Is there Room for Forex Interventions under Inflation Targeting Framework?

Evidence from Mexico and Turkey

by

Ilker Domaç† and Alfonso Mendoza‡

Abstract

The salient characteristics of emerging market economies coupled with the increasing
adoption of inflation targeting (IT) in these countries has stimulated much debate about
the role of the exchange rate in IT regimes. The paper aims at shedding more light on this
issue by investigating whether central bank foreign exchange interventions have any
impact on the volatility of the exchange rate in Mexico and Turkey since the adoption of
the floating regime. To this end, the study, using daily data on foreign exchange
intervention, employs an Exponential GARCH framework. Empirical results suggest that
both the amount and frequency of foreign exchange interventions have decreased the
volatility of the exchange rates in these countries. The findings corroborate the notion
that if foreign exchange interventions are carried out with finesse and sensibly—i.e., not
to defend a particular exchange rate—they could play a useful role under IT framework
in containing the adverse effects of temporary exchange rate shocks on inflation and
financial stability.

Keywords: Inflation targeting; exchange rate volatility; central bank intervention; E-GARCH.

JEL classification: C32; E58; F31; G15

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the institutions
with which they are affiliated.
† Corresponding author.
Central Bank of Turkey
Istiklal Caddesi No:10
Ulus, Ankara 06100
Turkey
E-mail Address: ilker.domac@tcmb.gov.tr
‡ The University of York
E-mail Address: amv101@york.ac.uk
1. Introduction

The successful performance of a number of industrialized countries that adopted

inflation targeting (IT) has rendered this monetary policy strategy an attractive

alternative for emerging market economies (EMs). Indeed, a number of EMs has already

instituted IT or some form of this monetary policy framework. The increasing attraction

of inflation targeting among EMs as a monetary policy framework combined with the

salient characteristics of EMs has, in turn, stimulated much discussion about the role of

exchange rate in inflation targeting regimes.

More specifically, it is argued that emerging market economies are often beset by

a lack of credibility and limited access to international markets; they are beset by more

pronounced adverse effects of exchange rate volatility on trade, high liability

dollarization, and higher pass-through from the exchange rate to inflation.1

Consequently, it is argued that benign neglect of the exchange rate is not a feasible option

for emerging market economies.

This, in turn, begs the following question: How should policy makers take

account of the exchange rate under IT? It is true that under IT, the credibility of the

regime entails an institutional commitment to price stability as the primary goal of

monetary policy, to which other goals, including the exchange rate, are subordinated.

Monetary authorities in EMs, however, may need to take exchange rate movements into

consideration at least for two reasons. First, the evolution of the exchange rate has an

important impact on inflation owing to the open nature of EMs. Second, the presence of

a thin foreign exchange market or temporary shocks in EMs often forces these countries

to dampen short-term exchange rate volatility.

1
Calvo (1999).

2
 As a consequence, EMs often resort to intervening or adjusting interest rates to

contain the effect of temporary exchange rate shocks on inflation and financial stability.2

In practice, it appears that all inflation targeting central banks explicitly allow for the

option of intervening in foreign exchange markets, although industrial countries have

rarely relied on this option in recent years (see Appendix). Indeed, evidence suggests that

EMs, which typically have thinly-traded securities, engaged in foreign exchange

interventions more frequently compared to industrial countries since they are more

vulnerable to disturbances stemming from the foreign exchange market (Carere et. al.

(2002)).

Responding too heavily and too frequently to movements in the exchange rate

under IT, however, runs the risk of transforming the exchange rate into a nominal anchor

for monetary policy that takes precedence over the inflation target. One possible way to

avoid this problem for inflation targeting central banks in EMs is to adopt transparent

mechanisms which would ensure that polices to influence the exchange rate are aimed at

smoothing the impact of temporary shocks and achieving the inflation objective.

Granted that central banks adopt such mechanisms, can they really mitigate

unwarranted short-run exchange rate fluctuations? In the context of the IT framework,

this study aims to shed more light on this issue by considering the experiences of Mexico

and Turkey under the floating regime. To this end, the paper attempts to model central

bank intervention and its effect on volatility with autoregressive conditional

heteroscedasticity models. In particular, the study employs the Exponential-GARCH

model of Nelson (1991), which allows for the inclusion of negative values as exogenous

2
See Goldstein (2001) and Mishkin and Schmidt-Hebbel (2001) for more on this.

3
shocks in the variance, with a view to study the impact of sale and purchase operations

separately in the analysis.

The empirical findings suggest that both the amount and frequency of foreign

exchange interventions have decreased the volatility of the exchange rates in countries

under consideration. The results imply that sale operations are effective in influencing

the exchange rate and its volatility, while purchase operations are found to be statistically

insignificant in affecting the exchange rate and its volatility. All in all, the findings lend

support to the notion that if foreign exchange interventions are carried out with finesse

and sensibly—i.e., not to defend a particular exchange rate—they could play a useful role

under IT framework in mitigating the adverse effects of temporary exchange rate shocks

on inflation and financial stability.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section provides a

brief overview of the literature on central bank intervention. Section 3 discusses the key

aspects of the intervention mechanisms in Mexico and Turkey under floating exchange

rate regime. Section 4 describes the empirical framework to model conditional volatility

and the effect of central bank interventions. Section 5 presents the empirical results.

Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. A Brief Review of the Literature on Central Bank Intervention

This section briefly reviews the literature on central bank intervention. Empirical

studies and the statements by central banks suggest that central banks intervene in foreign

exchange markets to slow or correct excessive trends in the exchange rate, i.e. they “lean

against the wind”, and to calm disorderly markets (Lewis 1995, Baille and Osterberg

4
1997). The channels through which a non-sterilized intervention in the foreign market

may affect the exchange rate are well known in the economic literature.3 A purchase of

dollars from the Central Bank may depreciate the underlying currency in the same

proportion to the increase in liquidity on the money market and vice versa.

Sterilized intervention, on the other hand, might affect the exchange rate not

through changes in liquidity, but through two main channels: portfolio balance channel

and the signaling channel. The portfolio balance channel assumes that investors diversify

based on mean variance analysis.4 As long as foreign and domestic bonds are imperfect

substitutes, sterilized interventions, which alter the relative supply of local bonds, will

always induce a change in the composition of the investor’s portfolio. Investors will then

require a greater (lower) return—measured by a risk premium—to absorb the increased

(lower) supply of such instruments and this, along with an equal-amount-increase in the

demand for foreign bonds, will cause a depreciation (appreciation) of the exchange rate.

Since interventions are small relative to the stock of outstanding bonds most

authors, including Rogoff (1984), have expressed skepticism that interventions could

have large impact through the portfolio balance channel. Not surprisingly, many studies

do not find evidence of this channel and those that do such as Evans and Lyons (2001)

and Ghosh (1992) suggest it is weak.

The signaling channel refers to the signals sent by the central bank to the market.

More specifically, if the central bank uses foreign exchange interventions credibly to

indicate intended changes in monetary policy, the resulting appreciation of the exchange

3
For a more thorough review of the literature see Sarno and Taylor (2001), Dominguez and Frankel
(1993b), and Edison (1993).
4
A detailed analysis and description of the portfolio effect can be found in Domínguez and Frenkel
(1993a).

5
rate can be described as the signaling channel. The policy intentions or beliefs of the

authority with respect to the foreign exchange market are made explicit with the aim of

stabilizing or re-directing the market. Even in the case where such intentions are never

realized, the exchange rate may change as a result of changing expectations about

fundamentals.

The impact of intervention through the signaling channel has often been found to

be substantially stronger than through the portfolio balance channel (Dominguez and

Frankel (1993a)). For the signaling channel to be an ongoing transmission mechanism,

central banks should be seen to follow interventions with appropriate changes in

monetary policy. Consequently, interventions operating through the signaling channel do

not constitute an independent policy tool.5

3. A Quick Glance at the key Aspects of Foreign Exchange Intervention Policies in

Mexico and Turkey

3.1 The Banco de México

In the face of balance of payments and financial crisis, the Central Bank could no

longer defend the predetermined parity and decided to float the peso on December 19th

1994. With the adoption of the floating regime, the management of monetary aggregates

became the anchor for the evolution of the general price level by early 1995. During the

first half of 1995, however, the authorities modified this ruled based strategy centered

solely on quantitative targets by incorporating discretion (via influencing the level of

5
A recent study on Mexico, which aimed at investigating the portfolio and signaling effect, indicated that
dollar purchases through the options mechanism have not significantly affected the foreign exchange
market (Werner (1997b)).

6
interest rates) in the conduct of monetary policy. Under the new strategy, the discretion

was constrained by the following ultimate goal: the attainment of the annual inflation

objective, and in the medium to long run, the gradual reduction of inflation. This

framework was maintained until 1997 and thereafter the monetary policy framework

began a gradual transition toward an explicit full-fledged inflation targeting regime. As a

consequence, the monetary base became less relevant and the inflation target more

significant in the implementation of monetary policy. The Central Bank announced a

series of annual inflation targets in 1999 with a view to converge to the inflation rate

prevailing in the country’s main trading partners. From this year on, the actual annual

rates of inflation have been below their ceilings and the Central Bank expects to attain its

final goal of a stationary annual inflation target of 3 percent by 2003. 6

Although it is no longer the anchor of the economy, the role of the exchange rate

as an adjustment variable in the conduct of the monetary policy still remains crucial. The

intensity of pass-trough shocks on inflation and output levels (and volatility) hinge on the

relative stability of the exchange rate, which, by and large, lies behind the policies of

sterilized foreign exchange rate intervention. Such stabilization has presumably relied

more on the effectiveness of USD sales in the foreign exchange market than to USD

purchases, which have been mainly utilized to increase the amount of international assets.

In August 1996, the authorities decided to auction Put Options7 on the last

business day of each month, giving the right to credit institutions of selling dollars to the

Banco de México in any day during the life of the contract as long as the exercise price

6
See Schmidt-Hebbel and Werner (2002) for more on this.
7
This section provides a brief description of the derivatives mechanism. A more comprehensive discussion
of this issue can be found in Werner and Milo (1998).

7
 (determined a day earlier) is no greater than the twenty-day moving average of the ‘fix

exchange rate’.8

Figure 1 presents the cumulative net purchases of USD since August 1996. By the

end of the Put Options program in June 2001, international reserves represented a 30% of

the 40,866 millions of dollars. In total, market conditions allowed the participants to

exercise the derivative instruments 132 times. Although there is no a clear policy of

international reserves holdings, from the authorities’ standpoint, this amount of foreign

currency seems to be sufficient to insure the floating of the peso against capital flight or

sudden shocks to the capital account.

Figure 1. Banco de Mexico’s cumulative purchases of dollarsa Figure 2. Daily purchases and sales of US dollarsb
12000

500

Purchases/sales of US dollars

$US millions Amount at auction

10000
8000

200
6000
4000

-100
2000

-400
0

8/1/1996 4/1/1997 12/1/1997 8/1/1998 4/1/1999 12/1/1999 8/1/2000 4/1/2001

01.08.96 01.03.97 01.10.97 01.05.98 01.12.98 01.07.99 01.02.00 01.09.00 01.04.01

a: 1st August 1996 – 29th June 2001; b: August 1996 – June 2001 (maximum amount at auction in doted lines).

The discontinuation of the Options Program may be attributed to the increasing

concerns related to balance sheet currency mismatches. The bank assets returns (priced

in dollars) have been lower with respect to the interest paid for government instruments

denominated in local currency—a situation that worsens in episodes of excess demand

for Pesos. In addition, there could be funding risks associated to the different maturity

dates of both assets and liabilities.

8
The fix exchange rate is the exchange rate used by credit institutions in Mexico to settle transactions
denominated in foreign currency and to be liquidated within the country.

8
 In addition to keep some symmetry in the intervention policy, internal and

external destabilizing shocks have been controlled by daily auction sales of US$ 200

million in a formal program of Contingent Sales of dollars since February 1997.9 Figure

2 shows the magnitude and frequency of the USD sales and purchases in millions with

the auction amounts denoted by the lines. It is interesting to note that the amount of sales

during the period under investigation, with 14 interventions by the Banco de México,

reached only USD 2,100 million dollars.

All in all, the main goal of the Put Options program has been the accumulation of

international reserves, whereas contingent sales of dollars have been activated in periods

of high volatility and liquidity contractions.10 The authorities have made it clear that both

Put Options and contingent sales are not intended to affect or defend a particular

exchange rate.

3.2 The Central Bank of Turkey

On February 22nd, 2001, Turkey announced its intention to float the lira, after

following a quasi-currency board/crawling peg exchange rate regime for over a year, as

part of its economic reform program. During the peak period of the crisis—the first

phase of forex operations—the priority of the Central Bank was to ensure the integrity of

the payment system and keep potential systemic risks under control. Foreign exchange

sales were conducted with a view to assist the banking system to cover its foreign

exchange short position and to enable banks to pay their foreign currency-based

9
Before this program, during the crisis of 1995, an additional USD5 billion were sold to compensate the
amortization of TESOBONOS and some commercial bank’s credit lines (Schmidt-Hebbel and Werner
(2002)).
10
However, the Annual Report for 1998 acknowledges that contingent sales may in fact worsen volatility
during liquidity contractions (see page 130).

9
liabilities. Timing, total volume and value of sales were decided in accordance with

market fluctuations, payment default risks and daily sentiment of the market players.

Other than direct sales, foreign exchange swaps have also been utilized under appropriate

conditions.

A new IMF supported economic program, which was launched in May 2001,

marked the third phase of forex operations. Under this program, pre-announcements of

auctions were paused; and instead of daily base operations, sales have been decided

according to daily market conditions. Additionally, it was decided that the total sale

amount would not be announced before the auction and the final decision was given in

accordance with total demand and daily market movements.

The excess Turkish lira liquidity in the market, which was injected as a result of

the utilization of the IMF and World Bank credits for Turkish Lira payments by the

Treasury, was mopped up by the programmed and scheduled foreign exchange sale

auctions. Contrary to earlier phases during which the aim was to support the banking

system, in this phase the Central Bank used forex operations as part of liquidity

management policies.

During July 2001, pre-announced auction figures remained within the minimum

levels, so that the Central Bank had the option to increase the amount to be sold if the

need were to emerge. Moreover, instead of one auction per day, auctions were placed in

certain dates with around two auctions per week. Daily auctions were put back in place

in September 2001 with a daily sale amount of USD 20 million and were continued

through November. However, these pre-announced auctions were paused in December

10
2001, as the Treasury did not plan to use additional external funding for the purpose of

domestic payments.

The fourth phase of forex operations was determined by the Central Bank’s

decision to increase the level of foreign exchange reserves through foreign exchange

buying auctions. However, as was the case with the pre-announced and pre-scheduled

auctions, there was no targeted level of reserves to be achieved. The aim was to enhance

the level of foreign exchange reserves without creating additional volatility in the foreign

exchange rates and without disturbing the banks’ foreign exchange positions.

The Central Bank resumed holding daily foreign exchange buying auctions in the

amount of USD 20 million during June 2002 as well. During this month, twenty foreign

exchange buying auctions were scheduled, so that the maximum amount of foreign

exchange to be bought through these auctions would not exceed USD 400 million.

However, the Central Bank decided to suspend the foreign exchange buying auctions

temporarily from July 1st 2002, in view of the reduced volume of the transactions and

increased political uncertainty prior to early elections in November 2002.

4. Modeling Volatility and Central Bank Intervention

A recent wave of studies on the effects of Central Bank intervention on the

volatility of the exchange rate has relied on the stylized Generalized Autoregressive

Conditional Heterosledasitcity (GARCH) models.11 For instance, to analyze the effect of

the Deutsche Bundesbank and the Central Bank of Japan on the volatility of the Mark and

the Yen respectively, Dominguez (1998) used the parsimonious GARCH(1,1) model of

11
In the case of Mexico an alternative approach would consist in analyzing the implied volatility of option
prices. The main practical limitation, however, is the lack of information on a daily basis.

11
Bollerslev (1986). In an attempt to avoid violating non-negativity conditions,

Dominguez (1998) included the absolute value of sales and purchases as exogenous

variables in the variance equation. This transformation, however, did not allow the

investigation to distinguish the effect of sales (expressed in negative magnitudes) on the

conditional variance adequately. Instead, the study focused on the overall effect of

intervention.

Recent studies for the above-mentioned currencies suggest that traditional

GARCH models are outperformed by fractionally integrated or long-memory processes

and tend to underestimate the intervention effects in terms of volatility.12 In their study

on the Bank of Australia intervention operations and its effect on exchange rate volatility,

Kim, et. al. (2000) employ the Exponential-GARCH (E-GARCH) model of Nelson

(1991). The E-GARCH allows for the inclusion of negative variables affecting the

volatility, which, in turn, makes it possible to analyze the components of the intervention

operations—i.e., sales and purchases as well.

In this paper, we also follow this approach to analyze both the overall effect of

intervention and the individual effect of sales and purchases. More specifically, we

propose the following process to model exchange rate returns and conditional volatility

assuming that the error terms are drawn from a Double Exponential (DE) distribution:13

12
See for instance (Beine, et. al. (2002)).
13
A preliminary analysis suggested the use of the Generalized Error Distribution (GED). The estimated tail
thickness parameter (ν) could not reject the hypothesis Ho: ν= 1, which corresponds to the Laplace
−|x|
distribution whose distribution function is f ( x ) = e / 2 . In addition, Akaike and Bayes criteria
preferred this conditional density over a GED, normal or t distributions. This analysis is not included in the
paper, although the results are readily available upon request.

12
 rt = φ 0 + φ int er INTER + φ sales SALES + φ purchs PURCHS + φ sign SIGN
+ φ brady BRADY + φ ON ON + ε t ; ε t ~ DE (0, σ t2 ), ε t = et σ t , et ~ iid (0,1)
(1)
ln (σ ) = w + α (| et −1 | +γet −1 ) + β ln(σ
t
2 2
t −1 ) + δ int er INTER + δ sales SALES
+ δ purchs PURCHS + δ sign SIGN + δ brady BRADY + δ ON ON

where INTER, SALES, PURCHS stand for, all in millions of USD, central bank

intervention, sales of foreign exchange, and purchases of foreign exchange,

respectively.14

SIGN is a dummy variable with a value of unity on the day of a public report, and

is intended to signal exchange rate policy intentions in dates where there was a

modification of the contractual terms of the auctions. Information on this variable is

recorded from the Central Banks Monetary Reports, Annual Reports and Press Releases.

In an attempt to directly account for the effect of intervention in the money

market, we include the policy instrument for each country, denoted as ON. For Mexico,

we use the actual daily stance or target for cumulative balances in millions of pesos,

whereas for Turkey the annualized first difference of the overnight interest rate is

employed.

Werner (1997b) has reported a very strong association between the international

price for debt and the exchange rate process in Mexico. In light of his finding, we include

the first difference of the Brady bond yields, denoted as BRADY.

14
In the case of Mexico, given that investors will decide to exercise the put options in appreciating trends,
Werner (1997b) noticed that the variable PURCHS cannot be an exogenous variable since it is correlated
with the error term (εt) in equation (1). In order to address the inconsistency problem, he uses the two
period lag of the variable as instrumental variable. In this paper, we also follow this approach (see Werner
(1997b) for more details).

13
 To examine the effects of Central Bank Intervention in frequency terms, that is to

study the response of the variance to the number of times the institution sells or buys at

the same time, we include dummy variables taking a value of one for every purchase and

minus one for every sale of dollars in the market, and zero in the case of no sales or

purchases. In other words, INTER takes a value of unity when net purchases of dollars

(the sum of buys and sells) are positive, minus one when is negative, and 0 otherwise.

PURCHS will take a value of one when there is a purchase of dollars and zero otherwise,

while SALES takes a value of minus one for every sale of dollars.

The parameter α in the variance equation emulates the clustering effect showed

by traditional GARCH models, whereas γ is a leverage parameter allowing the variance

to respond differently following equal magnitude negative or positive shocks. Volatility

persistence is measured by β under the restriction that the estimate is smaller than one to

avoid an explosive behavior of the variance.

To examine the asymmetric response of the variance to positive and negative

innovations, we employ the News Impact Curve (NIC) by Engle and Ng (1993), which is

defined as:

  αγ + α 
 A exp σ  for ε t > 0
  
NIC (ε t | σ t2 = σ 2 ) = 
 A exp αγ − α  for ε < 0 (2)
  σ 
t

A = σ 2 β exp( w − α 2 )
π

14
 Finally, to account for day of the week effects, we tested the significance of

dummy variables. The associated coefficients turned out to be individually and jointly not

different from zero.15

5. Data Description and Estimation Results

5.1 Data Analysis16

Daily exchange rate returns are calculated by taking the log difference of the US

dollar/ Mexican Peso ($US/MXP) exchange rate from the first of August 1996 to the 29th

of June 2001 and of the US dollar/Turkish Lira ($US/TL) from February 22nd 2001 to

May 30 2002 respectively. For Mexico, we use the exchange rate determined in the inter-

bank foreign exchange market 48 hours.17 In the case of Turkey, we employ the selling

spot rate.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the exchange rate log returns, the first

difference of the Brady bond yields in Mexico, the target for cumulative balances (or

short) in millions of pesos, and the first difference of the overnight interest rate in

Turkey.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics on exchange rate log-returns and money market.

x σ Sa Kb SWc Min. Max. N
US$/MXP -0.0061 d 0.0026 -1.6018 19.43 0.8285* -0.0243 0.0155 1,282
US$/TL -0.0969d 0.0119 5.6253 67.41 0.6564* -0.1454 0.0546 317
BRADYe -0.0033 0.3229 -0.1581 17.16 0.7933* -3.0400 2.3700 1,282
ONf -12.525 164.31 16.0202 267.88 0.0802* -2,823.3 4.0000 317
Shortg -130.40 128.00 -0.6873 -0.6063 0.8362* -400 0 1,282
*
Reject the null at the 1% level. a S=Skewness; b K=Kurtosis; c SW= Shapiro-Wilk test for normality; d Numbers multiplied by 100; e
BRADY is the first difference of the Mexican brady bond; f ON is the first difference of the overnight Turkish interest rate and gShort
is the Target for Cumulative Balances in Mexico in millions of Pesos.

15
We do not report such estimators on the grounds of parsimony, though the results can be obtained from
the authors upon request.
16
All data are obtained from the Banco de Mexico and the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey except
for Brady par yield, which is taken from Datastream (mnemonics MXBSYLD).
17
We also used the spot floating exchange rate and the results are basically equivalent.

15
 Log-returns present excess kurtosis and significant departures from normality as

indicated by Shapiro-Wilk test. The distribution of the Turkish Lira is biased to the right

while the peso to the left.

Figure 3: US$/MXP exchange ratea Figure 4: US$/MXP exchange rate returnsa

0.16

0.03
0.15

0.02
0.14

0.01
0.13

0.12

0.00
0.11

-0.01
0.1

0.09 -0.02
8/1/1996 8/1/1997 8/1/1998 8/1/1999 8/1/2000 8/1/1996 3/1/1997 10/1/1997 5/1/1998 12/1/1998 7/1/1999 2/1/2000 9/1/2000 4/1/2001

Figure 5: US$/TL exchange rateb Figure 6: US$/TL exchange rate returnsb

0,05
1,4

0,00
1,2

-0,05
1,0

-0,10
0,8

-0,15
0,6

22.02.2001 22.05.2001 22.08.2001 22.11.2001 22.02.2002 22.05.2002 22.02.2001 22.05.2001 22.08.2001 22.11.2001 22.02.2002 22.05.2002

a: August 1996–June 2001, contingent sales in vertical lines; b: 22 February 2001– 29 May 2002.

Table 2 presents the results of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Perron

tests for unit roots. The findings of both tests show that log-returns of the Peso and Lira

can be treated as stationary variables.

16
Table 2. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Philips-Perron (PP) unit root tests a
ADF PP
Currency (5) (20) (5) (20)
US$/MXP -15.19* -7.52* -37.29* 37.26*
US$/TL -8.07* -3.76* -15.09* -15.11*
*
Significant at the 1% level. a The order of augmentation is in parenthesis and the tests include a drift term.

Table 3 displays statistics on the Banco de México daily foreign exchange market

intervention. The average amount of put options at auction was of USD 235.8 million. To

put it into context, this is comparable to the mean sales or purchases of dollars carried out

by the Fed during the period 1977 to 1994. The average amount of exercised options was,

however, USD 9.6 million.

The amount and frequency of contingent sales is substantially smaller than that of

the purchases. There was a sale of dollars every 100 working days of about USD 1.7

million on average. The maximum amount of USD sales is 200 million, which took place

on September 10, 1998, and is almost equivalent to the highest amount of exercised

options. On this day, there was also a USD 278 million discretionary and unanticipated

sale of dollars.

Table 3. Statistics of foreign exchange daily intervention in Mexico, August 1996-

June 2001.
Average Amount (m.d.) Dispersion (m.d.) Max. (m.d.)

Put Options 235.8 97.10 500

Exercised Options 9.6 37.03 279
Sales 1.7 17.36 200

The doted lines in Figure 3 with the $US/MXP spot exchange rate and Figure 4

with log exchange rate returns from August 1996 to June 2001 show the points at which

there were contingent sales of dollars, which mainly occurred during high volatility

periods and seemed to be followed by currency appreciations.

17
 In general, one may say that the magnitude and frequency of interventions in

Mexico, which declined noticeably since 1999, are in line with the experience of other

countries that practice floating with varying degrees of “dirt”.18

5.2 Estimation Results

This section aims to assess whether central bank interventions both in frequency

and magnitude have any impact on the evolution of the exchange rate and its volatility.

To this end, Tables 4 and 5 report the empirical results pertaining to the overall and

individual central bank intervention effects on the conditional mean and variance.19,20 The

first two columns corresponding to each country present the E-GARCH parameter

estimates with exogenous shocks measured in magnitudes and frequencies, respectively.

The column labeled restricted in Table 5 for each country shows the basic model with no

intervention effects, that is φinter=φpurch=φsales=φsign=φbrady=φon=φput=0 in both the mean and

variance equations.

Diagnostics and decision criteria are presented at the bottom of the tables. Akaike

and Bayes criteria select a parsimonious random walk plus drift to model the mean

exchange rate returns of both currencies.21 Ljung-Box statistics for the presence of

18
In the real world clean floats do not exist. Even the US, usually regarded as the cleanest of the floaters,
intervenes occasionally in the foreign exchange market. In the case of Mexico, the majority of sale
interventions were associated with the pressures exerted by the Zamba and Russian crises during 1998.
19
The overall effect of interventions is studied by setting φpurch=φsales=0 in equation (1). The individual
impacts are analyzed by constraining φinter=0 in the same equation.
20
The lag structure in the estimations is determined by the Bayesian and Akaike information criteria.
21
In the case of Mexico, this is in line with Werner (1997a) and Werner (1997b). The difference of local
and foreign interest rates was also considered as a regressor; however, this variable became statistically
insignificant in both countries once departures from normality are taken into account.

18
autocorrelation in the standardized residuals and in the squares of the standardized

residuals cannot reject the null at conventional levels.22

5.2.1 Mean Equation

We first examine the exchange rate mean level. According to our estimates,

overall intervention operations during the floating regime have had a highly significant

positive impact on the exchange rates, as can be seen from φinter in Table 4. A net sale of

USD 100 million in Mexico appreciates the exchange rate by 0.08 percent, whereas in

Turkey a similar operation appreciates the lira by 0.20 percent.

As can be seen from Table 4, the results show that both the size and the frequency

of central bank interventions in the market exert a positive pressure on the foreign

exchange—i.e. appreciation. More specifically, our findings imply that whenever the

exchange market perceives the presence of the central bank, the Mexican peso and the

Turkish lira appreciate by 0.12 percent and 0.09 percent, respectively.

22
The exception is net intervention measured in frequencies for Turkey presented in Table 5 where the
introduction of qualitative dummies somehow induces heteroskedasticity. To deal with potential model
misspecification we calculated robust t-ratios using the Quasi Maximum Likelihood method suggested by
Bollerslev and Wooldridge (1992). The results, available from the authors, are consistent with the original
findings and basically confirm the conclusions.

19
Table 4. EGARCH(1,1) Estimations: Net Foreign Exchange Central Bank
Intervention in Mexico and Turkey.
Mexico Turkey
Magnitudesa Frequencies Restricted Magnitudesa Frequencies Restricted
Mean Equation
φο -0.00008*** -0.00014* -3.54e-09 0.00044*** -0.00003 0.000001
b
(-1.6101) (-2.8403) (-9.9e-07) (1.9429) (-0.1441) (0.03728)
φinterc 8.3e-06* 0.00117* _ 0.00002* 0.00085* _
(13.636) (15.4138) (3.8514) (3.0779)
φsign -0.00005 -0.00020 _ 0.0009 0.00203 _
(-0.1197) (-0.43317) (0.06246) (1.6462)
φbrady -0.00062* -0.00058* -0.00061* _ _ _
(-4.5418) (4.3338) (-4.3340)
φONd 3.13e-07 4.39-07*** _ -4.3e-07 5.9e-07 _
(1.2132) (1.7177) (-0.0050) (-0.0065)
Variance Equation
ω -1.8810* -2.2050* -1.6680* -2.9820* -3.4460* -0.3239*
(-7.2810) (-7.9162) (-6.8440) (-2.8189) (-2.7182) (-2.5764)
α 0.2246* 0.2482* 0.2338* 0.4907* 0.5961* 0.1489*
(5.4018) (5.1337) (5.5630) (2.7391) (3.3950) (3.3351)
β 0.8617* 0.8371* 0.8799* 0.7502* 0.7076* 0.9796*
(43.0238) (39.4554) (46.7700) (7.6158) (5.9962) (85.2927)
* * *
γ -0.9467 -0.8697 -0.9933 _ _ _
(-4.3584) (-3.8704) (-4.4210)
δinter -0.00373* -0.6018* _ -0.00329** -0.2536** _
(-6.8121) (-6.9585) (-2.2635) (-2.1041)
δON 0.00014 0.00013 _ -0.00204* -0.00199 _
(1.4113) (1.2007) (-1.6208) (-1.5600)
δsig 0.4965*** 0.5761** _ 0.2222 -0.1057 _
(1.7702) (2.1004) (0.2064) (-0.1004)
δput -0.00008 _ _ _ _ _
(-0.55512)
Decision Criteria
AICe -12,582.7 -12,625.5 -12,491.1 -2,317.6 -2,309.8 -2,277.3
BICe -12,505.4 -12,553.4 -12,460.1 -2,280.0 -2,272.2 -2,262.3
Qε(20)f 22.00 25.08 23.79 16.40 17.64 12.88
[0.3405]g [0.1984] [0.2517] [0.6915] [0.6111] [0.8824]
2 f
Q ε (20) 9.55 11.11 7.88 14.97 31.96 0.46
[0.9756] [0.9433] [0.9926] [0.7781] [0.0437] [0.9999]
*, ** and *** denote significance at the 1, 5 and 10% levels respectively. a In millions of US dollars; b t-ratios in parenthesis; c Net
intervention is measured as the sum of sales and purchases in a given day; d ON denotes the target for cumulative balances (short) in
Mexico and the overnight interest rate in Turkey; e AIC and BIC are the Akaike and Bayes Information Criteria respectively; f Qε(20)
and Q2ε(20) are the twentieth-order Ljung-Box tests for correlation in the standardized residuals and in the squares of the standardized
residuals; g P-values in brackets.

In Table 5, we present the effect of intervention on the exchange rate by type of

operations. A sale to the market of USD 100 million appreciates the Peso by 0.90 percent,

while an equivalent intervention in Turkey appreciates the lira by 0.20 percent.

Similarly, for every presence of the Central Banks, the Peso and the lira appreciate by 1.3

percent and 0.16 percent, respectively. By contrast, purchases of dollars are generally not

20
statistically different from zero, suggesting that sterilized interventions of this nature do

not influence the exchange rate mean level.

Table 5. EGARCH(1,1) Estimations: Central Bank dollar sales/purchases in

amounts and frequencies.
México Turkey
Magnitudesa Frequencies Magnitudesa Frequencies
Mean Equation
φο 9.5e-09 4.8e-09 0.00033 0.00051
b (0.0010) (1.2560) (1.4792)
(0.0003)
* * *
φsales 0.00009 0.01279 0.00002 0.00158*
(9.0397) (8.5266) (3.2444) (2.7893)
φpurchs 4.8e-07 6.6e-05 0.00003 0.00001
(0.5829) (0.6227) (1.4543) (0.0049)
φsign -0.00039 0.00009 0.00209 0.00215
(-1.0345) (0.2464) (1.2576) (1.5071)
φbrady -0.00071* -0.00078* _ _
(-5.0664) (5.5539)
Variance Equation
ω -1.6150* -1.8440* -2.7575* -3.4023*
(-5.2121) (-5.4996) (-2.9329) (-2.9118)
α 0.14480* 0.14820* 0.4706* 0.5889*
(3.1443) (3.0129) (2.7800) (3.4734)
β 0.8797* 0.8661* 0.7708* 0.7193*
(36.5108) (34.0331) (8.8436) (6.6930)
γ -1.0000** -1.0000** _ _
(-12.3337) (-2.3134)
δsales -0.01091* -2.1930* -0.00308** -0.3419***
(-5.5154) (-4.9335) (-2.2545) (-1.7891)
δpurchs 0.00153*** 0.03651 -0.00169 -0.1116
(1.7611) (0.3482) (-0.2805) (-0.3771)
δON c 0.00023* 0.00025* -0.00167* -0.0018*
(2.7190) (2.6158) (-4.0173) (-3.7717)
δsig -0.03104 0.1347 0.17198 -0.0405
(-0.0895) (0.3526) (0.1657) (-0.03897)
δput -0.00026** _ _ _
(-1.9518)
Decision Criteria
AICd -12,556.8 -12,578.2 -2,316.8 -2,310.6
BICd -12,474.3 -12,500.9 -2,275.5 -2,269.2
Qε(20)e 23.99 24.52 15.56 15.75
[0.2428]f [0.2204] [0.7435] [0.7320]
2 e
Q ε (20) 4.61 13.37 14.60 28.87
[0.9998] [0.8610] [0.7988] [0.0904]
*, ** and *** denote significance at the 1, 5 and 10% levels respectively. a In millions of US dollars; b t-ratios in parenthesis; c ON
denotes the target for cumulative balances (short) in Mexico and the overnight interest rate in Turkey; dAIC and BIC are the Akaike
and Bayes Information Criteria respectively; e Qε(20) and Q2ε(20) are the twentieth-order Ljung-Box tests for correlation in the
residuals and in the squares of the residuals; f P-values in brackets.

21
 The results also suggest that monetary policy instruments and signals to the

market— estimates of φON and φsign—do not seem to affect the direction or magnitude of

the mean exchange rate.23 Finally, in line with the findings of Werner (1997b), an

increase in the international price for debt is associated with the depreciation of the

Mexican peso.

5.2.2. Variance Equation

We next turn to the effect of overall and disaggregated Central Bank intervention

on the conditional variance. As indicated by Dominguez (1998), central bank intervention

is expected to reduce volatility as long as it signals a commitment to reduce volatility and

intervention is both credible and unambiguous.

From the estimated parameters (δinter in Table 4), we observe that overall Central

Bank intervention has significantly decreased the conditional variance of both the

Mexican Peso and the Turkish Lira. In this respect, it may be useful to make a distinction

between the size and frequency of the interventions in terms of their impact on the

volatility of the exchange rate. The response of volatility to the magnitude of

intervention is very similar in both countries. The impact of the frequency of intervention

on the volatility of the exchange rate, however, is greater in the case of Mexico compared

to Turkey.

When the impact of interventions is studied separately, the results, once again,

show that the reduction of volatility is a direct result of sales and not purchases of dollars

(Table 5). Indeed, the findings demonstrate that dollar sales—both in size and

23
The φON estimates are not reported in Table 5 to save space.

22
frequency—have a strong negative impact on the volatility of the exchange rate, while

the impact of purchases on the volatility of the exchange rate turns out to be positive but

statistically insignificant.24,25

In line with the findings of Kim, et. al. (2000), exchange rate volatility in Mexico

has been at best weakly positively influenced by the signaling effect (δsign in Table 4).

The results suggest that official reports, signaling modifications in the policy of

intervention, have not had a significant effect on the conditional variance of the Turkish

lira.

The empirical results also imply that changes in the monetary authorities’

instrument have an impact on the conditional variance process. As can be seen from

Table 5, changes in the policy instrument—short—have a positive impact on the

volatility of the exchange rate (δON) in Mexico.

In the case of Turkey, however, the results imply that an increase in the policy

instrument—overnight interest rate—has a negative effect on the conditional variance of

the exchange rate.26 The negative impact exerted by the monetary policy instrument in

Turkey suggests that interest rate intervention is possibly acting as a parallel stabilizing

force, while in the case of Mexico empirical findings suggest that the target for

cumulative balances has an adverse impact on the stability of the exchange rate market.

24
There is, however, some weak evidence suggesting that the volatility of the peso increases with the
magnitude of the purchase by 15 basis points (see δpurchs in Table 5).
25
These results are in clear contrast with the studies on hard currencies by Beine et. al (2002), Kim, et. al.
(2000), Baillie & Oesterber (1997a,b) and Dominguez (1998), who find that exchange rate volatility is
generally increased following a central bank intervention.
26
Contrary to our findings for Turkey, Booth, et. al. (2000) report a positive association between interest
rate changes and exchange rate volatility in their study of the effects of the Bundesbank’s discount and
Lombard’s interest rate changes on the volatility of the DM exchange rate.

23
Finally, in the case of Mexico, we also find weak evidence suggesting that the size of the

put options contracts reduces the volatility of the Peso.

In the context of the floating regime, what can be concluded about the

performance of forex interventions in these countries? As argued by Obstfeld (1995),

clean floating means high volatility of nominal exchange rate—much higher than early

proponents such as Friedman (1953) and Johnson (1969) anticipated. Moreover, as

Mussa (1986) pointed out, it almost always means greater volatility of the real exchange

rate, for prices move sluggishly. To the extent that this volatility in real prices is costly,

either directly or because it causes volatility in output or in the health of the financial

system, policy makers typically want to mitigate it. This, in turn, could explain to a great

extent the rationale for the intervention in the foreign exchange market in both countries.

In this regard, results imply that central bank interventions both in Mexico and Turkey

have been successful.

5.2.3 Clusters, Asymmetries and Persistency

As was discussed in section four, the conditional variance of the exchange rates

might not only be affected by the magnitude of innovations and by past values of the

conditional variance, as is the case in simple GARCH processes, but also by the direction

of the shocks.

As can be gathered from Tables 4 and 5, the E-GARCH parameters with no

exception are highly significant. Once we consider intervention, the decay rate (β) for

Turkey is higher than that of Mexico’s. More specifically, a volatility shock to the peso’s

conditional variance reaches half its original size in four days as a minimum, while it

24
takes three days at most in the case of the lira.27 Interestingly, our estimates suggest that

shocks to volatility are less persistent when the central bank intervenes.

The conditional variance of the peso reacts differently to equal magnitude

negative and positive innovations.28 From the standpoint of the foreign investor, the

response of the conditional variance would be greater to bad news (depreciations) than to

good news (appreciations) of the same magnitude.

To examine the effect of central bank intervention on the sensitivity of the

conditional variance of both currencies, we use the News Impact Curve (NIC) for the

restricted EGARCH model (continuous line) introduced in section four.29 As can be seen

from Figure 7, the conditional variance of the peso reacts more to past negative shocks

than to positive innovations of equal size. Moreover, the response is greater, the bigger

the size of the shock. For the Turkish Lira such response is fully symmetric since the

leverage effect turned out to be statistically insignificant.

The doted and discontinuous lines in Figure 7 also show the NIC for the extended

models—i.e., considering intervention in frequencies and magnitudes respectively. They

present the actual variance responses once the exogenous variables are taken into

consideration. In general, the sensitivity of the conditional variance is greater than the

one suggested by the restricted E-GARCH model with no exogenous influences

(continuous line).30

27
This is the so-called half-life statistic indicating the number of days in which a shock to the variance
reaches half its initial size. Here we calculate this as log(0.5)/log(β).
28
The leverage effect (γ) in Turkey was not significantly different from zero. Hence, in all the estimations
for this country, we restrict such coefficient to zero in which case the responses of the conditional variance,
as it is graphically shown, are fully symmetric.
29
To keep comparability, we standardized all NIC curves by setting A=1.
30
See also AIC and BIC in Tables 5 and 6.

25
 Figure 7: News Impact Curve before and after foreign exchange intervention.

The existence of asymmetries in Mexico is a direct result of the stylized fact

where depreciations are not just usually followed by high volatility episodes, but also

such shocks affect more the conditional variance compared to appreciations of equal

magnitude. In the money market, Mendoza (2002) has related asymmetries to the

behavior of the exchange rate: sudden exchange rate depreciations may cause the

volatility of the interest rates term structure to be higher than it would be following

unexpected appreciations of the same size.

We believe that a similar reasoning lies behind the finding of asymmetries in the

Mexican foreign exchange market. It is perhaps the exchange rate coordination with the

26
monetary policy that gives rise to different volatility responses. Sudden depreciations

(bad news) would decrease the expected future holding returns of local investments,

which, in turn, would increase the exchange rate volatility more than equal size

appreciations (good news) given the investors desire to get rid of excess local holdings.

6. Conclusion

The intrinsic problems of exchange rates in emerging market economies (EMs)

coupled with the increasing adoption of inflation targeting (IT) in these countries has

rendered the role of the exchange rate under IT framework as one of the most frequently

discussed topics in the literature. It is argued that monetary policy in EMs tends to be

more sensitive to exchange rate movements both directly—because of pass-through

effects on inflation—and indirectly—because the exchange rate appears as an additional

argument in central bank objective functions, reflecting their concerns for devaluation-

induced bank failures and domestic recessions.31

As a result, central banks in EMs often resort to sterilized exchange rate

interventions in response to large exchange rate shocks in order to contain the impact of

pass-through effects on inflation and reduce excessive exchange rate volatility. In this

context, this paper aimed at throwing more light on the effectiveness of central bank

foreign exchange interventions and the role that they can play in the conduct of monetary

policy under IT framework. To this end, we study the experiences of Mexico and Turkey

under the floating regime by using an Exponential GARCH framework, which allow us

to investigate both the overall effect of the intervention and the individual effect of sales

and purchases.
31
Schmidt-Hebbel and Werner (2002).

27
 The results of the empirical investigation suggest that overall intervention

operations during the floating regime in both countries have had a positive and

statistically significant impact on the exchange rates. More specifically, empirical

findings suggest that a net sale of USD 100 million appreciates the exchange rate in

Mexico and Turkey by 0.08 percent by 0.20 percent, respectively. The empirical

evidence also shows that the presence of the central bank matters: whenever the exchange

market perceives the presence of the central bank, the Mexican peso and the Turkish lira

appreciate by 0.12 percent and 0.09 percent, respectively.

As far as the individual impact of central banks’ purchase and sale operations are

concerned, the results suggest that a sale to the market of USD 100 million appreciates

the peso by 0.90 percent, while an equivalent intervention in Turkey appreciates the lira

by 0.20 percent. Similarly, for every presence of the central bank, the peso and the lira

appreciate by 1.3 percent and 0.16 percent, respectively. By contrast, the results suggest

that purchases of dollars are generally statistically insignificant, suggesting that sterilized

interventions of this nature are not effective.

The empirical findings concerning the impact of overall intervention on the

volatility of the exchange rate suggest that overall central bank interventions have

reduced the conditional variance of both the Mexican peso and the Turkish lira.32 When

the impact of interventions is studied separately, the results, once again, show that the

reduction of volatility is a direct result of sale operations. Purchase operations do not

seem to have statistically significant effect on the volatility of the exchange rate.

32
The results suggest that the response of volatility to the magnitude of intervention is very similar in both
countries. The impact of the presence in the market on the volatility of the exchange rate, however, is
greater in the case of Mexico compared to Turkey.

28
 There are two main policy implications emerging from the thrust of the overall

findings. First, there seems to be scope for EMs to operate flexible exchange rate

regimes without them having to adopt a textbook type of pure float. In fact, it would be

unreasonable to assert that EMs should adopt more pure forms of floating than the

industrial countries have been able to sustain, particularly when the conditions necessary

for a successful float are less likely to be present in such economies. 33

Second, the fact that exchange rates, at times, move too far relative to

fundamentals even in countries that pursue credible monetary and fiscal policy provides a

legitimate role for intervention. In order to ensure the desired impact upon expectations

and the behavior of market participants, interventions should be based on transparent

mechanisms and should be used sparingly.

There are obviously difficult practical issues regarding the operation of

intervention. The intuitive idea as put forth by Volcker (1995), however, is clear

enough—the further the actual exchange rate has departed from the equilibrium, the more

damage the misalignment will do; the more confident the authorities can be that they will

be acting as profitable stabilizing speculators (buying cheap and selling dear); and the

greater likelihood of success of any intervention on the part of the authorities.

The empirical findings and the above highlighted policy suggestions, which are

based on the premise that intervention can be effective in smoothing short-term

fluctuations in the exchange rate, do not suggest that intervention policy can be used to

33
Evidence from a recent research by Hunt et. al. (2002), which argues that benign neglect of the exchange
rate is not necessarily the best approach in the conduct of monetary policy under IT—particularly if risk
premia are subject to shocks that cause exchange rates to deviate persistently from levels consistent with
macroeconomic fundamentals—seems to support this conjecture. Larrain and Velasco (2002) also make a
case in favor of this argument.

29
resolve underlying economic problems. Obviously, such problems should be addressed

by more fundamental policy measures. Moreover, foreign interventions that oppose

major market trends stand little chance of success; the old market wisdom, “don’t stand

in front of a freight train,” is also valid for foreign exchange interventions as well.

In conclusion, the results corroborate the notion that if foreign exchange

interventions are carried out with finesse and sensibly—i.e., not to defend a particular

exchange rate—they could play a useful role under IT framework in containing the

adverse effects of temporary exchange rate shocks on inflation and financial stability.

30
 Appendix
Inflation Targeting Country Central Banks
Publicly Reported Information on Foreign Exchange Market Intervention Practices, 2001
Intervention Practices Sources

Industrial Countries

Australia The Reserve Bank of Australia intervenes when the exchange rate is IMF Country Report 01/162
overshooting; and when market conditions are unsettled.
Canada The Bank of Canada intervenes only in exceptional circumstances. Bank of Canada Annual Report, 2000

Iceland The Central Bank of Iceland intervenes only to adhere to inflation Monetary Bulletin of the Central Bank of
target or sees exchange rate fluctuations as a potential threat to Iceland,
financial stability. November 2001
New Zealand The Reserve Bank could intervene directly in the foreign exchange Reserve Bank Governor speech, October
market to counteract “disorderly market conditions”; in practice the 2000
Reserve Bank has not intervened since 1985.

Norway The Central Bank of Norway intervenes when the currency moves Annual Report, 2001
significantly out of line with reasonable fundamentals and at the
same time exchange rate developments impair the prospects of
achieving the inflation target. Interventions may also be necessary in
the event of large short-term fluctuations of the currency when
foreign exchange market liquidity is reduced.

Sweden The Riksbank intervened in the currency market in June 2001, for Central Bank First Deputy Governor speech,
the first time in years, to limit the impact of a sudden depreciation on September 2001
inflation.

The Bank of England can intervene in the foreign exchange market. Bank of England fact sheet on Foreign
United Kingdom Exchange Market, Bank of England website

Emerging Market Countries

Brazil The Central Bank of Brazil may intervene on a regular basis, to IMF Press Release No. 01/38, Sept. 2001
adhere to the inflation target, or in exceptional situations. and Central Bank of Brazil Annual Report,
2000
Chile The Central Bank of Chile has the authority to intervene in Central Bank of Chile Annual Report 2000
exceptional circumstances; these interventions must be publicly
announced and justified.

Colombia The Banco de la Republica does not intervene in the exchange Report to the Parliament, July 2001
market to define a particular exchange rate, although auctions of
foreign currency sale options are used to accumulate international
reserves.
Czech Republic Interventions only to moderate large fluctuations in the exchange IMF Country Report 01/112
rate.

Hungary The National Bank of Hungary intervenes to maintain the forint in a National Bank of Hungary website
+/- 15 percent band.

Israel The Bank of Israel has not intervened since 1997, allowing market Bank of Israel, Foreign Currency
forces to determine the appropriate level of the exchange rate within Department, 2000 Annual Report and IMF
the exchange rate band. (The width of the band against a basket of Country Report 01/133
currencies is 39.2 percent.)

Korea The Bank of Korea has intervened in the foreign exchange market in IMF Public Information Notice 01/8
recent years.

Mexico The Banco de Mexico lets the peso float freely. IMF Country Report 01/77

Poland A pure floating exchange rate regime has been in place since April IMF Country Report 01/56
2000.
South Africa The Reserve Bank did not intervene in the foreign exchange market IMF Public Information Notice 01/44
during 2000 except to buy foreign exchange to lower the net open
foreign exchange position.
Thailand Direct foreign exchange intervention is limited. Bank of Thailand website
a
Turkey The Central Bank of Turkey lets the lira float freely. IMF, Annual Report on Exchange Rate
Arrangements and Restrictions (2001)
Source Carare et. al. (2002); a:Although Turkey has not adopted inflation targeting (IT) formally, official documents of
the Central Bank describe the current monetary policy framework as an implicit IT.

31
 References

Banco de México (2002), ‘Economic and financial indicators’, Banco de México, World
Wide Web. URL: http://www.banxico.org.mx/siteBanxicoINGLES/index.html
Baillie, R. & Osterberg, W. (1997a), ‘Why do Central Banks intervene?’, Journal of
International Money and Finance, 16 (6), 909-919.
Baillie, R. & Osterberg, W. (1997b), ‘Central bank intervention and risk in the forward
market’, Journal of International Economics, 43, 483-490.
Beine, M., Bénassy-Quéré, A. & Lecourt, C. (2002), ‘Central bank intervention and
foreign exchange rates: new evidence from FIGARCH estimations’, Journal of
International Money and Finance, 21, 115-144.
Bollerslev, T. (1986), ‘Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity’,
Journal of Econometrics, 100 (1), 131-151.
Bollerslev, T. & Wooldridge (1992), ‘Quasi maximum likelihood estimation and
inference in a dynamic model with time varying covariances’, Econometric
Review, 11, 143-172.
Booth, G., Kaen, F., Koutmos, G. & Sherman, H. (2000), ‘Bundesbank intervention
effects through interest rate policy’, International Financial markets, institutions
and money, 10, 263-274.
Calvo, G. (1999), Fixed versus Flexible Exchange Rates: Preliminaries of a Turn-of-
Millennium Rematch, www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/ciecalvo.htm.
Carere, A. And A. Schaechter, M. Stone, and M. Zelmer (2002), Establishing Initial
Conditions in Support of Inflation Targeting, IMF Working Paper, No:102
Castellanos, S. (2000), ‘El efecto del corto sobre la estructura de las tasas de interés’, in
Banco de México, Research Documents, 1.
Díaz de León, A. & Greenham, L. (2000), ‘Política monetaria y tasas de interés,
experiencia reciente para el caso de México’, in Banco de México, Research
Documents, 8.
Dominguez, K. (1998), ‘Central bank intervention and exchange rate volatility’, Journal
of International Money and Finance, 17, 161-190.
Dominguez, K. & Frankel, J. (1993a), ‘Does foreign-exchange intervention matter? The
portfolio effect’, The American Economic Review, 83 (5), 1356-1639.
Dominguez, K. M. And Frankel, J. A. (1993b). Does foreign exchange intervention
work? Institute of International Economics.
Edison, H. (1993). The Effectiveness of Central Bank Intervention: A Survey of the Post-
1982 Literature, Special Papers on International Economics 18. Princeton
University
Engle, R.F., & Ng, V.K. (1993), ‘Measuring and testing the impact of news on volatility’,
Journal of Finance, 48, 1749-1778.
Evans, M.D. and R.K. Lyons (2002), ‘Portfolio Balance, Price Impact, and Secret
Intervention’, NBER Working Paper, No: 8356.
Friedman, M. (1953), ‘The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates’, in Essays in Positive
Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ghosh, A. R. (1992). “Is it signaling? Exchange intervention and the dollar-deutschemark
rate”, Journal of International Economics, 32: 201-20.

32
Goldstein, M. (2001), “Managed Floating Plus and the Great Currency Regime Debate”,
revised draft (October).
Hunt, B. And P. Isard, and D. Laxton (2002), The Role Exchange Rates in Inflation
Targeting Regimes, unpublished manuscript.
Johnson, H. (1969), ‘The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates’, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis Review, 51.
Kim, S., Kortian, T. & Sheen, J. (2000), ‘Central bank intervention and exchange rate
volatility, Australian evidence’, Journal of International Financial Markets,
Institutions and Money, 10 (219), 381-405.
Larrain, F. and A. Velasco (2002), ‘How Should Emerging Economies Float their
Currencies? Economics of Transition, vol. 10, pp. 365-392.
Lewis, K. K. (1995a). Are foreign exchange intervention and monetary policy related,
and does it really matter? Journal of Business, 68(2): 185-214.
Lewis, K K. (1995b). Occasional intervention to target rates. American Economic
Review, 84(5): 691-715.
Mendoza, A. (2002), ‘Monetary policy signaling, asymmetries and the volatility of the
interest rates term structure in Mexico’, Forthcoming in: Proceedings of the
Seventh Annual Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean Economics
Association.
Mishkin, F and K. Schmidt-Hebbel (2001), “One Decade of Inflation Targeting in the
World: What We know and What do we need to Know”, NBER Working Paper,
No: 8397.
Nelson, D. (1991), ‘Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: a new approach’,
Econometrica, 59 (2), 347-370.
Obstfeld, M. A. (1963), ‘International Currency Experience: New Lessons and Lessons
Learned’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1.
Rogoff, K. (1984). On the effects of sterilized intervention: An analysis of weekly data,
Journal of Monetary Economics, 14: 133-50.
Sarno, L. And Taylor, M. (2001). Official intervention in the foreign exchange market: Is
it effective and, if so, how does it work? Journal of Economic Literature,
XXXIX: 839-868.
Schmidt-Hebbel, K. And A. Werner (2002), Inflation Targeting in Brazil, Chile, and
Mexico: Performance, Credibility, and the Exchange Rate, Central Bank of Chile
Working Papers, No:171
Volcker, P. (1995), The quest for exchange rate stability: realistic or quixotic?, The
Stamp 50th Anniversary Lecture, University of London, 29 November.
Werner, A. (1997a), ‘Un estudio estadístico sobre el comportamiento de la cotización del
peso mexicano frente al dólar y de su volatilidad’, in Banco de México, Research
Documents, 1.
Werner, A. (1997b), ‘El efecto sobre el tipo de cambio y las tasas de interés de las
intervenciones en el mercado cambiario y del proceso de esterilización’, in Banco
de México, Research Documents, 6.
Werner, A. and Milo, A. (1998), ‘Acumulación de reservas internacionales a través de la
venta de opciones: el caso de México’, in Banco de México, Research
Documents, 1.

33