Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 11:44 am
Why I love currency markets, the loonie edition
From Bloomberg:
The Canadian dollar fell for a fourth day as investors sold commodity-linked currencies on speculation U.S. subprime mortgage losses will slow the world's largest economy.
The Canadian currency was the second-worst performer among the 16 most actively traded currencies, trailing only Japan's yen, while falling 0.3 percent to 93.70 U.S. cents. One U.S. dollar buys C$1.0662. ...
Commodities account for about half of Canada's exports. Canada ships more than 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., including steel and lumber.
Canada's dollar also came under pressure after a German bank's losses from subprime mortgages renewed concern that rising defaults will reduce lending and curb corporate takeovers. Canada's dollar has benefited from foreign takeovers of Canadian commodity assets.
Okay, so let's get this straight: The Canadian dollar fell against the U.S. dollar because of concerns about weakness in the U.S. economy. And maybe also because a German bank got into trouble buying U.S. mortgages? That doesn't really seem fair, does it? I guess you could make the argument that, as a commodity-driven economy, Canada is subject to greater cyclical swings than the U.S.--if the U.S. catches cold, Canada catches pneumonia. But isn't it also possible that the currency traders that Bloomberg talks to are just making things up to explain something for which there is no real explanation?
1 Comment to “Why I love currency markets, the loonie edition”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About Curious Capitalist
RSS Feed
Daily Email
Recent Posts
The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com Archives
Blogroll
- Adam Lashinsky
- Amit Varma
- Barry Ritholtz
- Brad DeLong
- Calculated Risk
- Econbrowser
- Econlog
- Ezra Klein
- Felix Salmon
- Floyd Norris
- Going Private
- Greg Mankiw
- Herb Greenberg
- James Pethokoukis
- John Gapper
- Marginal Revolution
- Mark Thoma
- Matt McAlister
- Megan McArdle
- Michael Mandel
- Mike Moffatt
- Nicholas Carr
- Paul Kedrosky
- Roger Parloff
More TIME Blogs
Top Stories
- Oil-Price Drop Forces Big Energy to Retreat
- Were the Mumbai Terrorists Fueled by Coke?
- Iraq's Maliki Faces Challenge Over Power Grab
- Even with a Bailout, GM's Profit Prospects Look Bleak
- Interrogation Policy Still A Bit Shadowy
- Military Protests Add to Mugabe's Problems
- Study: Most Child Abuse Goes Unreported
- Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets
- Will Mumbai Chill the India-Pakistan Thaw?
- The Pope's Christmas Gift: A Tough Line on Church Doctrine
Top Photoessays and Slideshows
- A Brief History of the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree
- Life Returns to Iraq's Streets
- Pictures of the Week
- Venice Floods
- 20th Century Britain
- Mumbai Sifts Through the Rubble
- Two Days of Terror in Mumbai
- Over 100 Dead as Terrorist Attacks Overwhelm Mumbai
- Photos: The Kitsch of Thanksgiving
- Animated Movies: Not Just for Kids
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 3:26 pm
On liquid markets, like interest rates or Forex, Bloomberg (or Reuters) only gets to speak to trainees or managers at the larger trading firms. On a trading floor, knowledgeable people - ie, market-makers - are usually too busy to talk to the press and in any case would keep mum on anything really important, as they certainly do NOT want to leak anything about their oversize books to competitors.
This, over time, has created a form of vicious circle, with press agencies in turn only fielding trainees. The end result is that market commentaries over the wires are basically EXPLETIVE DELETED, and are systematically ignored by market professionals.
It is a clear case of people that cannot understand asking people that cannot know and then writing up about it.