Implied PPP of the Dollar and Actual Exchange Rate

Implied uvulopalatopharyngoplasty of the Dollar and Actual Exchange directQues. The economic expert publishes every year the prices of a standard largishmackintosh around the world. become the hulkingmackintosh prices for the USA, France, and South Korea and the corresponding (average annual) nominal switch over evaluate in 2006 and 2009. employ aim for each of these countries the implied uvulopalatopharyngoplasty of the dollar 2006 and 2009 and comp be this to the actual supersede lays. sack up you apologize the discrepancys in implied palatopharyngoplasty of the dollar and the nominal shift rates?The Economists gargantuan Mac index is an informal index sometimes use to judge whether current commuting rates between different currencies are justified and currencies are at their correct exchange rate, though it is non intended to be a precise predictor of currency movements. in a flash commonly known as burgernomics, it is base on the theory of purchase Power Pa rity (PPP). PPP is the notion that a dollar should profane the same amount of goods in all countries. It suggests that a long enclosure equilibrium allow adjust exchange rates such that the buy power or cost of traded goods and services in different countries will be the same. It is based on thelaw of one price in ideally efficient securities industrys, identical goods should have only one price.The Big Mac index uses the prices of McDonalds Big Mac hamburger, which is produced in about 120 countries. It assumes that the Big Mac is a corresponding product in each economy, wheresoever produced, and it is made with identical specification, frankincense it should have the same price everywhere.The next tables compare the Big Mac prices, nominal exchange rates and the Implied PPP for USA, France and South Korea for the year 2006 and 2009.Comparing actual exchange rates with PPPs indicates whether a currency is under- or over- valued. A countrys currency is said to be overvalued i f the implied PPP is greater than the grocery exchange rate and it is said to be undervalued if the implied PPP is less that the market exchange rate.In accordance with the above explanation, Euro is overvalued both(prenominal) in 2006 and 2009 i.e. the implied PPP is more than the nominal exchange rate. The Euro has appreciated in 2009 as compared to 2006, but the nominal exchange rate should come belt down by about 28%(for 2009) and 19%(for 2006)to rack up with the implied PPP and thus holding the law of one price true. Whereas, the South Korean won is undervalued both in 2006 and 2009, as implied PPP is less than the nominal exchange rate. We notice that the Won has depreciated in 2009 as compared to 2006, but the nominal exchange rate should go up by 26%(for 2009) and 17%(for 2006)to equalise with the implied PPP.The under/over valuation of Euro and South Korean Won for 2006 and 2009 is shown belowThere is a difference between the nominal exchange rate and the implied PPP o f the dollar as calculated using Big Mac prices. This difference can be attributed to several factors.The difference can overturn largely due to factors traveling eitherThe implied PPP by Big Mac indexOrNominal Exchange RateFirstly, the difference arises because the actual prices of Big Macs are not same everywhere. Many of the inputs of a Big Mac cannot be traded internationally, thus the prices of these goods may diverge advantageously between countries. This effects the PPP but not the nominal exchange rate because comparisons on a purchasing-power parity (PPP) basis take reputation of the variations in prices of the same goods in different countries. Unlike comparisons at market exchange rates, PPP reflects the veritable purchasing power of each countrys residents.The Big Mac index is most useful for assessing the exchange rates of countries with similar incomes per head. It is quite natural for average prices to be lower in poorer countries than in developed ones. Non trad able inputs like labour services and property rent chiefly differ and are particularly cheap in poorer countries. This gives a big cost advantage in production of these goods and services. PPPs are therefore a more reliable way to derive exchange rate than market exchange rates, because cheaper prices mean that money goes further. The prevailing rates of taxes also choke to a difference in input prices and the selling price of a same commodity in different regions.The PPP model assumes that the real value placed on goods is same in different countries. simply in reality, what is considered a luxury in some places might be a necessity in others. The PPP method does not take this into consideration.On the other hand, the factors which effect the nominal exchange rate are price level of the two countries in question, inflation rates, the real exchange rate etc. There factors might not endlessly affect the PPP, thus there is a difference between the two.The above points explain the differences between implied PPP and nominal exchange rate.The believers of PPP have based their views largely on arguments relating to international goods arbitrage, which leads to equilibrium but this is not always the case. Thus Big Mac index is not a spotless measure of exchange rate. annexswww.oanda.com/convert/fxhistorywww.economist.com/markets/bigmacBig Mac IndexA vocabulary of pay and Banking. Ed Jonathan Law and John Smullen. Oxford University Press, 2008.Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.Big Mac IndexA Dictionary of Business and Management. Ed. Jonathan Law. Oxford University Press, 2009.Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.purchasing power parityA Dictionary of Business and Management. Ed. Jonathan Law. Oxford University Press, 2009.Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.purchasing power parity theory of exchange ratesThe Handbook of world-wide Financial Terms. Peter Moles and Nicholas Terry. Oxford University Press 1997.Oxford Refe rence Online. Oxford University Press.Economist 7/18/2009, Vol. 392 Issue 8640, p74Economist 5/27/2006, Vol. 379 Issue 8479, p74Economist 6/23/2007, Vol. 383 Issue 8534, p86-86.Economist 6/5/2004, Vol. 371 Issue 8378, p98-98.Economist 04/11/98, Vol. 346 Issue 8063.Strauss, Jack. Southern Economic Journal.Stillwater Yr 1995. Vol. 61, Iss. 4Mankiw and Taylor (2008), Macroeconomics