The Application of The Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Models As Predictive Models For Exchange Rate Changes in The Philippines PDF

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented to the
Financial Management Department

Ramon V. Del Rosario – College of Business
De La Salle University - Manila
The Application of the Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Models as Predictive

Models for Exchange Rate Changes in the Philippines
In partial fulfillment of the

Course Requirement in THSEFIN
Term 2, A.Y. 2018-2019
Cruz, Zurex Carlo E.

Feldia, Agatha Francesca B.
Reyes, Paul Michel D.
March 2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, Ms. Elvira P. De Lara-Tuprio, a published author and professor that has written an
earlier study regarding the Forecasting of Term Structure of Philippine Interest Rates
Using the Dynamic Nelson-Siegel Model. She has provided knowledge to her fullest extent
regarding the subject matter. Without her input on the fundamentals of the Nelson-Siegel
model, the researchers would not have begun studying the said predictive model.
Second, Mr. Dioscoro P. Baylon Jr., a finance professor turned thesis advisor. He has
provided guidance and encouragement throughout the challenges and triumphs of
completing the study. Without him giving the patience and time to the researchers, the
researches would falter to the forecasted difficulties regarding the what and how of the
Nelson-Siegel model.
Third, Mr. Tyrone Panzer L. Chan Pao, a finance professor with an expertise in
macroeconomics, business economics, and financial economics. He was the first professor
that the researchers encountered regarding the feasibility and creativity of the topic during
the introductory process of the Nelson-Siegel model and the researchers. Without his
enthusiasm at the topic at hand, the researchers will not be able to be motivated towards a
probable successful outcome.
Fourth, Mr. Tomas S. Tiu and Mr. Edralin C. Lim, the panelists that have provided the
researchers with hard-hitting questions that have made the researchers question the entire
study. Without the difficulty that was put through by said panelists, the researchers would
have not be been more determined in acquiring the knowledge and skill to defend the study
in at the final defense.
Most importantly, the researchers would like to take God and our parents. God, for
guidance and direction given during disarray through the process of completing the study.
Parents, for the continuous support and guidance.
ABSTRACT
Exchange rates are vital to the economy. It regulates local and overseas markets
and determines inflation and has an impact on future price movements. Empirical studies
have been conducted for the predictive ability of exchange rates. However, despite past
studies, due to the volatility of exchange rates, the method for its prediction requires such
an instrument containing future economic conditions. With this, the application of the
yield curve is introduced as it provides information concerning future economic
conditions that can affect the exchange rate based on previous bodies of literature.
The study aimed to examine the yield curve`s predictive ability by utilizing the
Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models through a regression analysis of the slope, level,
and curvature factors derived from the Relative Nelson-Siegel three and four-factor
model against the USD/PHP Exchange Rate. In addition, to further determine the
predictive ability of the models, a comparative analysis against the Random Walk model
was conducted. With this, the study concluded that the Relative Nelson-Siegel factors of
the United States and the Philippines exhibit potential predictive ability for the USD/PHP
exchange rate changes in both in-sample and out-of-sample prediction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 5
1.4.1 Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model (TF) ................................................ 5
1.4.2 Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model (SV) ................................................. 6
1.5 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 7
1.6 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER TWO - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................... 11

2.1 Exchange Rate Studies ............................................................................................ 11
2.1.1 Derivations of the Monetary Approach ............................................................ 12
2.1.2 Portfolio Balance Approach ............................................................................. 15
2.1.3 Taylor Rule Model ........................................................................................... 16
2.2 Previous Yield Curve Models ................................................................................. 18
2.2.1 Durand’s Basic Yields ...................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 McCulloch’s Discount Function ...................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Exponential Splines Model .............................................................................. 20

2.2.4 Shortcomings of Previous Models ................................................................... 21
2.3 Nelson-Siegel Model ............................................................................................... 23
2.3.1 Original Model ................................................................................................. 24
2.3.2 Svensson four-factor Model ............................................................................. 26
2.3.3 Dynamic three-factor Model ............................................................................ 27
2.3.4 Five factor Dynamic Model ............................................................................. 29
2.3.5 Relative Model ................................................................................................. 31
2.3.6 Application of the Class of Models in Exchange Rates ................................... 32
2.4 Yield Curve Macro Linkage .................................................................................... 33
2.5 Previous Studies in the Philippine Setting .............................................................. 35
2.5.1 Exchange Rate .................................................................................................. 35
2.6 Research Gap ........................................................................................................... 36
2.7 Literature Map ......................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER THREE - FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 38

3.1 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 38
Uncovered Interest Rate Parity Theory ..................................................................... 38
3.2 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 40
3.3 Operational Definition............................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER FOUR - METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 44

4.1 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Data Description and Collection ............................................................................. 44
4.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 45
4.3.1 Nelson Siegel three-factor and four-factor ....................................................... 45
4.3.2 Regression Analysis ......................................................................................... 48
4.3.3 Tests of Regression .......................................................................................... 49
4.3.4 Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) .................................................................. 51
4.3.5 Random Walk (without drift) Comparative Analysis ...................................... 52
CHAPTER FIVE – RESULTS AND ANALYSES .......................................................... 53

5.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................... 53
5.2 Estimating the Dynamic Factors of Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Mmodels ..... 56
5.3 Predicting Exchange Rate Changes using Relative Nelson-Siegel Factors ............ 60
5.3.1 Parameter Estimates ......................................................................................... 60
5.3.2 Regression Diagnostics .................................................................................... 61
5.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation ........................................................................... 63
5.5 Prediction Accuracies for Within-Sample and Out-of-Sample Prediction ............. 64
CHAPTER SIX – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 66

6.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 66
6.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 68

6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 73
APPENDIX A: Statistical Codes ...................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX B: Data (Sample) .......................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX C: Turnitin Receipt/Report ........................................................................... 89
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1. Plotted Exponential Spline, Polynomial Spline and Asymptotic Forward Rate
........................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2. 2 Flexibility of the Yield Curve ......................................................................... 24
Figure 2. 3. Interpretation of the Yield Curve Factors ...................................................... 25
Figure 2. 4. Literature Map ............................................................................................... 37
Figure 3. 1. Conceptual Framework for three-factor Nelson-Siegel model ...................... 40
Figure 3. 2. Conceptual Framework for four-factor Nelson-Siegel model ....................... 41
Figure 5. 1. USD-PHP Exchange Rates, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018 .............. 55
Figure 5. 2. Dynamic factors of the Nelson-Siegel three factor model ............................. 56
Figure 5. 3. Dynamic factors of the Nelson-Siegel four factor model .............................. 58

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5. 1. Philippines Zero-coupon Bonds Interest Rates (in %), 1 January 2010 to 31
December 2018 ................................................................................................................. 53
Table 5. 2. US Zero-coupon Bonds Interest Rates (in %), 1 January 2010 to 31 December
2018 ................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 5. 3. USD-PHP Exchange Rates, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018 ............... 55
Table 5. 4. Parameter Estimates of the Nelson Siegel three and four-factor model ......... 60
Table 5. 5. Results of Breusch-Pagan test ......................................................................... 61
Table 5. 6. Results of Durbin-Watson test ........................................................................ 61
Table 5. 7. Results of Variance Inflation Factors test ....................................................... 62
Table 5. 8. Results of Jarque-Bera test .............................................................................. 63
Table 5. 9. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Results....................................................... 63
Table 5. 10. Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of the Nelson Siegel three factor, Nelson
Siegel four factor, and Random Walk ............................................................................... 64
Table 6. 1. Predictive Performance Summary ................................................................... 67

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
For the most part of 2018, the Philippine peso (PHP) continuously depreciated
against the United States dollar (USD). In fact, the United States dollar to Philippine peso
exchange rate reached USD/PHP 54.13 last September 12, 2018, representing a new 12-
year low for the Philippine local currency. The last time the Philippine peso depreciated
against the dollar at the PHP 54 level was nearly 13 years ago when the Philippine peso
was at PHP 54.15. Given this, the continuous depreciation of the Philippine peso
presented potential economic challenges for the Philippines as exchange rates are
considered vital to the economy. Exchange rates allow the Philippines to: (1) monitor
and regulate the local and overseas market for goods and services, (2) determine actual
inflation and future price movements, (3) impact foreign trade through price
competitiveness, and (4) estimate the cost of servicing on its foreign debt (Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2018). Moreover, the foreign exchange market growth, as of 2016,
had an average total daily trading of $5.1 trillion (Bank of International Settlements,
2016).
Given the economic relevance and impact of exchange rates, addressing exchange
rates’ predictability had been the subject of several empirical studies, providing various
perspectives as to how exchange rates are treated before the determination of prediction
1
models. Despite the existence of numerous empirical studies, most studies have only
succeeded in identifying well-known empirical puzzles. The failures of empirical studies
such as Meese & Rogoff (1983) led to the belief that economic fundamentals such as
national income, trade balance, and money supply are not important factors in exchange
rate prediction. This belief would later be challenged by the Asset Pricing approach, a
method that states that the nominal exchange rates are influenced by economic
fundamentals. Engel & West (2005) argue that existing models could be transcribed as
present-value asset-pricing format which allows for the possibility of providing
information about future fundamentals while also noting that their empirical evidence is
not uniformly strong. Moreover, succeeding studies have found evidence for the asset
behavior of exchange rates and its ability to predict economic fundamentals such as world
commodity prices (Chen et al., 2008; Lustig et a.l, 2008). However, Sarno & Taylor
(2002) observed, “Overall, the conclusion emerges that, although the theory of exchange
rate determination has produced a number of plausible models, empirical work on
exchange rates still has not produced models that are sufficiently statistically satisfactory
to be considered reliable and robust...In particular, although empirical exchange rate
models occasionally generate apparently satisfactory explanatory power in-sample, they
generally fail badly in out-of-sample forecasting tests in the sense that they fail to
outperform a random walk.”
2
Given the impact of economic conditions on exchange rates, the method for its
prediction requires an accurate instrument containing future economic conditions such
as the yield curve. Furthermore, the yield curve can predict GDP growth, inflation,
possible recessions, among others through its three factors: inflation, level, and slope
(Mishkin, 1990a, 1990b; Barr and Campbell, 1997; Estrella and Mishkin, 1998;
Hamilton and Kim 2002; Rudebusch and Wu, 2007, 2008). With this, empirical evidence
entails that an accurate yield curve model is needed for accurate exchange rate
predictions.
This leads to the Nelson-Siegel model, a parsimonious yield curve model shows
the shapes associated with yield curves (S-shaped, humped, and monotonic) which
entails the adaptability and flexibility of the model. Moreover, the above-mentioned three
unobservable factors of the yield curve which contain information about future economic
development can be extracted from the Nelson-Siegel model to determine the
information on expected economic conditions contained within a yield curve.
With this, the researchers recognize the urgency of the Philippine exchange rate
condition and finds importance in addressing the predictability of exchange rate changes
in the Philippines through a comprehensive comparison of the empirical methods
prescribed by previous literature. Thus, the researchers believe that determining a
3
feasible model for exchange rate prediction can benefit several stakeholders in the
Philippines.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The presence of an alarming exchange rate condition in the Philippines and the lack
of studies on exchange rate predictability using yield curve models interests scholarly
attention from the researchers. Therefore, the study aims to answer the following
questions:
● Can the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models predict the exchange rate
changes in the Philippines?
● Which Relative Nelson-Siegel model is the most significant in predicting
exchange rate changes in the Philippines?
● Which factor of the most significant Relative Nelson-Siegel model is the
most significant in predicting exchange rate changes in the Philippines?
● Does the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models outperform the Random
Walk model?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
As the study aims to address the predictability of exchange rate changes in the
Philippines through the use of the Nelson-Siegel Relative Factor model, the study aims
to achieve the following research objectives:
4
● To determine if the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models is significant in
predicting the future exchange rate changes in the Philippines
● To determine the most significant Relative Nelson-Siegel model in
predicting exchange rate changes in the Philippines
● To determine which factor of the most significant Relative Nelson-Siegel
class of models is the most significant in predicting exchange rate changes
in the Philippines.
● To determine the if the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models is more
significant in predicting exchange rate changes in the Philippines than the
Random Walk model.
1.4 Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be validated by the study through extensive data analysis are as
follows:
1.4.1 Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model (TF)
1.4.1.1 Level Factor
H0: The level factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is not significant in
predicting the exchange rate changes in the Philippines
Ha: The level factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is significant in
5
1.4.1.2 Slope Factor
H0: The slope factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is not significant
in predicting the exchange rate changes changes in the Philippines
Ha: The slope factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is significant in
1.4.1.3 Curvature Factor
H0: The curvature factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is not
significant in predicting the exchange rate changes in the Philippines
Ha: The curvature factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is significant
in predicting the exchange rate changes in the Philippines
1.4.2 Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model (SV)
1.4.2.1 Level Factor
H0: The level factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is not significant in
Ha: The level factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is significant in
1.4.2.2 Slope Factor
H0: The slope factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is not significant in
predicting the exchange rate changes changes in the Philippines
6
Ha: The slope factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is significant in
1.4.2.3 First Curvature Factor
H0: The first curvature factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is not
Ha: The first curvature factor of the Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model is
1.4.2.4 Second Curvature Factor
H0: The second curvature factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is not
Ha: The second curvature factor of the Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model is
1.5 Significance of the Study
Exchange rates hold significance, mainly due to its relationship with inflation rates,
which in turn defines a country’s economic standing which is seen in cost of living,
personal and corporate loans, corporate and government bond yields, etc. Inflation rates
and prices of said goods and services have a direct relationship. Hence, controlling
inflation rates is a must by regulatory institutions such as the government and Central
Bank, in order for the success and growth of the country’s economy. Thus, there is
significance in predicting exchange rates changes.
7
Government institutions and Policy makers
Government institutions and policy-making bodies are confronted with economic
decision making regularly. For instance, one of the main responsibility of Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas is determination of exchange rate policy through adherence to a market-
oriented foreign exchange rate policy to foster orderly conditions in the market
(http://www.bsp.gov.ph/about/functions.asp). A more thorough appreciation of the
relationship between yield curves and exchange rates will lead to the better promulgation
and implementation of the monetary policy that fosters a healthier and more robust
Philippine economy. If the proposed model is significant enough to estimate exchange
rate changes, the BSP may use it to ensure growth and price stability of the Philippine
economy.
Financial institutions that deal with foreign currencies
For financial institutions like banks that deal with foreign currency, the
relationship with foreign exchange involves risks that occurs when (1) a change in
domestic and/or foreign currency affects investment’s value and (2) a decision in closing
out a currency with either a long position or a short position. The foreign exchange risk
is unpredictable for the reason that exchange risk is also unpredictable, If the proposed
models are succesful, they would be able to mitigate the the foreign exchange risk that
the respective bank occurs.
8
Active traders in the Forex market
For participants in the forex (FX) market, the forward rate transaction is how the
foreign exchange dealer earns profit wherein it holds a private contract with a locked-in-
rate currency rate and date of transaction, between them and a respective company or
client. If the model proposed is successful in prediction, FX traders may use the model
to make more educated market decisions.
Businesses engaged in imports and exports
For businesses, specifically those engaged in the importation and exportation of
goods and services in and out of the country, in gaining capability in predicting through
the models, their expected profit or loss would not be far from the computed profit or
loss. Moreover, it is an advantage in making business decision with foreign exchange as
its basis. If the domestic currency depreciates against the foreign currency, meaning
paying less for the same good or service, would be best to purchase. If the domestic
currency appreciates, meaning paying more for the same good or services, would be best
to sell.
Academe / Researchers
For researchers, it is not gaining capability in prediction through the models that
holds significance, but it is the likely the shortcomings that can be proved upon by future
9
researchers to contribute a less-flawed, more accurate predictive model of exchange rate
changes.
1.6 Scope and Limitations
The study used only the three-factor and four-factor model of the Nelson-Siegel
class of models to predict the USD/PHP exchange rate changes given that the Yield
Curve Package in the R Statistical Program only contains the three-factor and the four-
factor. Two (2) datasets were required: (1) the monthly USD/PHP exchange rate and (2)
the monthly zero coupon bond yields of the Philippines and the United States for tenors
3-month , 6-month, 1-year, 3-year, 4-year 5-year, 6-year, 7-year, 8-year, 9-year, 10-year,
15-year, 20-year, and 30-year from 2010-2018. All datasets were taken from the
Bloomberg Terminal. In addition, the study was limited only to the use of the mentioned
models as the main models for the prediction and the use of the Random Walk model as
a predictive performance comparison test.
10
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Exchange Rate Studies
The asset market approach pertains to determining exchange rates, thus
portraying nominal exchange rates with similar nature as the discounted present value of
expected future fundamentals, which holds resemblance in inflation, output, and cross
country differences in monetary policy (Chen & Tsang, 2013). These nominal exchange
rates are equivalent to an asset price due to the dependability on expectation of future
variables (Obstfeld & Rogoff, 1996, 529). These asset prices are determined through
current prices reflecting on markets’ expectations on present and future economic
conditions (Frenkel & Mussa, 1985) and are processed arbitrarily close to random walk
that requires (a) at least a forcing variable containing a unit autoregressive root and (b)
for the discount factor to hold precision with unity.
To provide emphasis, there holds a relationship between economic fundamentals
and expected future exchange rates. A variety of models indicates the present value
relationship which is expressed as:
𝑠𝑡 = (1 − 𝑏) ∑∞
𝑗=0 𝑏 𝑗 𝐸𝑡 (𝑓1𝑡+𝑗 + 𝑧1𝑡+𝑗 ) + 𝑏 ∑∞
𝑗=0 𝑏 𝑗 𝐸𝑡 (𝑓2𝑡+𝑗 +
𝑧2𝑡+𝑗 ) (2.1)
where exchange rate st is defined by drivers of economic fundamentals being money
supplies, money demand shocks, productivity shocks, etc., fit is a measured fundamental
and zit is a measurement error and an unobserved shock (i = p 1, 2) ,b jE,st+j imposes the
11
no-bubbles condition (Engel & West, 2005). This shows the linear combination of future
fundamentals in a discounted sum is the exchange rate (Chinn & Meese, 1995).
Furthermore, the asset market approach contains branches describing domestic
and foreign money with perfect capital substitutability or imperfect capital
substitutability, namely the monetary approach or the portfolio balance approach,
respectively (Levich, 2001). The monetary approach is derived from (a) domestic and
foreign economies with the functions of conventional money demand (Chinn & Meese,
1995) and (b) purchasing power parity (Meese & Rogoff, 1983b). The portfolio balance
approach, on the other hand, assumes cumulative current account balances, inflation
rates, and domestic-foreign differentials which serve as the variables contributing to
nominal exchange rate (Faust, Rogers, & Wright, 2003).
2.1.1 Derivations of the Monetary Approach
Conventional money demand functions are identical in domestic and foreign
countries. It is expressed as
𝑚𝑖 = 𝑝𝑖 + 𝑎𝑦𝑖 − 𝛿𝑟𝑖 (2.2)
𝑚𝑗 = 𝑝𝑗 + 𝑎𝑦𝑗 − 𝛿𝑟𝑗 (2.3)
where mi and mj are nominal money, pi and pj are the price level, yi and yj are real income,
ri and rj are the nominal interest rate, and (α) and (δ) represent parameters (Joseph &
12
Larrain, 2012). The equations assume equality across countries due to the income
elasticity α interest rate semi elasticity δ (Frankel, 1984).
Purchasing power parity (PPP) theoretical model is the change of price level
between home and foreign currencies. Equilibrium between the two economies will
result from the exchange rate changes with goods-market arbitrage mechanism. It is
expressed as:
𝒍𝒏 𝒆𝒕 = 𝒍𝒏 𝒑𝒕 − 𝒍𝒏 𝒑∗𝒕 (2.4)
where et is the nominal exchange rate, pt and pt∗ are domestic and foreign prices
respectively. The equation show the inclusion of price indexes in estimations as the
relative version of the theoretical model (Lam, Fung, & Yu, 2008).
The monetary approach contains three exchange rate determinative models which
predict and explain exchange rate out-of-sample using structural models with constrained
coefficients, namely flexible-price monetary model, sticky-price monetary model, and
the sticky-price asset model. The said models hypothesize on the homogeneity in the
first-degree which is relative to money supply, a1≃1 (Meese & Rogoff, 1983 a, b). The
combined models can be shown as a general specification through its quasi-reduced form
specifications expressed as
𝑠 = 𝑎0 + 𝑎1 (𝑚 − 𝑚∗ ) + 𝑎2 (𝑦 − 𝑦 ∗ ) + 𝑎3 (𝑟𝑠 − 𝑟 ∗
𝑠) + 𝑎4 (𝜋 𝑒 − 𝜋 ∗𝑒 ) +
∗
𝑎5 𝑇𝐵 + 𝑎6 𝑇𝐵 +𝑢 (2.5)
13
The flexible price monetary model of Frenkel-Bilson holds equivalence to the
difference of two identical money demand specifications and imposes PPP (Meese and
Rogoff, 1983b) due to the flexibly perfect prices of goods (Frankel, 1984). The
imposition of PPP mediums extensively to an exogenous real exchange rate shock (Chinn
& Meese, 1995) with variables such as output, yv and the real exchange rate qo (Engel
& West, 2005).
The sticky price monetary model of Dornbusch-Frankel takes the assumption of
flexibly perfect prices with shorter horizons of one to three months and PPP takes hold
of measures with longer horizons of nine to twelve months (Frankel, 1984) but short
horizon deviations permit PPP due to sticky domestic prices (Meese & Rogoff, 1983b).
Consequently, the assumption leads to consequent deviations (Meese & Rogoff, 1983a)
and the slow correlative adjustment of goods prices and assets prices (Chinn & Meese,
1995). Endogenous variables such as short-term differential, relative incomes, and
relative money supplies apply to the stick price monetary model (Meese & Rogoff,
1983a; Engel & West, 2005).
The sticky price asset monetary model of Hooper-Moton reveals similarity with
the sticky price monetary model of Dornbusch-Frankel. The difference lies in the
incorporation of real exchange rate changes in the long run, thus resulting to the
unforeseen impact to trade balance deficits or surplus (Meese & Rogoff, 1983a,b). The
14
failure of the PPP in holding broad price indices stimulates said model, like consumer
price index and GNP deflators (Chinn & Meese, 1995).
2.1.2 Portfolio Balance Approach
Past literature describes the portfolio balance approach as; (1) The illustrative
model (2) The analytical model (3) The extended model. Literature developments on the
approach held more complexity considering the redistribution of world wealth wherein
imbalances in current accounts alter to the bonds demanded in different currency
denominations, the adjusted interest differentials, resulting to the adjustment of relative
money demands. Additionally, current account is deemed important in determining the
exchange rate due to the wealth transfer effect where there is a higher probability of
domestic residents holding more proportion of wealth (domestics currency denominated
assets) than foreign travelers. The argument to the statement is that expected real returns
depend on the consumption basket which can be held parallel to favor the holding of
bonds denominated in foreign currency (Krugman, 1981).
To attain portfolio equilibrium, the price of exchange rate is equilibrium to the
balance of payments flows is what needs to be taken in consideration. This is in respect
to the continuous portfolio equilibrium assumption wherein the market demand separates
itself from changes in asset holdings (Kouri, 1976). The balance of payments flow holds
an ex-post (realized change) identity which is expressed as where IMD is import
15
deliveries, EXD is export deliveries, EXO is order for exports, IMO is orders for imports
(Black, 1973).
𝐵 − 𝐵𝑡−1 = 𝐼𝑀𝐷𝑡 − 𝐸𝑋𝐷𝑡 = 𝐼𝑀𝑂𝑡−1 − 𝐸𝑋𝑂𝑡−1 (2.6)
2.1.3 Taylor Rule Model
Monetary policy rule is the fundamental idea of the Taylor rule model. Taylor
(1993) describes policy rule to be an inclusion of a nominal income rule which targets
nominal income and a contingency plan for a rational amount of time. The adjustment of
the monetary policy, or rather interest rates, can be caused by (a) disparity of money
supply and target, (b) disparity of exchange rate and target, or (c) weighted deviations of
inflation rate (or the price level) and real output from target. Therefore, Taylor
constructed a policy rule expressed as
𝑟 = 𝑝 + .5𝑦 + 5(𝑝 − 2) + 2 (2.7)
where r is federal funds rate, p is the rate of inflation over the previous four
quarters, and y is the percent deviation of real GDP from a target. The stated model
contains assumptions of equal weight of 0.5 between the output and inflation gaps and
real interest rate and inflation target are held at an equilibrium level of 2%.
Following Molodtsova & Papell (2008), the modified monetary policy rule
characterizes flexibility on inflation rates and output gaps which can be expressed as
𝑖𝑡∗ = 𝜋𝑡 + 𝜙(𝜋𝑡 − 𝜋 ∗ ) + 𝛾𝑦𝑡 + 𝑟 ∗ (2.8)
16
where it* is the target for the short-term nominal interest rate, 𝝅t is the inflation
rate, 𝝅t* is the target level of inflation, yt is the output gap, and r* is the equilibrium level
of real interest rate. The similarity between two of the models explain the increase of
short-term nominal interest rate considering the surge of inflation from the output. In
addition to the technicalities of the equation, (a) the output cannot exceed potential output
for yt=0 due to the natural rate hypothesis and (b) a positive target inflation is the ideal.
Furthermore, constant increase of the exchange rate can precipitate the short-term
nominal interest rate, if these short-term nominal interest rate were underestimated for
its persistent shocks (Gourinchas & Tornell, 2004).
The forecasting equation of the Taylor Rule model holds the equivalence between
interest rate differential and the difference between interest rate reaction function for the
foreign and home interest rate, which can be expressed as
𝑔 ∗𝑔
𝑖𝑡 − 𝑖𝑡∗ = 𝛽0 (𝑠 − 𝑠𝑖∗ ) + 𝛽1 (𝑦𝑡 − 𝑦𝑡 ) + 𝛽2 (𝜋𝑡 − 𝜋𝑡∗ ) + 𝜐𝑡 − 𝜐𝑡∗ (2.9)
where 𝝅t = pt - pt-1 is the inflation rate, ygt is the output gap, vt is the shock
containing omitted terms, st* is the exchange rate target. The model contains the
following assumptions 𝞫1 > 0, 𝞫z > 1 and 0 < 𝞫0 < 1. It explains the derivations of the
exchange rate as a present value model and a positive relationship between the model
based and actual real exchange rate between the foreign and home countries (Engel &
West, 2005).
17
Given the previous empirical studies on exchange rate determination models,
exchange rates should be valued or treated as the net present value of future
fundamentals. Thus, in the latter part of this study, the researchers will be utilizing the
information on future fundamentals which are shown in the yield curve in determining
the exchange rate changes.
2.2 Previous Yield Curve Models
2.2.1 Durand’s Basic Yields
David Durand (1942) was the first researcher who attempted to fit yield curve. The
study revolved around corporate debt and focused on 1900 to 1942’s actively market-
traded bonds, but the study’s aim was not to create an estimated representation of the
yield curve. Moreover, the study used a monotonic envelope approach which utilized a
procedure using free-hand curve fitting that presented a curve of minimum yields by
term. As a result, the curves produced in this procedure were constrained to a few shapes
exhibited by a typical yield curve.
However, the procedure of curve fitting used by Durand (1942) revealed several
errors. Meiselman (1962) mentioned states “these measurement problems… introduce
some lack of precision”. Also, Sargent (1972) mentioned “(the basic Yields of Durand)
are subject to substantial error”. However, Durand (1958) stated himself that “Basic yield
curves are designed to create a quick and crude structure of the term structure of high
18
grade bond yields… They are not adequate, however, to support certain types of refined
analysis”. Thus, this concludes that Durand’s model for fitting yield curves were
insufficient in estimating the yield curve.
2.2.2 McCulloch’s Discount Function
McCulloch (1971) developed the yield curve fitting technique through using the
“discount function”. McCulloch (1971) derived the yield curve, instantaneous forward
interest rates, mean forward interest rates, and consistent values for securities.
Specifically, the study (McCulloch, 1971) utilizes a cubic splines method to divide the
zero-coupon yield curve into distinct intervals that make up a curve when connected.
Moreover, the discount function D(t) is simply the present value of $200 repayable in m
years represented by Equation (2.10):
𝐷(𝑡) = 1 + ∑𝑘𝑗=1 𝑓𝑗 (𝑡) ⋅ 𝑎𝑗 (2.10)
where aj are the estimated paramenters and j>k , fi(t) is a cubic polynomial.
However, the study (McCulloch, 1971) discovered that the D(t) is a kth-degree
polynomial with unity for its constant term. McCulloch (1971) stated that “a polynomial
is straight-forward, but it has no theoretical motivation”. This means that the formulation
of D(t) indoes dependent on the distribution of t. As a result of its unity, when D(t) is
used to fit a discount function, it will exhibit a finely defined and relatively smooth shape
in the first 1-2% of its length, but it will either ignore the short end and conform to the
19
remaining part or vice versa given that there are many bill observations within the
regression. Thus, this presents an inherent limitation contained in McCulloch’s
polynomial splines approach.
2.2.3 Exponential Splines Model
Following the study of McCulloch (1971), Vasicek & Fong (1982) presents an
approach using the s of the exponential spline in contrary to McCulloch’s polynomial
spline fitting. Given this, the difference that the exponential approach exhibits are (1)
desirability of asymptotic properties for long-term bonds, (2) flexible, allowing it to
produce the different yield curve shapes, and (3) sufficient robustness for stability of
forward rate curves
Moreover, the model was introduced due to the shortcomings of using polynomial
splines in fiting the discount functions. The argument was that the discount function is in
exponential form/shape. Polynomials produce different curves when compared to
exponentials. Also, the local fit of polynomial splines is not adequate even with choosing
sufficiently large knot points to be close to an exponential curve. Furthermore, when
viewed practically, polynomial splines exhibit the tendency to weave around the
exponential spline resulting to high levels of unstable forward rates.
20
2.2.4 Shortcomings of Previous Models
Polynomial spline models have drawbacks as term structure due to their tendency
to yield forward interest rates estimates that exhibit instability, high levels of fluctuations,
and drifting to large and negative values. With this, Vasicek & Fong (1982) followed it
up with the introduction of exponential splines as a better model for approximation due
to its asymptotic properties, flexibility, and stability which will be now referred to as VF
model. Given this, Shea (1985) proceeded to producing empirical applications and
comparisons of exponential and polynomial splines to verify the claims of Vasicek &
Fong (1982) specifically: (1) the model’s robustness to produce stable forward rates and
(2) the model’s asymptotic properties. As evidenced by past studies, polynomial spline
approximations are rarely linear or nearly linear. This observation would later be the
same case for exponential spline approximations in contrary to Vasicek and Fong’s claim
of desirable asymptotic properties.
Furthermore, the study (Shea, 1985) shows that there are wide changes in the
short term together with the little influence that the asymptotic forward rate brings to the
estimated forward yield curve. Also, it illustrates the instability of the VF model
approximations in response to previously stated claims of stability due to the data
conditioning properties that model imposes. This leads to the unrealistic and unstable
resulting asymptotic rates.
21
Figure 2. 1. Plotted Exponential Spline, Polynomial Spline and Asymptotic Forward Rate. Adapted from
"Interest Rate Term Structure Estimation with Exponential Splines: A Note" by G.S, Shea. 1985,
March. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 40, pp. 319-325..
Moreover, Vasecik and Fong’s claim of the VS model’s ability to produce more
stable rates as compared to the polynomial spline approximations are also debunked.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the similar estimates obtained by the exponential spline as compared
to the polynomial spline. This result is a result of a technicality that Vasecik and Fong
failed to recognize: it is difficult for polynomial splines to model exponential functions,
but this fact does not extend to local approximations. Thus, polynomial splines produce
nearly the same estimates and curve fitting as exponential splines.
Furthermore, Shea (1984) investigated the shortcomings of the equilibrium and
spline models in smoothing the yield curve. The study focused on comparing
McCulloch’s spline approximation model to the developed piecewise polynomial yield
curve model in the paper. Spline approximation techniques allow for the solution to
22
sparse data due to its ability to control the length of constituent polynomial pieces at long
terms to maturity, but this was not the case when empirical applications were established
as data was found to be too widely spaced (Shea, 1984). However, a solution was
suggested which was to add an additional constraint (Schaefer, 1973). Moreover, this
suggestion yields unsatisfactory yield estimates that would dive to zero or near-zero
interest rate levels. Also, the suggestion is theoretically invalid as polynomial
approximations are to be independently determined. Providing a negative slope
constraint would therefore violate this. Thus, the approximations by exponential and
polynomials splines are not to be considered perfect as evidenced by previous literature
discussed above.
2.3 Nelson-Siegel Model
The development of a parsimonious model for the yield curve started when Friedman
(1977) stated in a money demand study that “Students of statistical demand functions might
find it more productive to examine how the whole term structure of yields can be described
more compactly by a few parameters”. In addition, Friedman (1977) recommended the
development of a parameterized statistical procedure that could describe the height and
slope of the yield curve to investigate if money demand will increase or decrease. Nelson
and Siegel (1987) stated that “Potential applications of parsimonious yield curve models
include demand functions, testing of theories of the term structure of interest rates, and
graphic display for informative purposes”
23
2.3.1 Original Model
Nelson & Siegel (1987) stated that “A class of functions that readily generates
the typical yield curve shape is associated with solutions to differential equations”.The
primary objective of the paper was to present simple and parametric models that exhibit
influence but not dependence on the expectations theory, that is sufficiently
parsimonious to present the shapes associated with yield curves. Overall, as evidenced
by the empirical results, the model exhibits the necessary smoothness to present a
maturity-specific pattern.
𝑅(𝑚) = 𝛽0 + (𝛽1 + 𝛽2) ∗ [1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑚/𝜏)]/(𝑚/𝜏) − 𝛽2 ∗ 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑚/𝜏)
(2.11)
Figure 2. 2 Flexibility of the Yield Curve.. Adapted from "Parsimonious Modeling of Yield Curves" by
Nelson, C., & Siegel, A. (1987). The Journal Of Business
24
As seen on Equation 2.12 and Figure 2.2, parameter a being able to use values
from minus six to 12 in equal increments allows the generation of different yield curve
shapes (humps, monotonic curves, and S-shapes). According to Nelson and Siegel
(1987), the loading levels of the short-term, medium-term, and long-term aspects of the
yield curve are contained in the coefficients of the model. The long-term in B0, the short-
term in B1, and the medium term in B2. Among the components, the short-term
monotonically decays to zero. On the other hand, the long term is referenced as a constant
which exhibits no decay to zero while the medium term is the only component that starts
at zero and ends at zero as seen in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2. 3Interpretation of the Yield Curve Factors. Adapted from "Parsimonious Modeling of Yield
Curves" by Nelson, C., & Siegel, A. (1987). The Journal Of Business
The primary objective of the model is to investigate its sufficiency in producing
any possible relationship between the term to maturity and the yields for U.S. Treasury
bills. The study (Nelson & Siegel, 1987) gathered 30 yield and term-to-maturity pairs
For the purpose of fitting yield curves the model was converted to a parametric form:
25
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
𝑅(𝑚) = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ⋅ [1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝(− )]/( ) + c (exp(- ) (2.13)
𝑡 𝑡 𝑡
Nelson and Siegel (1987) also stated that “Another criteria for a satisfactory
parsimonious model is that it be able to predict yields beyond the maturity range of the
sample.” With this, Nelson & Siegel (1987) determines through their empirical results
that there is high correlation between the estimated and actual values.
2.3.2 Svensson four-factor Model
The study’s (Svensson, 1994) major contribution is the extension of the Nelson-
Siegel model through the addition of a fourth, U-shaped, term with two additional
parameters 𝛽3and 𝜆2 (second exponential decay parameter).

𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
𝑓(𝑚; 𝑏) = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑒𝑥𝑝(− ) + 𝛽2 𝑒𝑥𝑝(− ) + 𝛽3 𝑒𝑥𝑝(− )
𝜆1 𝜆1 𝜆1 𝜆 2 𝜆2
(2.14)
where b = 𝛽0,𝛽1,𝛽2, 𝜆1 𝛽3 , 𝜆1
Svensson (1994) emphasized on the importance of minimizing price errors to
result to good fits of yield especially for short maturities as observed in previous
literature. Moreover, the empirical results reveal that the four-factor Nelson-Siegel model
exhibits better predictive performance when compared to the original Nelson-Siegel
model when yield curves become more complex. Thus, the addition of the fourth term
(later defined as the second curvature factor) shows improvement in goodness of fit.
26
2.3.3 Dynamic three-factor Model
Diebold & Li (2006) presented the original model as a three-factor dynamic
model of level, curvature, and slope
1 − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 1 − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚
𝑦𝑡 = 𝛽1𝑡 + 𝛽2𝑡 ( ) + 𝛽3𝑡 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 ) (2.14)
𝜆𝑚 𝜆𝑚
The study proceeds to interpret the several parameters in Equation (2.14). The lambda
represents the rate of exponential decay. Lambdas with small values result to slower
decay and better fit for maturities that are long. This means that the lambda is important
to the determination of the maturity where the medium-term loading reaches the
maximum. However, in the study, Diebold & Li (2006) determines the lambda value as
0.0609, the 30-month average of the 2 or 3 year maturities are commonly used in the
medium-term.
Moreover, one of the vital contributions of the study is the interpretation of the
factors (long, short, and medium term) found in Nelson & Siegel (1987) as seen in
Equation (2.14) as the yield curve’s slope, level, and curvature ( 𝛽2𝑡 ,𝛽1𝑡 t,, and 𝛽3𝑡 )
Furthermore, the study (Diebold & Li, 2006) provides a five-point comparison of
the model’s framework and the facts related to the average represented shape of a yield
curve to theoretically assess the model’s ability to present a smooth and accurate yield
curve. First, previous literature has provided that the average yield curve is concave and
increasing which is also matched by the three latent dynamic factors, 𝛽1𝑡 ,𝛽2𝑡 and ,𝛽3𝑡 .
27
Second, the average yield curve exhibits different shapes through time which can be
matched by the study’s yield curve due to the factor’s association with a yield curve’s
slope, curvature, and level. Third, yield curve dynamics are said to be persistent and
spread dynamics are less persistent, and this is again replicated by the model’s heavy
loading on 𝛽1𝑡 and light loading on 𝛽2𝑡 . Fourth, yield curve’s short end is found to be
much more volatile in the long end which is represented by the model’s short end
depending on both 𝛽1𝑡 and 𝛽2𝑡 and the long end depending only on 𝛽1𝑡 Finally, previous
yield curve literature state that long rates are said to be more persistent than short rate
which can be potentially represented by the model’s long term factor, 𝛽1𝑡 , if it is the
most persistent factor after data analysis. Thus, the study’s framework is very much
consistent in theory.
Also, the study (Diebold & Li, 2006) plotted the the observed yield curve factors
(B1t,B2t ,B3t) against the actual/empirical level, curvature, and slope. The correlations for
the factors are as follows: p(B1t, lt) = 0.97, p(B2t, st) = -0.99, and p(B3t, ct) = 0.99.
Moreover, the results of the descriptive statistics of the factors empirically confirm that
the long-term factor, B1t, is the most persistent factor of the yield curve. Thus, the results
confirm the theoretical assertions by the study.
In addition, Diebold & Li (2006) conducted in-sample and out-of-sample
forecasting tests. First, in the in-sample tests, there appears to be a low degree of cross-
28
factor interaction and autocorrelation between the estimated factors. Also, when the
estimated factors are plotted against the autocorrelations of the AR(1) models, the results
show that there is a low level of residual correlation; entailing that the AR(1) models
describe the conditional means of the three factors. Lastly, in the out-of-sample tests, the
RMSE results show that the Nelson-Siegel dynamic model performs well in the 1 and 6-
month ahead, but does not outperform other predictive models such as the Random Walk.
This outcome may be a result of forecast errors being serially correlated as evidenced in
previous literature (Bliss, 1997; de Jong, 2000). However, the Nelson-Siegel model
outperforms the other predictive models in the 12-month ahead forecasting performance
comparison. Thus, the framework of the study succeeds in simplifying the Nelson-Siegel
model interpretation and forecasting the term structure of interest rates at some levels.
2.3.4 Five factor Dynamic Model
The study compares the in- and out-of-sample prediction of the Nelson-Siegel class
of models with those of a Random Walk. In addition, the study utilizes Quantile
Autoregression (QAR), Vector Autoregression (VAR), Autoregression (AR), and
Random Walk (RW) to further evaluate predictive performance. However, the study
introduces a five-factor model that includes a fifth term or second slope factor to enhance
the fitting flexibility of the previous variations of the Nelson-Siegel model allowing for
more complex and twisted curves.
29
𝑦(𝜏)
1 − 𝑒_− 𝜆1 𝜏 1 − 𝑒_− 𝜆1 𝜏 1 − 𝑒_− 𝜆1 𝜏

= 𝛽1𝑡 + 𝛽2𝑡 ( ) + 𝛽3𝑡 ( ) + 𝛽4 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆1 𝜏 )
𝜆1 𝜏 𝜆1 𝜏 𝜆1 𝜏
1 − 𝑒_− 𝜆2 𝜏
+ 𝛽5𝑡 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆2 𝜏 ) (2.15)
𝜆2 𝜏
Moreover, the study (De Rezende & Ferreira, 2013) utilizes two lambda or
exponential decay parameters through an optimization problem that provides the the
lambda with the lowest Root Mean Squared Error at each period t:
1 𝑁 1 𝑇
(𝜆̂1, 𝜆̂2 ) = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑚𝑖𝑛{ ∑ √ ∑ (𝑦𝑡 (𝜏𝑛 ) − 𝑦̂𝑛 (𝜏𝑛 , 𝜆1 , 𝜆2 , 𝛽𝑡 )2 } (2.16)
𝑁 𝑛=1 𝑇 𝑡=1
Furthermore, the empirical results of the study show that the five-factor Nelson-
Siegel model is the best model for in-sample fitting based on RMSE and BIC statistics.
However, the five-factor model delivers poor results in out-of-sample forecasting which
may be attributed to a case of overparameterization as evidenced by Diebold & Li
(2006). Overall, the Nelson-Siegel models can outperform the random walk forecasts
depending on prediction horizons such as 1 month and 3 months ahead, but the common
denominator among them is that these models perform better when utilizing QAR.
30
2.3.5 Relative Model
The study focuses on the yield curve by extracting relative factors from cross-
country differences in the yields to gather information on future exchange rate
fundamentals. The study shows that the factors contained in any two countries’ yield
curves can exhibit predictive performance. Also, the study reiterated the dominant
performance of the model in fitting the yield curves through references to papers such as
Nelson & Siegel (1987) and Diebold & Li (2003).
However, the vital contribution of the study (Chen & Tsang, 2013) is the process
created for the purpose of extracting Nelson Siegel factors that are relative for two
countries. Given the previous literature that exchange rates contain information about
future fundamentals such as interest rate differentials, Chen & Tsang (2013) were able
to change the left side of the formula into that of the interest rate differential of the two
countries to transform the Nelson-Siegel model relative to two countries which would
allow for the prediction of exchange rate changes as shown in Equation 2.17 and 2.18:
1−𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 1−𝑒 −𝜆𝑚

𝑖𝑚 𝑐 − 𝑖𝑚 𝑐∗ = 𝐿𝑚 𝑅 + 𝑆𝑚 𝑅 ( ) + 𝐶𝑚 𝑅 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 ) + 𝜀𝑚 𝑐 (2.17)
𝜆𝑚 𝜆𝑚
𝛥𝑠𝑡+𝑚 = 𝐵𝑚,0 + 𝐵𝑚,1 𝐿𝑡 𝑅 + 𝐵𝑚,2 𝑆𝑡 𝑅 + 𝐵𝑚,3 𝐶𝑡 𝑅 + 𝑢𝑡+𝑚 (2.18)
Furthermore, the study shows that the relative factors can estimate exchange rate
movements. The study finds that an increase in the level or slope factors entails an annual
3-4% appreciation of its currency, while changes caused by the curvature factor tend to
have a much smaller effect. Results also offer insight into the UIP. According to Chen &
Tsang (2013), “the study finds that the deviations from UIP respond to the shape of the
31
yield curves, which in turn capture market perception of future inflation, output, and
other macro indicators.”. Thus, the yield curve exhibits predictive ability, but it is limited
to certain time horizons.
2.3.6 Application of the Class of Models in Exchange Rates
Exchange rate studies have accepted the superiority of the three-factor regression
model with a three-month horizon, but have not proven the accuracy and precision in
exchange rate changes determination of the four- and five-factor regression models in
any horizon. The study Ishii (2018) remodels the three-factor regression equation by
Chen & Tsang (2013) to include the Nelson-Siegel four and five-factor extensions. The
following remodeled Extended Dynamic model Regression Equations are expressed as:
The study runs an out-of-sample prediction, using statistical tests such as RMSPE
and Clark and West to compare results on accuracy performance while also applying the
random walk as the benchmark model comparison. The Nelson-Siegel class of models
holds superior to the random walk with a 1% significance level. Based on the empirical
results, the three-factor model can predict at a three-month horizon. The four-factor
model can predict at a 6- and 12-month horizon. Moreover, the five factor is inferior to
32
the three-factor model at a three-month horizon and is equal to the performance of the
four-factor model in six- and twelve-month horizons.
2.4 Yield Curve Macro Linkage
As observed by previous bodies of literature cited in Section 2.1, the nominal
exchange rate is a result of economic fundamentals, such as cross-country monetary
policy differences, GDP, and inflation. This entails that a proper exchange rate
determination model must be one that contains information about future macroeconomic
fundamentals.
Moreover, Mishkin (1988) investigated the relationship of the yield curve and
inflation. Generally, the results show that the yield curves do exhibit information of the
future path of inflation at the longer-end, specifically at maturities nine months or greater.
However, given this finding, Mishkin (1988) recommends that future researchers should
practice caution when using the yield curve to predict future inflation changes as the
empirical results show that external factors may contribute a drastic change in predictive
performance such as major monetary policy changes. Also, Barr & Campbell (1997)
conducted a similar study with similar results to Mishkin (1988) of the yield curve’s short
end containing little to no information about future inflation. With this, it can be
concluded the yield curve has the potential to determine future inflation at certain levels.
33
In addition, given the evidence provided by previous literature, Hamilton & Kim
(2000) reinvestigated the capability of the yield curve’s spread to estimate future real
GDP growth. The study (Hamilton & Kim, 2000) confirms that both effects are
statistically significant: (1) a forecast of lower short-term interest rates resulting to slower
GDP growth and (2) an increase in the expected returns from rolling over one-period
bonds relative to an n-period bond denotes a slower GDP growth. However, the
expectations effect proves to be more statistically and quantitatively significant. Thus,
the study (Hamilton & Kim, 2000) confirms that there lies information on future GDP
growth within the yield curve
Also, Rudebusch and Wu (2008) observed the lack of macro-finance
interpretation of the term structure of interests. The study (Rudebusch & Wu, 2008)
focuses on the established macroeconomic and finance facts of the term structure.
Moreover, the study (Rudebusch & Wu, 2008) concludes through its empirical results
that the level factor of the yield curve exhibits information on the perceived medium-
term central bank inflation target while the slope factor exhibits information related to
the cyclical variation in inflation and output gaps when the central bank adjusts the short
rate accordingly to policy. Given the previous bodies of literature on the macroeconomic
explanatory capability of the yield curve, it can be concluded that the yield curve contains
information on future fundamentals which can potentially be applied to estimate
movements in exchange rates.
34
However, Meese & Rogoff (1983a, 1983b) compared the predictive performance
of models of the 1970s against the Random Walk model. The study (Meese & Rogoff,
1983a, 1983b) empirically determined that no fundamentals, including commodity
prices, can predict better than the Random Walk model.
2.5 Previous Studies in the Philippine Setting
2.5.1 Exchange Rate
The study (Yu, 2011) considers the application of previous determination models
such as the Structural and Time-Series to the USD/PHP Exchange Rate. The study aims
to qualify and confirm the results of the Meese-Rogoff (MR) Experiment (refer to Section
2.) through a predictive performance comparison of the mentioned models and Random
Walk model during stable and turbulent time periods. To analyze predictive performance,
the study employed Mean Average Error, Mean Squared Error, Mean Average
Percentage Error, and Diebold-Mariano Statistic.
Furthermore, the results of the study confirms the conclusion of the MR
Experiment evidenced by the predictive performance of the Random Walk model against
the structural models when applied in the Philippine setting. However, the study finds
that the parsimonious AR(1) model from the Time-Series category is able to dominate
the Random Walk during the crisis, thus indicating the ability of the model to produce
accurate forecasts amidst instability.
35
2.6 Research Gap
Given the previous bodies of literature discussed in this section, this study will
focus on using the three and four factor model of the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of
models prescribed by Ishii (2018) as the predictive models for the Exchange Rate
Changes in the Philippines. However, for the 𝜆, exponential decay factor, of the Relative
Nelson-Siegel class of Models will be determined through the same optimization process
utilized by De Rezende & Ferreira (2013) and Ishii (2018).
The study will also make use of the Regression Analysis equations for the three-
factor and four-factor Models prescribed by Ishii (2018). The Regression Analysis
equations will produce values for the p-value, t-statistic, and pearson’s correlation which
will be the bases for analyzing in-sample fit of the model. The significance level of 5%
will be used as a basis for the significance of variables (Nelson-Siegel Factors).
Also, despite numerous out-sample tests used in previous literature, the study will
only use the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) as an additional measure of predictive
performance. However, to comprehensively determine the predictive performance of the
Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models, a Random Walk model for predicting USD/PHP
Exchange Rate changes will be employed to confirm the validity of the Random Walk
superiority in exchange rate determination as stated by Meese & Rogoff (1983). With
this, the RMSEs of the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models and Random Walk model
will be compared to assess the more significant model in predicting USD/PHP exchange
rate changes.
36
2.7 Literature Map
Figure 2. 4. Literature Map
37
CHAPTER THREE
FRAMEWORK
3.1 Theoretical Framework
Uncovered Interest Rate Parity Theory
The Uncovered Interest Rate Parity (UIP) is a theory that states that high yield
currencies are expected to depreciate. An increase in the real interest rate should
appreciate the currency. The UIP is one most important and prominent concepts in
international finance which has affected previous exchange rate literature. According to
Fung & Yu (2008) “the UIP gives an arbitrage mechanism that drives the exchange rate
to a value that equalizes on holding both domestic and foreign assets.”
We let it be the interest rate on bonds on home currency at time t , and 𝑖𝑡∗ be the
interest rate on foreign-currency bond. The UIP holds when:

𝑆𝑡 +1
1 + 𝑖𝑡 = (1 + 𝑖𝑡∗ )𝐸𝑡 { } (3.3)
𝑆𝑡
where St and St+1 is the nominal exchange rate in period t and t+1 , respectively.
Moreover, it is also a fundamental concept in foreign exchange that implies same
deposit placed whether in a local or foreign currency should yield the equal returns.
According to Ullenes (2012), “… any returns from interest differentials should be
equalized through exchange rate movements.” By writing the UIP in log form, we
introduce an approximation under uncertainty:
38
𝑖𝑡 = 𝑖𝑡∗ + 𝐸𝑡 (𝑠𝑡 + 1) − 𝑠𝑡 (3.4)
where the logs of St and St+1 , are St+1 and St , respectively.
Furthermore, Madura (2007) stated that “The country with the higher nominal
interest rate is expected to depreciate against the low interest currency, because higher
nominal interest rates reflect the expectation of inflation.” The relation predicts that
countries with high interest rates, should on average, have depreciating currencies.
However according to Flood & Rose (2001), “such currencies tend to have appreciated.”
As the demand for high-yield interest currencies attract more foreign investors than low-
yield currencies, so does its price, and hence, it will appreciate. Empirical findings reveal
that high-yield currencies tend to appreciate, which provide information regarding
violations of the UIP. Deviations from UIP may indicate an existence of currency risk
premium.
39
3.2 Conceptual Framework
The two main objectives to answer in this study are : (1) to determine if the Relative
Nelson-Siegel class of models is significant enough to predict USD/PHP Exchange Rate
Changes and (2) to determine if the Nelson-Siegel class of models is more significant
than the Random-Walk model in predicting USD/PHP Exchange Rate Changes.
Moreover, to accomplish the objectives, a comparison between the predictive
performances of the three-factor, four-factor, and five-Factor Relative Nelson-Siegel
model must be done.
Figure 3. 1. Conceptual Framework for three-factor Nelson-Siegel model (Ishii, 2018)
40
Figure 3. 2. Conceptual Framework for four-factor Nelson-Siegel model (Ishii, 2018)
Furthermore, the study will start with the extraction of the corresponding
exponential decay factor, 𝜆, for each Nelson-Siegel model (three, four, and five-factor)
through an optimization process. The study will then proceed with the extraction of the
monthly Relative Nelson-Siegel Factors for each variation of each Nelson-Siegel model
through an Ordinary Least Squares Regression and AR(1) Time-Series. By obtaining the
monthly Relative Nelson-Siegel Factors for each Nelson-Siegel model, the study can
proceed to analyzing the predictive performance of the Relative-Nelson-Siegel class of
models for exchange rate changes through a Regression Analysis that will produce values
for p-value and t-statistics. These produced values will be used to analyze in-sample
predictive performance while the RMSE of both the Nelson-Siegel Relative Factors and
the Random Walk model will be used to analyze out-sample predictive performance.
However, a more comprehensive explanation of the statistical processes is provided in
the next chapter.
41
3.3 Operational Definition
a. Nelson Siegel
Predictive exchange rate model with the use of term structure of interest
rates
b. Relative Nelson-Siegel factors
Factors of the yield curve that are extracted from the Nelson-Siegel model
through time-series relative to the interest rate differentials of two
countries
c. Exchange Rate
Price of one currency equivalent to another currency
d. Treasury Bond
Long term fixed interest rate debt security issued by a respective
government
e. Bond Yield
Realized return gained from a bond
f. Yield Curve
Also called to be the term structure of interest rates, presenting a graphic
illustration of yields of bonds of varying maturities
g. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Regression
42
Statistical method estimating the correlations between independent
variables and a dependent variable through the reduction of the sum of
squares
h. Time Series
Chronologically sequenced numerical data points or variables in
successive order
i. RMSE
Used in measuring the spread of prediction errors through resulting to
standard deviation of the prediction errors
j. Random walk
Stochastic process applying random random variables consisting of a
succession
of random steps on a mathematical space
k. Regression Analysis
Statistical approach in forecasting change in a dependent variable, if there
is a change in the independent variables
43
CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research Design
The study utilizes a Descriptive-Comparative research design to determine the
predictive performance of the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models. The study will
consist of the statistical tests to be utilized such as Ordinary Least Squares Regression,
AR(1) model, Regression Analysis, Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Moreover, after
obtaining the results from statistical tests, a comparative analysis between the Nelson-
Siegel class of models and the Random Walk model will be conducted to assess the
predictive performance evidenced by Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient and Root Mean
Squared Error (RMSE).
4.2 Data Description and Collection
The data to analyzed in the study consists of the daily US Zero Coupon Bond
Yields, PH Zero Coupon Bond Yields, and the USD/PHP Exchange Rate from 2010-2018.
Moreover, although there is a bootstrapping method for obtaining zero coupon bond yields,
the data for the study will utilize the zero coupon bond yield data from the Bloomberg
Terminal. This sample period was chosen to thoroughly analyze the predictive performance
of the Nelson-Siegel class of models factors.
44
4.3 Data Analysis
The study mainly revolves around the estimation of the Nelson-Siegel factors and
the regression of the Nelson-Siegel factors and the USD/PHP Exchange Rates. However,
the researchers would like to note the study’s usage of the Yield Curve Package in the R
Statistical Program to streamline the data analysis. With this, the study will be utilizing
these statistical processes:
4.3.1 Nelson Siegel three-factor and four-factor
4.3.1.1 Estimation of the Exponential Decay/Lambda Parameter (𝜆)
(4.2)
(4.3)
where:
𝑦𝑡 (𝑚𝑛 ) ≡relative zero coupon yields 𝑅,𝐶𝐻

𝑆𝑚 = the Relative Slope of the
n = index of the number of maturities three-factor model at m
𝑋̂𝑡𝑅 = [𝐿𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝑡 , 𝑆𝑡𝑅,𝑆𝑉 , 𝐶1 𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝑡
, 𝐶2 𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝑡
]𝑋̂𝑡𝑅 ] 𝑅,𝐶𝐻
𝐶𝑚 = the Relative Curvature of the
𝐿𝑅,𝐶𝐻
𝑚 = the Relative Level of the three-factor model at m
three-factor model at m
45
First, the study will proceed to the estimation of the exponential decay/lambda
parameter that minimizes the RMSE to provide for better fitting accuracy of the treasury
bond yields. As stated in previous literature, the three-factor (CH) model utilizes only one
lambda parameter while the four (SV) utilizes two distinct lambda parameters. However,
the lambda parameters for all models will differ due to the existence of the varying amount
of factors in the all models.
Moreover, this is estimation is done through an optimization problem as evidenced
by Equation 4.1 and 4.2. Simply put, the optimization problems are mathematical
representations of the process. In actuality, the estimation of the lambda parameters that
minimizes RMSE is done through rigorously estimating the Nelson-Siegel factors using
Ordinary Least Squares with different lambda parameters, then the lambda parameter that
minimizes RMSE is chosen.
46
4.3.1.2 Estimating the Relative NS Model Factors - Ordinary Least
Squares Regression
1−𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 1−𝑒 −𝜆𝑚

𝑖𝑚 𝑐 − 𝑖𝑚 𝑐∗ = 𝐿𝑅,𝐶𝐻
𝑚
𝑅,𝐶𝐻
+ 𝑆𝑚 ( 𝑅,𝐶𝐻
) + 𝐶𝑚 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 ) +
𝜆1 𝑚 𝜆1 𝑚
𝜀𝑚 𝑐 (4.4)
1−𝑒 −𝜆1 𝑚 1−𝑒 −𝜆1 𝑚

𝑖𝑚 𝑐 − 𝑖𝑚 𝑐∗ = 𝐿𝑅,𝑆𝑉 𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝑚 + 𝑆𝑚 ( 𝑅,𝑆𝑉
) + 𝐶1,𝑚 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 )
𝜆1 𝑚 𝜆1 𝑚
𝑅,𝐹𝐹 1−𝑒 −𝜆2 𝑚

+𝐶2,𝑚 ( − 𝑒 −𝜆𝑚 ) + 𝜀𝑚 𝑐 (4.5)
𝜆2 𝑚
Where:
m = Bond tenor 𝑅,𝐶𝐻

𝐶𝑚 = the Relative Curvature
imc = the US Treasury Bond Yield of the three-factor model at m

imc* = the PH Treasury Bond 𝐿𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝑚 = the Relative Level of the
Yield four-factor model at m

𝜆= lambda parameter that 𝑅,𝑆𝑉
controls the speed of exponential
four-factor model at m
decay
𝑅,𝑆𝑉
𝐶𝑚 = the Relative Curvature
𝐿𝑅,𝐶𝐻
𝑚 = the Relative Level of the
of the four-factor model at m
𝑅,𝐶𝐻
47
Second, the study requires the extraction of the Nelson-Siegel factors of for each
Treasury Bond Tenor (m) through an Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Equation 4.1
presented above. For every tenor, m, (1) the level, slope, and curvature factors are extracted
for the CH model and (2) the level, slope, first curvature, and second curvature factors are
extracted for the SV model.
4.3.1.3 Autoregressive (1) Model
Xt=δ+ϕ1Xt-1+w (4.7)
Third, with the Time-Series of the Factors of the Relative Nelson Siegel class of
models for each time period, the study can now proceed to analyze if the factors can predict
the exchange rate changes through a regression analysis which will be discussed in the next
section.
4.3.2 Regression Analysis
𝛥𝑠𝑡+𝑚 = 𝐵𝑚,0 + 𝐵𝑚,1 𝐿𝑡 𝑅,𝐶𝐻 + 𝐵𝑚,2 𝑆𝑡 𝑅,𝐶𝐻 + 𝐵𝑚,3 𝐶𝑡 𝑅,𝐶𝐻 + 𝑢𝑡+𝑚 (4.8)
𝛥𝑠𝑡+𝑚 = 𝐵𝑚,0 + 𝐵𝑚,1 𝐿𝑡 𝑅,𝑆𝑉 + 𝐵𝑚,2 𝑆𝑡 𝑅,𝑆𝑉 + 𝐵𝑚,3 𝐶1,𝑡 𝑅,𝑆𝑉 + 𝐵𝑚,4 𝐶2,𝑡 𝑅,𝑆𝑉 + 𝑢𝑡+𝑚 (4.9)
Where:
m = number of months ahead
st+m = USD/PHP Exchange
Rate at t+m
48
The study proceeds with the Regression Analyses of the USD/PHP Exchange Rates
and the Nelson-Siegel factors of each Nelson-Siegel model (CH and SV) to determine the
performance of the Nelson-Siegel class of models in predicting exchange rate changes.
Moreover, the study will be conducting in-sample tests from 2010-2018 and a out-of-
sample test for January 2019 Exchange Rates. The p-value, t-statistic, and Pearson’s
correlation coefficient produced by the Regression Analyses will be serve as bases for
assessing predictive performance.
4.3.3 Tests of Regression
The following procedures are tests for the assumptions of linear regression.
Assumptions of the linear regression suggests that if any of the assumptions are violated,
the model may be inefficient or biased. Assuming that the model violates the OLS
assumptions, the study will proceed to the Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method for
Regression Analysis.
4.3.3.1 Homoscedasticity
Tests of homoscedasticity may be found using the Breusch-Pagan test. The
process allows the heteroscedasticity be a function of one or more of the independent
variables by assuming that heteroscedasticity may be a part of the linear function of all the
independent variables of the regression model. Results of the Breusch-Pagan test may be
interpreted by its p-value.
49
4.3.3.2 Autocorrelation
Tests of autocorrelation is found using the Durbin-Watson test. The test gives a
number from esiduals of a regression analysis. The Durbin-Watson statistic is a value
between 0 and 4, Values from 0 to less than 2 indicate a positive autocorrelation and
values ranging from more than 2 to 4 indicate a negative autocorrelation, while 2
indicates that there is no autocorrelation present in the regression model.
4.3.3.3 Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity is present when there is a significant correlation between
independent variables. Detecting multicollinearity is done by measuring the Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF). VIFs can be computed for each independent variable, a value of
1 suggests that a variable is not correlated with the other variables. Generally, the higher
the value of the VIF the greater the correlation present. Values of 4 to 5 suggests moderate
to high multicollinearity, while values of 10 or more suggests very high multicollinearity.
4.3.3.4 Normality of the error distribution
Tests for normality are used to determine whether or not a data set is well-modeled
by a normal distribution. Normality test is done using the Jarque-Bera test. The test is
determined by its p-value at 5% significance level. Values of more than 0.05 suggests
that the null hypothesis that the model is normally distributed should be rejected. Values
of less than 0.05 on the other hand, suggest that the null hypothesis should not be
rejected therefore implying that the model is normally distributed.
50
4.3.4 Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
𝒏
𝜮 = (𝑿𝒐𝒃𝒔,𝒊 − 𝑿𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍,𝒊 )𝟐
𝑹𝑴𝑺𝑬 = √ 𝒊=𝟏 (4.10)
𝒏
Where:
Xobs = observed values
Xmodel is modelled values at time/place i.
The RMSE is the standard deviation of the residuals (prediction errors). The
residuals are a measure that shows how far from the regression line the data points are. The
RMSE measures the spread of these residuals. This entails that the RMSE shows how
concentrated the area is around the best-fit line.
51
4.3.5 Random Walk (without drift) Comparative Analysis
Xt=Xt-1+et (4.12)
Xt-Xt-1=et (4.13)
where:
Xt = the value in time period t
Xt-1= the value in time period t−1 plus a random shock et (value of error term in
time period t).
The predictive performance of the Regression Analysis between the Relative
Nelson-Siegel Factors and the USD/PHP Exchange Rates will be compared to the
predictive performance of a Random Walk without Drift. A Random Walk Time-
Series assumes that changes in data are independent which entails that historical
trends of the data do not produce any predictive ability for its future movement.
Furthermore, this predictive performance comparison between the Nelson-Siegel
model and the Random Walk model will allow us to determine if the Meese-Rogoff
puzzle holds true with the Nelson-Siegel model.
52
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND ANALYSES
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 5. 1. Philippines Zero-coupon Bonds Interest Rates (in %), 1 January 2010 to 31
December 2018
Time to Maturity Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum

3 months 3.35 1.8 0.75 12.43
6 months 3.43 1.81 0.13 12.43
1 year 3.59 1.75 0.96 12.43
4 years 4.37 1.55 2.27 15.17
5 years 4.62 1.84 2.1 14.3
6 years 4.68 1.37 2.4 9.72
7 years 4.77 1.18 2.57 8
8 years 4.89 1.23 2.67 8.05
9 years 5.02 1.29 2.77 8.4
10 years 5.15 1.35 2.81 8.78
15 years 5.8 1.55 3.1 9.68
20 years 6.49 1.97 3.4 12.72
30 years 6.56 1.99 3.62 13.09
Table 5.1 presents the descriptive statistics of interest rates of zero-coupon bonds
in the Philippines where the mean interest rate increases drastically along with its time to
maturity. On the average, the deviations of the coupons’ interest rates from the mean
interest rate is not relatively large. This suggests that the interest rates of the Philippine
zero-coupon bonds are stable and not erratic. Also, although the interest rates seem to be
increasing along with time to maturity, it appears that the maximum interest rates of coupon
bonds with time to maturity between 4 to 8 years show a gradually decreasing trend. This
53
could also be indicative that there are short-term coupon bonds with high interest rates.
The maximum interest rates of long-term coupon bonds (greater than 10 years) increase
along with its time to maturity.
Table 5. 2. US Zero-coupon Bonds Interest Rates (in %), 1 January 2010 to 31

December 2018
Time to Maturity Mean Std. Minimum Maximum

Dev
3 months 0.45 0.64 0 2.5
6 months 0.51 0.67 0.01 2.58
1 year 0.61 0.69 0.04 2.72
4 years 1.39 0.63 0.44 3.06
5 years 1.65 0.6 0.6 3.09
6 years 1.87 0.59 0.76 3.23
7 years 2.09 0.59 0.91 3.63
8 years 2.x26 0.6 1.1 3.95
9 years 2.42 0.6 1.3 4.17
10 years 2.56 0.59 1.41 4.24
15 years 3.03 0.72 1.63 5.09
20 years 3.24 0.74 1.85 5.21
30 years 3.51 0.7 2.33 5.23
As presented in Table 5.2, on the average, the interest rates of US zero-coupon bonds
drastically increase with its time to maturity. Compared to Philippines zero-coupon bond
interest rates, the average interest rates in US zero-coupon bonds are relatively lower. In
addition, the interest rates for US coupon bonds are also more stable. Lastly, there are some
short-term US coupon bonds (less than 1 year) that can be acquired at very low interest
rates or no interest at all.
54
Figure 5. 1. USD-PHP Exchange Rates, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018
Table 5. 3. USD-PHP Exchange Rates, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018

Mean Std. Minimum Maximum
Dev
Nominal Exchange Rate 46.05 3.61 40.55 54.31
Daily Percentage Change 0.00575 0.33 -1.32% 1.67%
Table 5.3 showed that from 2010 until 2018, the average USD-PHP exchange rate is at
46.05 pesos per US dollar. On the other hand, Figure 5.1 shows the time plot of USD-PHP
exchange rate showed a decreasing trend from 2010 until early 2013. This is indicative of
an increasing value of the Philippine Peso in an economic standpoint within the same
55
period. The lowest recorded USD-PHP exchange rate is at 40.55 pesos per US dollar on
2013. However, starting from mid-2013, the trend shifted in favor of the US dollar, as
evidenced by the increasing amount of USD-PHP exchange prices. The largest recorded
USD-PHP exchange rate is at 54.31 pesos per US dollar recorded on the 2nd half of 2018.
The lowest recorded daily change from 2010 until 2018 is a 1.32 percent drop in the USD-
PHP exchange rate while the highest is a 1.67 percent increase in the USD-PHP exchange
rate.
5.2 Estimating the Dynamic Factors of Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models
Figure 5. 2. Dynamic Factors of the Nelson-Siegel three Factor model
56
As shown in Figure 5.2, the level factor of the three-factor Relative Nelson-Siegel
model showed a steady increasing trend from 2010 until end of 2013, with presence of
occasional, small to moderate shocks. The level factor remained stable at a slightly lower
value than 0 on 2014, where only few shocks have been recorded. However, starting from
2015, the level factor showed multiple large shocks in a daily basis, but stabilizing its value
closer to 0 from time to time.
Moreover, the slope factor exhibited a short-term decreasing behavior from 2010
until halfway of 2011. The slope factors displayed a drastic increase starting from the
second half of 2011 until end of 2013. During this period, shocks to the slope factor are of
low magnitude and low occurrence. However, starting from 2014, the slope factors showed
a gradual decrease, approaching 0. There is a period of high volatility on the slope factors
from 2015 to 2016 and resurfaced again on 2018.
Furthermore, the values of the curvature factors are usually below zero from 2010
until end of 2013 except during periods with moderate to large spikes. Starting from 2015,
there is a gradual decreasing trend in the curvature factors but large spikes tend to be more
noticeable within the period, more specifically on years 2016 and 2018.
57
Figure 5. 3. Dynamic Factors of the Nelson-Siegel four Factor model
Based on the Figure 5.3, the level factors of the four-factor model showed an
increasing trend from 2010 until the first half of 2011, characterized with large spikes.
Halfway through 2011, the trend shifted downward, which lasted for a year. A large
downward spike occurred midway through 2013 and followed by a steadily increasing
trend which lasted until end of the following year. Starting from 2015, the level factor
exhibited a gradually decreasing trend until end of 2018, with a high occurrence of
moderate to large shocks.
58
Furthermore, the slope factors of the four-factor model exhibited an increasing
trend from 2011 until mid-2013 along with a large spike on 2013. Halfway through 2013,
the trend shifted downwards until end of 2014. Starting from 2015, the slope factor
displayed an increasing trend but with a regular occurrence of moderate to large shocks.
Moreover, contrary to other dynamic factors, the first curvature factor is relatively
stable, and with values that are close to 0. Some noticeable massive downward spikes from
2010 until 2018 occurred on the 2nd half of 2010, near the end of 2012, and last quarter of
2013 which lasted until early 2014. Aside from these large shocks, the first curvature
factors have relatively low variability.
Lastly, the second curvature factor of the four-factor model showed an increasing
trend from 2011 until end of 2013, with large spikes that occurred nearing the end of 2012
and end of 2013. Afterwards, the trend shifted downward for a year. The factor approached
closer to 0 from 2015 until 2018, with low occurrence of moderate shocks.
59
5.3 Predicting Exchange Rate Changes using Relative Nelson-Siegel Factors
5.3.1 Parameter Estimates
Table 5. 4. Parameter Estimates of the Nelson Siegel three and four-factor model
Three-factor model Four-factor model

Intercept −8.36 × 10−4 −2.32 × 10−3
(0.496) (0.0613)*
Level −2.61 × 10−4 −4.68 × 10−4
(0.481) (0.0995)*
Slope −7.04 × 10−5 1.53 × 10−5
(0.757) (0.8781)
Curvature −5.6 × 10−5 −2.48 × 10−5
(0.487) (0.6734)
Second Curvature -- −1.79 × 10−4
(0.1052)
Adj. R square -0.005432 0.02407
*-denotes statistical significance at 10% level
Table 5.4 presents the parameter estimates for the Nelson-Siegel three and four-
factor model. As presented, there is no significant parameters estimates for the Relative
Nelson-Siegel three factor model. This result is in-line with the results of Ishii (2018)
where the three-factor model factors did not show any statistical significance. However, in
the four-factor model, the level-factor is statistically significant at the 10% level. This
outcome is also in-line with several Nelson-Siegel exchange rate application literature
(Ishii, 2018; Chen & Tsang, 2013). Although, the researchers would like to note that the
statistical significance of the relative factors vary from a country-pair basis as evidenced
in previous literature (Ishii, 2018; Chen & Tsang, 2013). Lastly, the parameter estimates
show that the adjusted R squared of the four-factor model is higher than that of the three-
60
factor model, making it more statistically significant in the within-sample prediction which
is again in-line with a previous study on the exchange rate application of the Nelson-Siegel
class of models (Ishii, 2018).
5.3.2 Regression Diagnostics
5.3.2.1 Homoscedasticity -Breusch-Pagan test
Table 5. 5. Results of Breusch-Pagan test

Three-factor Four-factor
model model
BP test statistic 1.1419 3.6610
p-value 0.7670 0.4538
As shown in Table 5.5. both models do not exhibit heteroscedasticity (non-
constancy of variance).
5.3.2.2 Autocorrelation—Durbin-Watson Test
Table 5. 6. Results of Durbin-Watson test

model model
DW test statistic 2.1507 2.2125
p-value 0.8619 0.9832
As presented in Table 5.6, both models have no evidence of serial correlation of
error terms
61
5.3.2.3 Multicollinearity—Variance Inflation Factors
Table 5. 7. Results of Variance Inflation Factors test

Three-factor model Four-factor model
Level 23.2 215
Slope 9.10 29.4
Curvature 28.8 6.13
Second Curvature -- 244
Table 5.7 presents that the three-factor model somewhat exhibits a mild case of
multicollinearity between the Level and Curvature factor. However, in the case of the four-
factor model, there is a clear evidence of strong multicollinearity between the Level and
the Second Curvature factors.
The case of multicollinearity of the Nelson-Siegel class of models has long been
recognized by previous studies as this is a result of the factor-loadings in the lambda
parameters represented by 𝜆1 and 𝜆2 (Cabrera et. al, 2014; Annaert et. al, 2013; Gilli et. al,
2010). According to Gilli et.al (2010), “Correlated regressors are not necessarily a problem
in forecasting. We are often not interested in disentangling the effects of two single factors
as long as we can assess their combined effect. The problem changes if we want to predict
the regression coefficients themselves”. Given this, the study can ignore the case of
multicollinearity as its aim is to predict exchange rate changes and not to predict the values
of the Nelson-Siegel dynamic factors.
62
5.3.2.4 Normality of Error Terms—Jarque-Bera Test
Table 5. 8. Results of Jarque-Bera test

model model
JB test statistic 6.5576 3.4943
p-value 0.0377 0.1743
Table 5.8 shows that there is evidence of non-normality of residuals from the three-
factor model. However, there is no evidence of non-normality of residuals for the four-
factor model
5.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation
Table 5. 9. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Results
Variable Estimate Std. Error z- p-

statistic value
Constant -8.36E-04 1.23E-03 -0.681 0.496
Level -2.61E-04 3.70E-04 -0.705 0.481
Slope -7.04E-05 2.28E-04 -0.309 0.757
Curvature -5.60E-05 8.05E-05 -0.696 0.487
Null deviance 0.0021535 df 260

Residual deviance 0.0021400 df 257
Although, there is a result of non-normality of residuals in the three-factor model
as evidenced in Table 5.8, this can be remedied through shifting the parameter estimation
model from Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) to Maximum Likelihood Estimation as it does
not need to satisfy the normality of errors assumption. Table 5.9 shows that: (1) a unit
increase in the level factor in effect will transmit an average of 0.000261 percentage points
63
decrease in the current day exchange rate differentials, (2) a unit increase in the slope factor
will transmit an expected 0.0000704 percentage points decrease in the current day
exchange rate differentials, and (3) a unit increase in the curvature factor will transmit an
expected 0.000056 percentage points decrease in the present day exchange rate
differentials. Moreover, these parameter results are similar to those of the OLS regression.
5.5 Prediction Accuracies for Within-Sample and Out-of-Sample Prediction
Table 5. 10. Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of the Nelson Siegel three factor,
Nelson Siegel four factor, and random walk
model Within Sample Out-of-sample

Nelson-Siegel 3-Factor 0.002864321 0.00099207
Random Walk 0.004198101 0.003692655
Table 5.10 shows the RMSE values of the three competing models for the within
sample (training sample) and the out-of-sample (test data) forecast. The Relative Nelson-
Siegel 4-Factor model produce the least varied prediction error for the training sample
(2018 data) with an RMSE of about 0.00282. The 3-Factor model has an RMSE that is
almost 2% higher than the 4-factor model which indicates that the 3-factor model performs
just as good as the 4-factor model. In contrast, the variability of the Random Walk
prediction errors for the training sample are about 50% more varied than the two previous
models. Thus, the two Nelson-Siegel models perform 33% better in predicting exchange
rate changes than the random walk model.
64
Moving on to the out-of-sample forecasts, the Nelson-Siegel 3-Factor model has
the least RMSE value among the three competing models. The RMSE of the 4-factor model
is about 8% higher than the 3-factor model which implies that the performance of the two
models are just similar. Moreover, the random walk prediction error variation is 3.7 times
higher than the 3-factor model and about 3.4 times higher than the 4-factor model making
the random walk model the least superior (most inferior) model among the three. This huge
discrepancy of prediction accuracy of the Nelson-Siegel models from the random walk
model suggests a potential application of the Relative Nelson-Siegel models in predicting
future exchange rate changes in the country.
65
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary
With the recently rising and volatile behavior of the USD/PHP Exchange Rate, this
specific study set out to apply one of the most recent prediction models in exchange rate
literature. As discussed in previous chapters, the Nelson-Siegel class of models show
reliable results for prediction of yield curves. In addition, several literatures have linked
the possible use of the information contained in the yield curve in predicting exchange
rates. With this, the study focused on applying the three and four-factor model of the
Nelson-Siegel class of models in the prediction of Exchange Rate Changes
Through the statistical analyses as presented in the previous chapter, in terms of
statistical significance, the Nelson-Siegel class of models failed to fully exhibit statistical
significance in its parameter estimates with only the level factor of the four-factor model
being statistically significant. Moreover, the two models violate two regression
assumptions, where the three-factor violates normality of errors and the four-factor violates
multicollinearity. However, the violation of the normality of errors may be avoided through
the use of Maximum Likelihood Estimation as an alternative parameter estimation model.
On the other hand, the multicollinearity issue can be disregarded as the aim of study is not
to predict the regression coefficients or the Nelson-Siegel dynamic factors as evidenced by
66
previous literature. With this, the study proceeds to focusing on the practical and predictive
significance of the Nelson-Siegel class of models.
Table 6. 1. Predictive Performance Summary
Model Within Sample Out-of-sample

Random Walk 0.004198101 0.003692655
*lower value denotes better predictive performance
Lastly, acknowledging the empirical determination of the Meese-Rogoff puzzle on
the inability of any fundamental to predict better than a Random Walk, the study aims to
further examine the prediction capability of the Nelson-Siegel class of models through
undergoing both within-sample and out-of-sample prediction tests between the three-factor
model, four-factor model, and the Random Walk model. With this, the Root Mean Squared
Error tests show that the Nelson-Siegel class of models outperform the Random Walk
model in both within-sample and out-of-sample prediction in the 1-month horizon.
67
6.2 Conclusion
The four objectives of the study revolved around investigating the capability of the
Nelson-Siegel class of models in predicting the exchange rate changes in the Philippines.
First, the study aims to investigate the Nelson-Siegel class of models’ significance in
predicting exchange rate changes. Second, it sought to determine the most significant
Nelson-Siegel model among the three and the four-factor. Third, it aims to examine which
Nelson-Siegel Relative Dynamic Factor is the most significant in prediction. Fourth, the
study aims to establish the predictive performance of the Nelson-Siegel class of models
when compared to the Random Walk.
Given the statistical analyses of the Nelson-Siegel class of models, the study
confirms that the Relative Nelson-Siegel class of models, through its relative dynamic
factors, exhibits predictive ability for exchange rate changes in the Philippines. A result
that is consistent with previous Nelson-Siegel exchange rate application studies in different
countries (Ishii, 2018; Kurti & Vasstrand, 2018; Chen & Tsang, 2013). Moreover, the
Relative Nelson Siegel four-factor model is the most significant in predicting exchange
rate changes with an adjusted R squared value higher than that of the three-factor model.
In addition, the level-factor of the four-factor model was the only factor to show statistical
significance, but statistical significance of the relative dynamic factors vary by country-
pair (Chen & Tsang, 2013). Lastly, the statistical test for RMSE both within-sample and
68
out-of-sample determines that the Nelson-Siegel class of models exhibits substantially
better predictive performance than the Random Walk model in both within-sample and
out-of-sample prediction which is consistent the results of the study by Ishii (2018).
Overall, the results of the study show that the relative dynamic Nelson-Siegel
factors of the United States and the Philippines contain information on the future changes
of the USD/PHP Exchange Rate. In line with previous studies, the use of relative yield
curves is, in fact, reliable in predicting exchange rate changes. Thus, relevant stakeholders
should consider the use of yield curve prediction through the Relative Dynamic Nelson-
Siegel model to aid and develop better decision-making in foreign exchange transactions.
6.3 Recommendations
Despite the outperforming the Random Walk model, the results of the do not
suggest an absolute utilization of the Nelson-Siegel three and four-factor model as sole
exchange rate predictive models for any stakeholder. Moreover, the importance of solving
the multicollinearity issue is reiterated through ridge regression for any stakeholder that
will consider the use of the Nelson-Siegel class of models. This problem was not addressed
in the study given that it focuses on assessing the overall impact of the Nelson-Siegel
factors on predicting exchange rate changes. Addressing the problem only becomes an
issue when the factors themselves are being predicted which is the exact practical
69
application that our study suggests. Assuming that multicollinearity is solved, it is
recommended that:
For Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the study recommends considering the use of the
models to potentially improve the implementation of monetary policies, or rather interest
rates, in stabilizing inflation rates to favor the Philippine economy. With this, there will be
a moderate economic growth and a reduction in inflationary pressure.
For banks, the study recommends the use of the model as additional tools to
mitigate the foreign exchange risk that occurs in the respective bank. Therefore, banks will
have the ability to (1) forecast the change in domestic and/or foreign currency and (2)
managing risk during the closing out of a currency.
For participants in the force (FX) market, the proponents recommend using the
models as additional indicators to make more educated market decisions. Hence, the
improved ability to profit from forward rate transactions.
For businesses, the researches recommend the use of the models as instruments to
heighten the advantage in making business decisions with foreign exchange as a basis.
Those particularly engaged in the importation and exportation of foods and services will
be those who profit.
70
For future researchers, despite the positive results of the study, the proponents
would like to note that the study still has several areas for further improvement and
research. A number of considerations that future researchers should account for would be:
(1) study the rest of the Nelson-Siegel class of models, (2) include longer time horizons for
predictive performance analysis, (3) fix the model’s violations of regression assumptions,
(4) add other exchange rate prediction models for comparison.
The Nelson-Siegel five and six-factor
As stated in the scope and limitations, the proponents only conducted a study on the
three and four-factor Nelson-Siegel model due to time and technical constraints. During
the writing of this study, there is no statistical package that can automate the process of
obtaining the optimal lambda parameters together with the estimation of the relative
dynamic Nelson-Siegel factors. However, this can be solved through customizing and
hardcoding the existing statistical package which would require a lot of processing time.
Also, the researchers would recommend the application of the remaining models of the
Nelson-Siegel class of models due to the models’ ability to further smooth the estimation
of the yield curve which, in theory, will produce better estimates of the factors.
Longer Time Horizons for Predictive Performance
The proponents of the study only focused on the short-term application of the Nelson-
Siegel three and four-factor. With this, there is much left to be examined on the long-term
71
prediction capability of the Nelson-Siegel class of models. This recommendation would
contribute greatly to future research since it would determine the time horizon that the
models are most effective in.
Solving violations of Regression Assumptions
As stated in previous sections of the study, the Nelson-Siegel three-factor model
violated normality of errors while the four-factor model violated multicollinearity.
Moreover, solving the violations would allow the future Philippine application research to
be more in-line with the methodology used in previous literature and regression standards.
Additionally, the problem of multicollinearity is a well-recognized problem of the Nelson-
Siegel class of models which can be resolved through ridge regression (Annaert et. al,
2013).
Comparison with other exchange rate predictive models
The study mainly focused on addressing the Meese-Rogoff puzzle which determined
the Random Walk as the most superior exchange rate determination model. However, it is
believed that there are other exchange rate determination models that can be compared with
the Nelson-Siegel class of models. With this, future researchers on the Nelson-Siegel class
of models may consider interviewing industry experts to determine which additional
models to add for comparison.
72
REFERENCES
Annaert, J., Claes, A., De Ceuster, M., & Zhang, H. (2013). Estimating the spot rate
curve using the Nelson–Siegel model. International Review of Economics &
Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2013.01.005.
Bautista, G. M. (2003, October). An Assessment of the Philippine Economy. Retrieved
October, 2018, from https://kyotoreview.org/issue-4/an-assessment-of-the-
philippine-economy/
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2018). Exchange Rate. Retrieved from
http://www.bsp.gov.ph/downloads/Publications/FAQs/exchange.pdf
Bank of International Settlements (2016, December 11). Triennial Central Bank Survey
of foreign exchange and OTC derivatives markets in 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.bis.org/publ/rpfx16.htm
Barr, D., & Campbell, J. (1996). Inflation, Real Interest Rates, and the Bond Market: A
Study of UK Nominal and Index-Linked Government Bond Prices.
doi:10.3386/w5821
Beakert, G., Wei, M., & Xing, Y., (2002). Uncovered Interest Rate Parity and The Term
Structure.
Black, S. W. (1973). International Money Markets and Flexible Exchange Rates.
Princeton Studies in International Finance, 32.
Bodie, Z., Kane, A., & Marcus, A. (2011). Investments (Ninth Edition ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill Irwin.
73
Burnside, C., Eichenbaum, M., & Rebelo, S. (2011). Carry Trade and Momentum in
Currency Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w16942
Cabrera D., Lammers, J., Morón Moreno, M., & Vegas García, A. (2014). The Nelson-
Siegel-Svensson approach. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/9582801/The_Nelson-Siegel-Svensson_approach
Campbell, J., & Shiller, R. (1991). Yield Spreads and Interest Rate Movements: A
Bird ́s Eye View. The Review of Economic Studies, 58 (3), 495-514.
Campbell, J. (1995). Some Lessons From The Yield Curve. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 9, 129-152.
Chen, Y., & Tsang, K. P. (2013). What Does the Yield Curve Tell Us About Exchange
Rate Predictability? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 185-205.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.17]31787
Chinn, M. D., & Meese, R. A. (1995). Banking on currency forecasts: How predictable is
change in money? Journal of International Economics, 38(1-2), 161-178.
doi:10.1016/0022-1996(94)01334-o
Diebold, F.X. & Li, C. (2006). Forecasting the term structure of government bond yields.
Journal of Econometrics, ISSN: 0304-4076, Vol: 130, Issue: 2, Page: 337-
364
Dimand, R. (1999). Irving Fisher and the Fisher Relation: Setting the Record Straight.
Durand, D. (1942). Basic Yields of Corporate Bonds, 1900-1942. National Bureau of
Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9268
74
Durand, D. (1958). A Quarterly Series of Corporate Basic Yields, 1952-57, and Some
Attendant Reservations. The Journal Of Finance, 13(3), 348. doi:
10.2307/2976731
Engel, C., & West, K. (2005). Exchange Rates and Fundamentals. Journal of Political
Economy, 113(3). doi:10.3386/w10723
Estrella, A., & Mishkin, F. (1995). Predicting U.S. Recessions: Financial Variables as
Leading Indicators. doi: 10.3386/w5379
Fama, E. F. (1984). Forward and Spot Exchange Rates. Journal of Monetary Economics,
14, 319-338. doi:10.3386/w20294
Faust, J., Rogers, J. H., & Wright, J. H. (2002). Exchange Rate Forecasting: The Errors
We’ve Really Made. Journal of International Economics, 60(2003), 35-59.
doi:doi:10.1016/S0022-1996(02)00058-2
Flood, R.P. & Rose, A.K. (2001). Uncovered Interest Parity in Crisis: The Interest Rate
Defense in the 1990s. International Monetary Fund Research Department.
Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2001/wp01207.pdf
Floro, M.S., & Solon, O. (1993). The Philippines in the 1980s: A Review of National and
Urban Level Economic Reforms (The World Bank). Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Frankel, J. A. (1984). Tests of Monetary and Portfolio Balance Models of Exchange Rate
Determination. (J. F. Bilson & R. C. Marston, Eds.). Exchange Rate Theory and
Practice, 6(4), 239-260. doi:10.1016/0164-0704(84)90058-2
75
Frankel, J.. & Rose, A. K., (1995). A Survey of Empirical Research on Nominal
Exchange Rates. Center for International and Development Economics Research
(CIDER) Working Papers 233409, University of California-Berkeley, Department
of Economics.
Frenkel, J.A., & Mussa, M. (1985). Asset Markets, Exchange Rates and the Balance of
Payments (R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen, Eds.). Handbook of International
Economics, II, 679-747.doi:10.3386/w1287
Friedman, M. (1977). Time Perspective in Demand for Money. The Scandinavian Journal
of Economics, 79(4), 397-416. doi:10.2307/3439699
Fung, L. & I, Yu. (2008). Comparing Forecast Performance of Exchange Rate Models.
Gilli, M., Große, S., & Schumann E. (2010). Calibrating the Nelson–Siegel–Svensson
model. Comisef Working Papers Series. Retrieved from
https://comisef.eu/files/wps031.pdf
Girton, L., & Henderson, D. W. (1976). Central Bank Operations in Foreign and
Domestic Assets Under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates. International
Finance Discussion Papers, 83.
Hamilton, J., & Kim, D. (2000). A Re-examination of the Predictability of Economic
Activity Using the Yield Spread. doi: 10.3386/w7954
Kouri, P. J. (1977). The Exchange Rate And The Balance of Payments In The Short Run
and in The Long Run: A Monetary Approach. Flexible Exchange Rates and
Stabilization Policy, 78(2), 280-304. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-03359-1_13
76
Krugman, P. (1981). Consumption Preferences, Asset Demands, and Distribution Effects
in International Financial Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research.
doi:10.3386/w0651
Kurti, S., & Vasstrand, M. H. (2018). What does the Yield Curve tell us about the
Exchange Rate Predictability in Norway? (Master's thesis, BI Norwegian
Business School, 2016). BI Oslo: BI Norwegian Business School.
Lam, L., Fung, L., & Yu, I. (2008). Comparing Forecast Performance of Exchange Rate
Models. Hong Kong Monetary Authority. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1330705
Levich, R.M. (2001). Spot Exchange Rate Determination [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved
from New York University International Financial Markets Prices and Policies:
dept.ku.edu/~empirics/Courses/Econ750/CHAP06.PPT
Lustig, H., Roussanov, N., & Verdelhan, A. (2008). Common Risk Factors in Currency
Markets. Doi: 10.3386/w14082
Macaraeg, P. (2017, September 21). How Did the Declaration of Martial Law in 1972
Affect the Economy? Retrieved October 1, 2018, from
https://www.entrepreneur.com.ph/news-and-events/how-did-the-declaration-of-
martial-law-in-1972-impact-the-economy-a1673-20170921
McCulloch, J. (1971). Measuring the Term Structure of Interest Rates. The Journal of
Business, 44(1), 19-31. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2351832
77
Meese, R. A., & Rogoff, K. (1983a). Empirical Exchange Rate Models of the Seventies.
Journal of International Economics, 14(1-2), 3-24. doi:10.1016/0022-
1996(83)90017-x
Meese, R., & Rogoff, K. (1983b). The Out-of-Sample Failure of Empirical Exchange
Rate Models: Sampling Error or Misspecification? Exchange Rates and
International Macroeconomics, 67-112.
Meiselman, D. (1962). The Term Structure of Interest Rates. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Mishkin, F. (1988). What Does the Term Structure Tell Us About Future Inflation?.The
Journal of Monetary Economics. 25(1). Pp. 77-95. doi:10.3386/w2626
Molodtsova, T., & Papell, D. H. (2008). Out-of-Sample Exchange Rate Predictability
with Taylor Rule Fundamentals. Journal of International Economics, 77(2), 167-
180. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.11.001
Moorad, C. (2011). Analysing and Interpreting the Yield Curve. Singapore: John
Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Nelson, C., & Siegel, A. (1987). Parsimonious Modeling of Yield Curves. The Journal
Of Business, 60(4), 473. doi: 10.1086/296409
Noland, M. (2000). The Philippines in the Asian Financial Crisis: How the Sick Man
Avoided Pneumonia. Asian Survey, 40(3), 401-412.
doi:10.1525/as.2000.40.3.01p0077c
78
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (1996). Foundations of International Macroeconomics. MIT
Press. doi: 10.2307/1061063
Rivas, R. (2018, May 30). Philippine debt at P6.88 trillion in April 2018. Retrieved
October 1, 2018, from https://www.rappler.com/business/203724-philippine-
government-debt-amount-april-2018
Rudebusch, G., & Wu, T. (2008). A Macro-Finance Model of the Term Structure,
Monetary Policy and the Economy*. The Economic Journal, 118(530), 906-926.
Doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02155.x
Sarno, L, and Mark, T. (2002). The Economics of Exchange Rates. Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805214/81335/sample/9780521481335ws.pdf
Schaefer, S.M. (1973). "On Measuring the Term Structure of Interest Rates." Discussion
Paper, London Business School
Shea, G. S. (1984). Pitfalls in Smoothing Interest Rate Term Structure Data: Equilibrium
Models and Spline Approximations. Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, 19(3), 253-269. doi:10.2307/2331089
Shea, G. S. 1985), Interest Rate Term Structure Estimation with Exponential Splines: A
Note. The Journal of Finance, 40: 319-325. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6261.1985.tb04952.x
79
Taylor, J. B. (1993). Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice. Carnegie-Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy, 39, 195-214. doi:10.1016/0167-
2231(93)90009-l
The World Bank. (n.d). GDP current $ [Metadata]. Retrieved from
https://data.worldbank.org/country/philippines.
Ullenes, B. T. (2012). Uncovered Interest Parity and the Forward Premium Puzzle:
Implications for Market Efficiency and Carry Trade (Master's thesis, Norwegian
School of Economics, 2012). Bergen: Norwegian School of Economics.
Vasicek, O., & Fong, H. (1982). Term Structure Modeling Using Exponential Splines.
The Journal of Finance, 37(2), 339-348. doi:10.2307/2327333
“What Do You Know About the BSP?” The Role of the BSP in the Economy
(Publication). (n.d.). Retrieved http://www.bsp.gov.ph/downloads/PPT/PPT_Role
of BSP.pdf.
80
APPENDIX A: Statistical Codes
#load required packages

library(YieldCurve)
library(readxl)
library(ggplot2)
library(DescTools)
library(tseries)
library(openxlsx)
library(psych)
library(gridExtra)
library(olsrr)
library(Hmisc)
#read the datasets

ph_zero_coupon<-read_xlsx("Zero-Coupon-Data.xlsx",sheet = "ph_zero_coupon")
us_zero_coupon<-read_xlsx("Zero-Coupon-Data.xlsx",sheet = "us_zero_coupon")
ph_usd<-read_xlsx("USD_PHP-Historical-Data.xlsx","forex")
Interest Rate Differentials
#compute the interest rate differentials

mydata<-cbind.data.frame("Date"=ph_zero_coupon$Date,us_zero_coupon[,2:14]-
ph_zero_coupon[,2:14])
delta<-diff(log(ph_usd$Price),differences = 1)
ph_usd$delta<-c(delta,NA)
ph_usd<-xts(ph_usd[,2:7],order.by = ph_usd$Date)
Descriptive Statistics
#plot the exhange rate data
p1<-ggplot(ph_usd,aes(x=Index,y=Price))+geom_line(col="blue")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("USD-PHP Exchange Rate")
p2<-ggplot(ph_usd,aes(x=Index,y=`Change %`))+geom_line(col="red")+
scale_y_continuous(labels=scales::percent)+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Change (in %)")
81
grid.arrange(p1,p2)
in_data<-xts(mydata[,2:14],order.by = mydata$Date)
maturity_a<-c(3,6,12,48,60,72,84,96,108,120,180,240,360) #set the maturity tenor in

months
Estimating Nelson-Siegel Factors

#compute for the NS dynamic factors
ph_ns<-Nelson.Siegel(rate=in_data,maturity=maturity_a)
ph_sv<-Svensson(rate=in_data,maturity=maturity_a)
#merge with the exchange rate data

in_factors_ns<-merge.xts(ph_usd,xts(ph_ns[,2:5],order.by = ph_ns$Date),join = "inner")
in_factors_sv<-merge.xts(ph_usd,xts(ph_sv[,2:7],order.by = ph_sv$Date),join = "inner")
#plot the NS dynamic factors

#3-factor model
p1<-ggplot(in_factors_ns,aes(x=Index,y=beta_0))+geom_line(col="#F8766D")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Level Factors")
p3<-ggplot(in_factors_ns,aes(x=Index,y=beta_1))+geom_line(col="#00BFC4")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Slope Factors")
p4<-ggplot(in_factors_ns,aes(x=Index,y=beta_2))+geom_line(col="#7CAE00")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Curvature Factors")
p2<-ggplot(in_factors_ns,aes(x=Index,y=Change..))+geom_line(col="#C77CFF")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Exchange Rate Change")+
scale_y_continuous(labels=scales::percent)
grid.arrange(p1,p3,p4)
#4-factor model
p1<-ggplot(in_factors_sv,aes(x=Index,y=beta_0))+geom_line(col="#F8766D")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Level Factors")
p3<-ggplot(in_factors_sv,aes(x=Index,y=beta_1))+geom_line(col="#00BFC4")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Slope Factors")
82
p4<-ggplot(in_factors_sv,aes(x=Index,y=beta_2))+geom_line(col="#7CAE00")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("First Curvature Factors")
p2<-ggplot(in_factors_sv,aes(x=Index,y=beta_3))+geom_line(col="#C77CFF")+
xlab("Year")+ylab("Second Curvature Factors")
grid.arrange(p1,p3,p4,p2)
Regression Analysis
#set the training data for the regression
train1<-in_factors_ns["2018"]
train2<-in_factors_sv["2018"]
#Regression Models
#NS 3-factor model

model1<-lm(delta~beta_0+beta_1+beta_2,data=train1)
summary(model1)
Regression Diagnostics
#diagnostics
ols_plot_diagnostics(model1) #diagnostic plots
ols_coll_diag(model1) #multicollinearity
DurbinWatsonTest(delta~beta_0+beta_1+beta_2,data=train1) #autocorrelation
shapiro.test(model1$residuals) #normality test
jarque.bera.test(model1$residuals) #normality test
ols_test_breusch_pagan(model1,rhs = T) #heteroscedasticity test
#NS 4-factor model

model2<-lm(delta~beta_0+beta_1+beta_2+beta_3,data=train2)
summary(model2)
#Model 2 diagnostics
ols_plot_diagnostics(model2) #diagnostic plots
ols_coll_diag(model2) #multicollinearity
DurbinWatsonTest(delta~beta_0+beta_1+beta_2+beta_3,data=train2) #autocorrelation
shapiro.test(model2$residuals) #normality test
83
jarque.bera.test(model2$residuals) #normality test
ols_test_breusch_pagan(model2,rhs = T) #heteroscedasticity test
Prediction Accuracy Tests
#Prediction Accuracy
sqrt(sum(model1$residuals^2)/NROW(model1$residuals)) #NS 3 factor model
sqrt(sum(model2$residuals^2)/NROW(model2$residuals)) #NS 4 factor model
z<-na.omit(train1$delta-lag(train1$delta,k=1))
sqrt(sum(z^2)/NROW(z)) #Random Walk model
#out-of-sample predictions
#load the test datasets

jan2019_ph_rates<-read_xlsx("Zero-Coupon-Data-Jan-2019.xlsx",sheet =
"ph_zero_coupon")
jan2019_us_rates<-read_xlsx("Zero-Coupon-Data-Jan-2019.xlsx",sheet =
"us_zero_coupon")
jan2019_ph_usd<-read_xlsx("USD_PHP-Historical-Data-January-2019.xlsx",sheet =
"data")
delta<-diff(log(jan2019_ph_usd$Price),differences = 1)
jan2019_ph_usd$delta<-c(delta,NA)
jan2019_ph_usd<-xts(jan2019_ph_usd[,2:7],order.by = jan2019_ph_usd$Date)
jan2019_rates<-
cbind.data.frame("Date"=jan2019_ph_rates$Date,jan2019_us_rates[,2:14]-
jan2019_ph_rates[,2:14])
jan2019_rates<-xts(jan2019_rates[,2:14],order.by = jan2019_rates$Date)
#Compute for the test data factors

jan2019_ns<-Nelson.Siegel(rate=jan2019_rates,maturity=maturity_a)
jan2019_sv<-Svensson(rate=jan2019_rates,maturity=maturity_a)
84
#compute for the Jan 2019 forecasts
yhat<-predict(object = model1,jan2019_ns)
yhat_sv<-predict(object = model2,jan2019_sv)
#out-of-sample prediction accuracies

sqrt(sum((jan2019_ph_usd[-1,]$delta-yhat[-1]))^2/(NROW(yhat)-1)) #NS 3 factor model
sqrt(sum((jan2019_ph_usd[-1,]$delta-yhat_sv[-1]))^2/(NROW(yhat_sv)-1)) #NS 4 factor
model
z<-na.omit(jan2019_ph_usd$delta-lag(jan2019_ph_usd$delta,k=1))
sqrt(sum(z^2)/NROW(z))
85
86
Start Date 1/1/2010
End Date 12/31/2018
3-Month 6-Month 1-Year 4-Year 5-Year 6-Year 7-Year
I10503M Index I10506M Index I10501Y Index I10504Y Index I10505Y Index I10506Y Index I10507Y Index
Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price
Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Date
1/1/2010 10.546 1/1/2010 10.546 1/1/2010 10.546 1/1/2010 11.861 1/1/2010 12.106 1/1/2010 8.939 1/1/2010 6.565 1/
1/4/2010 12.426 1/4/2010 12.426 1/4/2010 12.426 1/4/2010 12.426 1/4/2010 11.705 1/4/2010 8.699 1/4/2010 6.445 1/
1/5/2010 12.425 1/5/2010 12.425 1/5/2010 12.425 1/5/2010 12.425 1/5/2010 11.687 1/5/2010 8.644 1/5/2010 6.369 1/
1/6/2010 12.426 1/6/2010 12.426 1/6/2010 12.426 1/6/2010 12.426 1/6/2010 11.673 1/6/2010 8.613 1/6/2010 6.332 1/
1/7/2010 12.426 1/7/2010 12.426 1/7/2010 12.426 1/7/2010 12.426 1/7/2010 11.67 1/7/2010 8.63 1/7/2010 6.374 1/
1/8/2010 12.426 1/8/2010 12.426 1/8/2010 12.426 1/8/2010 12.426 1/8/2010 11.669 1/8/2010 8.66 1/8/2010 6.422 1/
1/11/2010 12.426 1/11/2010 12.426 1/11/2010 12.426 1/11/2010 12.426 1/11/2010 11.645 1/11/2010 8.648 1/11/2010 6.452 1/1
1/12/2010 12.426 1/12/2010 12.426 1/12/2010 12.426 1/12/2010 12.426 1/12/2010 11.641 1/12/2010 8.659 1/12/2010 6.478 1/1
APPENDIX B: Data (Sample)
1/13/2010 12.426 1/13/2010 12.426 1/13/2010 12.426 1/13/2010 12.426 1/13/2010 11.631 1/13/2010 8.648 1/13/2010 6.473 1/1
1/14/2010 12.426 1/14/2010 12.426 1/14/2010 12.426 1/14/2010 12.426 1/14/2010 11.636 1/14/2010 8.697 1/14/2010 6.555 1/1
1/15/2010 12.426 1/15/2010 12.426 1/15/2010 12.426 1/15/2010 12.426 1/15/2010 11.619 1/15/2010 8.654 1/15/2010 6.512 1/1
1/18/2010 12.426 1/18/2010 12.426 1/18/2010 12.426 1/18/2010 12.426 1/18/2010 11.578 1/18/2010 8.567 1/18/2010 6.428 1/1
1/19/2010 12.426 1/19/2010 12.426 1/19/2010 12.426 1/19/2010 12.426 1/19/2010 11.594 1/19/2010 8.661 1/19/2010 6.572 1/1
1/20/2010 12.426 1/20/2010 12.426 1/20/2010 12.426 1/20/2010 12.426 1/20/2010 11.573 1/20/2010 8.602 1/20/2010 6.498 1/2
1/21/2010 12.426 1/21/2010 12.426 1/21/2010 12.426 1/21/2010 12.426 1/21/2010 11.565 1/21/2010 8.595 1/21/2010 6.501 1/2
1/22/2010 12.427 1/22/2010 12.427 1/22/2010 12.427 1/22/2010 12.427 1/22/2010 11.554 1/22/2010 8.578 1/22/2010 6.478 1/2
1/25/2010 6.262 1/25/2010 6.262 1/25/2010 6.262 1/25/2010 6.262 1/25/2010 13.303 1/25/2010 9.554 1/25/2010 7.081 1/2
1/26/2010 6.255 1/26/2010 6.255 1/26/2010 6.255 1/26/2010 6.255 1/26/2010 13.275 1/26/2010 9.478 1/26/2010 7 1/2
1/27/2010 6.34 1/27/2010 6.34 1/27/2010 6.34 1/27/2010 6.34 1/27/2010 13.262 1/27/2010 9.555 1/27/2010 7.119 1/2
1/28/2010 11.799 1/28/2010 11.799 1/28/2010 11.799 1/28/2010 5.926 1/28/2010 12.467 1/28/2010 9.069 1/28/2010 6.797 1/2
1/29/2010 11.799 1/29/2010 11.799 1/29/2010 11.799 1/29/2010 5.949 1/29/2010 12.451 1/29/2010 9.043 1/29/2010 6.774 1/2
2/1/2010 11.8 2/1/2010 11.8 2/1/2010 11.8 2/1/2010 6.023 2/1/2010 12.414 2/1/2010 9.009 2/1/2010 6.763 2/
2/2/2010 11.799 2/2/2010 11.799 2/2/2010 11.799 2/2/2010 6.046 2/2/2010 12.381 2/2/2010 8.92 2/2/2010 6.683 2/
2/3/2010 11.799 2/3/2010 11.799 2/3/2010 11.799 2/3/2010 6.044 2/3/2010 12.392 2/3/2010 8.978 2/3/2010 6.764 2/
2/4/2010 11.799 2/4/2010 11.799 2/4/2010 11.799 2/4/2010 6.055 2/4/2010 12.383 2/4/2010 8.97 2/4/2010 6.747 2/
2/5/2010 11.799 2/5/2010 11.799 2/5/2010 11.799 2/5/2010 6.096 2/5/2010 12.37 2/5/2010 8.965 2/5/2010 6.752 2/
2/8/2010 11.799 2/8/2010 11.799 2/8/2010 11.799 2/8/2010 6.179 2/8/2010 12.328 2/8/2010 8.916 2/8/2010 6.727 2/
2/9/2010 11.799 2/9/2010 11.799 2/9/2010 11.799 2/9/2010 6.265 2/9/2010 12.312 2/9/2010 8.915 2/9/2010 6.774 2/
2/10/2010 11.799 2/10/2010 11.799 2/10/2010 11.799 2/10/2010 6.25 2/10/2010 12.307 2/10/2010 8.911 2/10/2010 6.779 2/1
Philippine Zero Coupon
2/11/2010 11.799 2/11/2010 11.799 2/11/2010 11.799 2/11/2010 6.313 2/11/2010 12.286 2/11/2010 8.885 2/11/2010 6.739 2/1
2/12/2010 11.8 2/12/2010 11.8 2/12/2010 11.8 2/12/2010 6.251 2/12/2010 12.288 2/12/2010 8.884 2/12/2010 6.753 2/1
2/15/2010 11.799 2/15/2010 11.799 2/15/2010 11.799 2/15/2010 6.376 2/15/2010 12.239 2/15/2010 8.829 2/15/2010 6.718 2/1
2/16/2010 11.799 2/16/2010 11.799 2/16/2010 11.799 2/16/2010 6.438 2/16/2010 12.236 2/16/2010 8.865 2/16/2010 6.768 2/1
2/17/2010 11.799 2/17/2010 11.799 2/17/2010 11.799 2/17/2010 6.375 2/17/2010 12.24 2/17/2010 8.868 2/17/2010 6.77 2/1
2/18/2010 11.799 2/18/2010 11.799 2/18/2010 11.799 2/18/2010 6.402 2/18/2010 12.213 2/18/2010 8.807 2/18/2010 6.698 2/1
2/19/2010 4.947 2/19/2010 4.947 2/19/2010 4.947 2/19/2010 6.979 2/19/2010 13.151 2/19/2010 9.363 2/19/2010 7.092 2/1
2/22/2010 4.946 2/22/2010 4.946 2/22/2010 4.946 2/22/2010 6.826 2/22/2010 14.29 2/22/2010 9.676 2/22/2010 6.993 2/2
2/23/2010 4.945 2/23/2010 4.945 2/23/2010 4.945 2/23/2010 6.895 2/23/2010 14.301 2/23/2010 9.72 2/23/2010 7.08 2/2
2/24/2010 6.322 2/24/2010 6.322 2/24/2010 6.322 2/24/2010 6.794 2/24/2010 14.082 2/24/2010 9.591 2/24/2010 7.013 2/2
2/25/2010 6.268 2/25/2010 6.268 2/25/2010 6.268 2/25/2010 6.761 2/25/2010 14.087 2/25/2010 9.602 2/25/2010 7.031 2/2
2/26/2010 6.325 2/26/2010 6.325 2/26/2010 6.325 2/26/2010 6.831 2/26/2010 14.052 2/26/2010 9.582 2/26/2010 7.017 2/2
87
Start Date 12/31/2009
End Date 2/6/2018
3-Month 6-Month 1-Year 4-Year
F08203M Index F08206M Index F08201Y Index F08203Y Index F08204Y Index
Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price
Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST Dates PX_LAST
1/1/2010 0.06 1/1/2010 0.167 1/1/2010 0.496 1/1/2010 1.682 1/1/2010 2.222
1/4/2010 0.069 1/4/2010 0.16 1/4/2010 0.47 1/4/2010 1.632 1/4/2010 2.186
1/5/2010 0.071 1/5/2010 0.137 1/5/2010 0.441 1/5/2010 1.573 1/5/2010 2.124
1/6/2010 0.053 1/6/2010 0.121 1/6/2010 0.424 1/6/2010 1.576 1/6/2010 2.147
1/7/2010 0.052 1/7/2010 0.134 1/7/2010 0.438 1/7/2010 1.603 1/7/2010 2.178
1/8/2010 0.055 1/8/2010 0.136 1/8/2010 0.406 1/8/2010 1.574 1/8/2010 2.161
1/11/2010 0.027 1/11/2010 0.105 1/11/2010 0.371 1/11/2010 1.528 1/11/2010 2.12
1/12/2010 0.045 1/12/2010 0.114 1/12/2010 0.371 1/12/2010 1.471 1/12/2010 2.039
1/13/2010 0.053 1/13/2010 0.12 1/13/2010 0.386 1/13/2010 1.527 1/13/2010 2.107
1/14/2010 0.056 1/14/2010 0.117 1/14/2010 0.367 1/14/2010 1.483 1/14/2010 2.063
1/15/2010 0.04 1/15/2010 0.101 1/15/2010 0.331 1/15/2010 1.411 1/15/2010 1.99
1/18/2010 0.045 1/18/2010 0.105 1/18/2010 0.333 1/18/2010 1.415 1/18/2010 1.994
1/19/2010 0.062 1/19/2010 0.126 1/19/2010 0.356 1/19/2010 1.466 1/19/2010 2.053
1/20/2010 0.058 1/20/2010 0.117 1/20/2010 0.356 1/20/2010 1.455 1/20/2010 2.027
1/21/2010 0.054 1/21/2010 0.116 1/21/2010 0.335 1/21/2010 1.404 1/21/2010 1.966
1/22/2010 0.054 1/22/2010 0.116 1/22/2010 0.324 1/22/2010 1.378 1/22/2010 1.959
1/25/2010 0.048 1/25/2010 0.109 1/25/2010 0.328 1/25/2010 1.389 1/25/2010 1.966
1/26/2010 0.061 1/26/2010 0.113 1/26/2010 0.332 1/26/2010 1.385 1/26/2010 1.947
1/27/2010 0.081 1/27/2010 0.165 1/27/2010 0.337 1/27/2010 1.465 1/27/2010 2.016
1/28/2010 0.094 1/28/2010 0.163 1/28/2010 0.313 1/28/2010 1.396 1/28/2010 1.942
1/29/2010 0.051 1/29/2010 0.125 1/29/2010 0.291 1/29/2010 1.354 1/29/2010 1.904
2/1/2010 0.085 2/1/2010 0.156 2/1/2010 0.31 2/1/2010 1.419 2/1/2010 1.985
2/2/2010 0.097 2/2/2010 0.164 2/2/2010 0.302 2/2/2010 1.419 2/2/2010 1.934
2/3/2010 0.097 2/3/2010 0.166 2/3/2010 0.336 2/3/2010 1.423 2/3/2010 1.978
2/4/2010 0.094 2/4/2010 0.151 2/4/2010 0.301 2/4/2010 1.329 2/4/2010 1.863
2/5/2010 0.051 2/5/2010 0.123 2/5/2010 0.287 2/5/2010 1.306 2/5/2010 1.833
2/8/2010 0.064 2/8/2010 0.144 2/8/2010 0.301 2/8/2010 1.311 2/8/2010 1.835
2/9/2010 0.084 2/9/2010 0.157 2/9/2010 0.336 2/9/2010 1.407 2/9/2010 1.936
2/10/2010 0.076 2/10/2010 0.098 2/10/2010 0.303 2/10/2010 1.405 2/10/2010 1.924
2/11/2010 0.066 2/11/2010 0.142 2/11/2010 0.346 2/11/2010 1.44 2/11/2010 1.97
2/12/2010 0.056 2/12/2010 0.133 2/12/2010 0.322 2/12/2010 1.399 2/12/2010 1.932
2/15/2010 0.059 2/15/2010 0.137 2/15/2010 0.327 2/15/2010 1.403 2/15/2010 1.936
United States Zero Coupon
2/16/2010 0.096 2/16/2010 0.172 2/16/2010 0.327 2/16/2010 1.364 2/16/2010 1.905
2/17/2010 0.087 2/17/2010 0.174 2/17/2010 0.346 2/17/2010 1.441 2/17/2010 2.001
2/18/2010 0.11 2/18/2010 0.198 2/18/2010 0.398 2/18/2010 1.534 2/18/2010 2.088
2/19/2010 0.058 2/19/2010 0.145 2/19/2010 0.336 2/19/2010 1.483 2/19/2010 2.03
2/22/2010 0.091 2/22/2010 0.181 2/22/2010 0.357 2/22/2010 1.512 2/22/2010 2.072
2/23/2010 0.108 2/23/2010 0.181 2/23/2010 0.342 2/23/2010 1.437 2/23/2010 1.973
2/24/2010 0.108 2/24/2010 0.172 2/24/2010 0.324 2/24/2010 1.434 2/24/2010 1.988
2/25/2010 0.11 2/25/2010 0.169 2/25/2010 0.301 2/25/2010 1.376 2/25/2010 1.918
2/26/2010 0.11 2/26/2010 0.172 2/26/2010 0.309 2/26/2010 1.36 2/26/2010 1.896
Bloomberg Terminal Screenshots
88
APPENDIX C: Turnitin Receipt/Report
89
90

The Application of The Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Models As Predictive Models For Exchange Rate Changes in The Philippines PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Application of The Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Models As Predictive Models For Exchange Rate Changes in The Philippines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented to the

Financial Management Department

The Application of the Relative Nelson-Siegel Class of Models as Predictive

In partial fulfillment of the

Cruz, Zurex Carlo E.

yield curve is introduced as it provides information concerning future economic

exchange rate changes in both in-sample and out-of-sample prediction.

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 4

1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................. 4

1.4 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 5

1.4.1 Relative three-factor Nelson Siegel model (TF) ................................................ 5

1.4.2 Relative four-factor Nelson Siegel model (SV) ................................................. 6

1.5 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 7

1.6 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER TWO - REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................... 11

2.1.1 Derivations of the Monetary Approach ............................................................ 12

2.1.2 Portfolio Balance Approach ............................................................................. 15

2.1.3 Taylor Rule Model ........................................................................................... 16

2.2 Previous Yield Curve Models ................................................................................. 18

2.2.1 Durand’s Basic Yields ...................................................................................... 18

2.2.2 McCulloch’s Discount Function ...................................................................... 19

2.2.3 Exponential Splines Model .............................................................................. 20

2.3 Nelson-Siegel Model ............................................................................................... 23

2.3.1 Original Model ................................................................................................. 24

2.3.2 Svensson four-factor Model ............................................................................. 26

2.3.3 Dynamic three-factor Model ............................................................................ 27

2.3.4 Five factor Dynamic Model ............................................................................. 29

2.3.5 Relative Model ................................................................................................. 31

2.3.6 Application of the Class of Models in Exchange Rates ................................... 32

2.4 Yield Curve Macro Linkage .................................................................................... 33

2.5 Previous Studies in the Philippine Setting .............................................................. 35

2.5.1 Exchange Rate .................................................................................................. 35

2.6 Research Gap ........................................................................................................... 36

2.7 Literature Map ......................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER THREE - FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 38

Uncovered Interest Rate Parity Theory ..................................................................... 38

3.2 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 40

3.3 Operational Definition............................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER FOUR - METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 44

4.2 Data Description and Collection ............................................................................. 44

4.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 45

4.3.1 Nelson Siegel three-factor and four-factor ....................................................... 45

4.3.2 Regression Analysis ......................................................................................... 48

4.3.3 Tests of Regression .......................................................................................... 49

4.3.4 Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) .................................................................. 51

4.3.5 Random Walk (without drift) Comparative Analysis ...................................... 52

CHAPTER FIVE – RESULTS AND ANALYSES .......................................................... 53

5.3.1 Parameter Estimates ......................................................................................... 60

5.3.2 Regression Diagnostics .................................................................................... 61

5.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation ........................................................................... 63

5.5 Prediction Accuracies for Within-Sample and Out-of-Sample Prediction ............. 64

CHAPTER SIX – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 66

6.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 68

Figure 2. 2 Flexibility of the Yield Curve ......................................................................... 24

Figure 2. 3. Interpretation of the Yield Curve Factors ...................................................... 25

Figure 2. 4. Literature Map ............................................................................................... 37

Figure 3. 1. Conceptual Framework for three-factor Nelson-Siegel model ...................... 40

Figure 3. 2. Conceptual Framework for four-factor Nelson-Siegel model ....................... 41

Figure 5. 1. USD-PHP Exchange Rates, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018 .............. 55

Figure 5. 2. Dynamic factors of the Nelson-Siegel three factor model ............................. 56

Figure 5. 3. Dynamic factors of the Nelson-Siegel four factor model .............................. 58

December 2018 ................................................................................................................. 53