DÖVİZ PİYASASINA MÜDAHALELERİ ETKİNLİĞİ: T.C. MERKEZ BANKASI

Abstract

Ülkeler arasındaki sermaye hareketlerinin serbestleşmesine paralel olarak esnek kur sistemlerine geçişle birlikte döviz kurlarındaki oynaklıktaki artış ve döviz kurunun seviyesindeki değişiminin hız kazanması, gelişen piyasa ekonomilerinde, fiyat istikrarı başta olmak üzere makro ekonomik yapısalların dengelenme mekanizmalarını olumsuz yönde etkilemeye başlamıştır. Merkez bankaları, döviz kurundaki değişimden kaynaklanan fiyatlar genel seviyesindeki artışları engellemek veya yavaşlatmak için yoğun bir şekilde döviz piyasasına müdahalede bulunarak, döviz kurundaki oynaklığı azaltmaya ve döviz kurunun seviyesini değiştirmeye çalışmaktadırlar. TC Merkez Bankası da rezerv biriktirmek için alım yönlü, döviz kuru oynaklığını ve döviz kurundaki artış trendini durdurmak için satım yönlü müdahalelerde bulunmaktadır. Merkez Bankası’nın döviz piyasasına müdahalelerinin etkinliği literatürde çokça tartışılmaktadır. Amaç: Bu çalışmada, 29.03.2001-17.12.2021 döneminde Merkez Bankası tarafından döviz piyasasına yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen müdahalelerin etkinliğini ölçmek amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: TCMB'nin döviz kuru oynaklığını azaltmaya yönelik müdahalelerinin etkinliği ARCH (Otoregresif Koşullu Varyans Varyansı) modelleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular en uygun modelin E-GARCH modeli olduğunu göstermiştir. Bulgular: Alım yönlü müdahalelerdeki sınırlı ve küçük oranlı başarı hariç, satım yönlü müdahalelerin döviz kurunun seviyesinin değiştirilmesinde etkin olmadığı ve döviz kuru müdahaleleri ile fiyatlar genel seviyesindeki artışın kontrol altına alınamadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Özgünlük: Çalışmanın literatüre hem kapsadığı dönem hem de etkinliğin ölçümüne bir yaklaşım sunması bakımından katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

• TCMB
• Döviz Kuru
• Müdahale
• Etkinlik
• ARCH.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE CENTRAL BANK OF REPUBIC OF TURKEY’S INTERVENTION IN THE EXCHANGE MARKET?

Abstract

The increase in volatility of exchange rates and rapid change in the level of exchange rate with the transition to flexible exchange rate systems in parallel with the liberalization of capital movements between countries make it difficult to achieve the goals of ensuring price stability in emerging markets. Central banks intensively intervene in the foreign exchange market to prevent or slow down increases in the general price levels resulting from the change in the exchange rate, try to reduce volatility and change the level of exchange rate. Turkish Central Bank is also involved in direct purchase interventions to accumulate reserves, to stop exchange rate volatility and the upward trend in exchange rate. The effectiveness of the Central Bank’s intervention in the Foreign Exchange market is widely discussed in the literature. Purpose: This paper analyzes the effectiveness of interventions carried out by the Turkish Central Bank for the foreign exchange market between 29.03.2001-17.12.2021. Method: The effectiveness of the CBRT's interventions to reduce its volatility was analyzed with ARCH (Autoregressive Conditional Variance of Variance) models. The findings showed that the most suitable model was the E-GARCH model. Findings: Excluding limited and small rate success in direct purchase interventions, direct sell interventions are not effective in changing the level of the exchange rate. It was concluded that the increase in the overall level of prices could not be controlled by exchange rate interventions. Originality: It is expected that the study will contribute to the literature both in terms of the period it covers and in terms of providing an approach to the measurement of effectiveness.

Keywords

• TCMB
• Exchange Rate
• Intervention
• Effectiveness
• ARCH

References

1. Agenor, P., & Montiel P.. (1996). Development macroeconomics. New Jersey: Princeton Univercity Press.
2. Akıncı, Ö., Çulha, O., Özlale, Ü., & Şahinbeyoğlu, G. (2005). Causes and effectiveness of foreign exchange interventions for the Turkish economy. Ankara: TCMB.
3. Archer, D. (2005). Foreign exchange market intervention:Methods and tactics. BIS Papers No 24, sh. 40-54
4. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of econometrics, 31 (3), 307-327
5. Broto, C. (2012). The effectiveness of forex intereventions in four latin american countries. Banco de Espana Working Papers, No. 1226,40. Camargo, L. (2019). Foreign exchange interventions through currency swaps in Brazil: an empirical study of the effects on the spot exchange rate. Brasil: University of Brasilia. Canales-Kriljenko, M. J. I. C. (2003). Foreign exchange intervention in developing and transition economies: results of a survey. International Monetary Fund.
6. Demirhan, E.,& Akçay S. (2005). The causal relationship between openness and economic growth: evidence from selected MENA countries. Yapi Kredi Economic Review, (16) 2:77-83.
7. Domaç, İ., & Mendoza, A. (2004). Is there room for foreign exchange ınterventions under an ınflation targeting framework? Evidence from Mexico and Turkey. World Bank,Policy Research Working Paper, No.3288.
8. Dominguez, K.M. (1998). Central bank ınterventions and exchange rate volatility. Journal of International Money and Financew, 17 (1998) 161-190.

9. Dornbusch R. (1985). Exchange rates and price. NBER Working Paper Series No. 1769, December.
10. Dwight, E. (1981). Reinterpatation of the modern theory of forward exchange rates, Journal of Money. Credit and Banking 13(4), 477-484.
11. Engel, C., & Craig, S. H. (1993). Exchange rate regimes and volatility. Economic Review- Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 78(3), 43.
12. Fama, E.F. (1998). Market efficiency, long-term returns, and Behavioral Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 283-306.
13. Frenkel, J. A. (2019). A monetary approach to the exchange rate: doctrinal aspects and empirical evidence. In Flexible Exchange Rates and Stabilization Policy (pp. 68-92).
14. Gürak, H., (2006), Ekonomik büyüme ve küresel ekonomi. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
15. Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The journal of finance, 48(5), 1779-1801.
16. Goyal, A. & Arora, S. (2010). The Indian exchange rate and Central Bank Actipon: A GARCH Analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, 23(1), 60-72.
17. Hau, H. (2002). Real exchange rate volatility and economic openness: theory and evidence. Journal of money, Credit and Banking, 611-630.
18. Hopkins, S. (1992). The applicability of the portfolio balance model of exchange rate determination to the Australian dollar . Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania.
19. Kothari, S. P., & Warner, J. B. (2006). Econometrics of event studies, to appear in: Eckbo, B. Espen. Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance.
20. Lyons, R. K. (1996). Foreign exchange volume: sound and fury signifying nothing?. The microstructure of foreign exchange markets, 183-201.
21. MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. Journal of economic literature, 35(1), 13-39.
22. Mihaljek, D. (2005, May). Survey of central banks’ views on effects of intervention. In Participants in the meeting , 82-96.
23. Miller, N. C. (1986). A general Approach to the balance of payments and exchange rates. Journal of International Economic Integration, 1(1), 85-122.
24. Moser-Boehm, P. (2005, May). Governance aspects of foreign exchange interventions. In Participants in the meeting, 19-39.
25. Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 347-370.
26. Svensson, L. E. (2000). Open-economy inflation targeting. Journal of international economics, 50(1), 155-183.
27. Taylor, A. M., & Taylor, M. P. (2004). The purchasing power parity debate. Journal of economic perspectives, 18(4), 135-158.
28. Wong, T. W. K., Hung, J. W. S & Leung, M. W. Y. (2021). Pediatric domestic accidents during COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. Surg Pract, 25, 32–37.
29. Woo, W. T., & Hooper, P. (1984). Exchange rates and the prices of nonfood, nonfuel products. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1984(2), 511-536.
30. Yokota, K. (2003). Productivity spillovers and economic growth: Was east asia unique?. Dıscussıon Papers In Economics, Working Paper, (03-17).