
75.63
41
75.44
42
75.24
43
75.46
44
75.50
45
75.53
46
75.55
47
75.55
48
75.55
49
75.55
50
75.55
51
76.09
52
76.40
53
76.44
54
76.50
55
76.58
56
76.75
57
77.18
58
77.83
59
79.39
60
80.96
61
82.21
62
83.31
63
84.40
64
85.18
65
86.75
66
111.05
67
118.50
68
130.36
69
132.20
70
131.95
71
135.21
72
140.86
73
139.63
74
138.22
75
139.02
76
139.77
77
141.25
78
142.17
79
142.30
80
142.50
81
142.70
82
142.66
83
142.72
84
142.64
85
143.56
86
144.31
87
145.09
88
145.23
89
145.42
90
145.52
91
145.95
92
146.40
93
146.69
94
147.06
95
147.52
96
147.93
97
148.43
98
149.59
99
151.14
100
151.76
101
152.12
102
152.54
103
152.90
104
153.10
105
153.52
106
154.07
107
154.42
108
154.40
109
154.30
110
155.08
111
155.53
112
153.98
113
151.55
114
151.82
115
151.21
116
149.15
117
146.94
118
146.76
119
147.90
120
147.92
121
147.07
122
145.08
123
141.20
124
139.18
125
139.01
126
138.20
127
137.12
128
136.38
129
135.56
130
136.16
131
135.43
132
133.26
133
130.75
134
130.04
135
130.11
136
130.13
137
130.53
138
131.37
139
131.37
140
133.75
141
135.66
142
135.52
143
134.31
144
133.83
145
134.10
146
133.88
147
133.13
148
131.40
149
128.76
150
126.94
151
122.62
152
119.76
153
118.13
154
122.63
155
126.20
156
127.66
157
127.92
158
127.93
159
125.74
160
124.79
161
124.03
162
122.19
163
120.23
164
121.96
165
122.09
166
124.85
167
122.46
168
120.84
169
120.69
170
120.78
171
120.35
172
120.34
173
120.67
174
120.50
175
120.56
176
120.70
177
120.29
178
120.02
179
119.67
180
119.85
181
120.06
182
120.58
183
121.27
184
144.90
185
150.73
186
150.71
187
150.34
188
150.34
189
150.62
190
150.78
191
150.87
192
150.79
193
149.92
194
148.69
195
148.09
196
147.87
197
147.14
198
146.72
199
146.67
200
147.05
201
147.51
202
147.35
203
147.37
204
147.58
205
147.50
206
147.41
207
147.05
208
146.45
209
145.76
210
145.45
211
145.56
212
145.77
213
145.90
214
146.56
215
147.21
216
147.99
217
147.85
218
147.90
219
148.38
220
148.26
221
147.79
222
147.79
223
147.89
224
148.86
225
149.74
226
149.54
227
149.77
228
150.39
229
150.52
230
150.42
231
150.73
232
150.51
233
150.73
234
150.96
235
151.00
236
151.43
237
152.58
238
152.93
239
153.24
240
153.99
241
153.41
242
154.04
243
154.96
244
173.36
245
182.31
246
182.04
247
182.42
248
183.51
249
183.52
250
182.07
251
181.96
252
181.47
253
180.87
254
181.81
255
183.70
256
184.92
257
185.31
258
185.73
259
185.80
260
186.04
261
186.80
262
203.62
263
258.17





References

Bruce L. Bowerman, Richard T. O’Connell, and Anne B. Koehler.  Forecasting, time series, and regression: An applied approach.  Fourth edition.  Australia: Brooks/Cole. 2005.

National Bank of Kazakhstan. Press-release No. 58: National Bank reduces its participation in the domestic foreign exchange market to preserve its   reserves.  www.nationalbank.kz. November 5, 2015. 

Robert S. Pindyck and Daniel L. Rubinfeld.  Econometric models and economic forecasts.  Fourth edition.  Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. 1997. 

No comments:

Post a Comment