Explain The Differences In Political Risk And Return

Explain The Differences In Political Risk And Return Between A Licen

Provide an analysis comparing the financial and political risks associated with two different international business strategies: entering a foreign market through a licensing agreement with a local firm versus acquiring an existing foreign firm. Discuss how these approaches differ in terms of the potential returns and exposure to political risks such as expropriation, regulatory changes, and political instability. Elaborate on factors that influence the risk-return trade-offs in each case, considering aspects like control, investment size, and vulnerability to local political environments.

Additionally, analyze the concept of indirect intervention by the Federal Reserve (Fed) and its varying impacts on different currencies. Address why the Fed's indirect intervention could have a stronger effect on some exchange rates compared to others, taking into account factors such as currency pegs, market liquidity, and the degree of economic integration. Explain why indirect interventions might exert a more substantial influence on currency markets than direct interventions, considering mechanisms like market signaling and trader perceptions.

Furthermore, examine the relationship between Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the International Fisher Effect (IFE), and interest rates in the context of Mexico and the United States. Given that the nominal interest rate in Mexico is 48% and in the U.S. is 8% for 1-year securities that are default-risk free, analyze what the IFE implies about the expected inflation differential between Mexico and the U.S. Discuss how this differential interacts with PPP assumptions to determine the expected nominal return for U.S. investors in Mexico. Incorporate the real interest rates of 10% in Mexico and 3% in the U.S. into your analysis to provide a comprehensive view of expected investment returns across these countries.

Paper For Above instruction

International business strategies often involve a careful consideration of political risk and the potential for returns on investment. When a firm chooses to enter a foreign market through licensing, it grants rights to a local partner to produce or sell its products, thereby minimizing direct exposure to political risks such as expropriation, sudden regulatory changes, or political instability. Licensing allows the licensor to earn royalties with relatively limited upfront investment and risk, but it also offers less control over operations and profits. The political risk in licensing mainly stems from the local partner’s stability and honesty, and the host country’s regulatory environment, which can influence the licensor’s returns indirectly (Cavusgil, Knight, Riesenberger, Rammal, & Rose, 2014).

In contrast, acquiring a foreign firm entails purchasing a controlling interest or the entire entity, providing greater control over operations, branding, and strategic decisions. However, this approach also exposes the acquiring firm to the full scope of political risks present in the foreign country, including expropriation, forced nationalization, or severe policy shifts. The potential returns from acquisitions can be substantial owing to increased market share and synergies, but the risks are amplified because of direct exposure to a volatile political environment (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2017). The critical difference lies in the degree of exposure: licensing reduces direct political risk but may limit return potential, while acquisitions offer higher control and potential returns but come with increased political risk exposure.

Turning to currency intervention, the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) indirect intervention typically involves acting in the foreign exchange markets through measures such as altering interest rates or signaling future policy moves. These interventions can influence currency values indirectly by adjusting market expectations and investor perceptions. The strength of the Fed's indirect intervention impact varies across currencies due to several factors. For example, currencies with fixed or semi-fixed exchange rate regimes, like some emerging market currencies, may respond more dramatically to indirect signals because traders anticipate central bank actions. Additionally, market liquidity, the size of the intervention relative to daily trading volume, and the perceived credibility of the central bank influence the extent of impact (Frankel, 2015).

Indirect interventions tend to be more impactful than direct interventions (such as outright purchases or sales of foreign currency) because indirect measures can modify expectations without the need for substantial capital outflows, thus avoiding market resistance. By signaling a future policy stance, the Fed can reshape investor behavior, leading to more sustained currency movements. Direct interventions, while potentially more conspicuous, often face challenges such as limited capacity to influence the currency if markets interpret them as temporary or insufficient (Menkhoff & Taylor, 2007).

Examining the relationship between Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the International Fisher Effect (IFE), and interest rates provides insight into expected currency movements and returns. PPP suggests that exchange rates should adjust to reflect changes in price levels between countries, while the IFE posits that differences in nominal interest rates correspond solely to expected changes in inflation, assuming no arbitrage. Given the nominal interest rate of 48% in Mexico and 8% in the U.S., the IFE implies that expected inflation in Mexico exceeds that in the U.S. by approximately 40 percentage points. This high differential indicates that the peso should depreciate relative to the dollar by roughly this amount over the period, aligning with the theory that higher interest rates reflect higher expected inflation (Fama, 1984).

Applying PPP, we can estimate the expected exchange rate change based on the differential in inflation rates. If the real interest rates are 10% in Mexico and 3% in the U.S., the expected inflation rates inferred from the nominal rates would differ accordingly. The real interest rate differential suggests that investors expect higher inflation in Mexico, justifying the elevated nominal interest rates. Consequently, the expected nominal return for U.S. investors investing in Mexico includes the interest rate and the expected depreciation of the peso, which aligns with the IFE's prediction. This results in an expected return that accounts for both the interest income and the currency depreciation, confirming that investing in high-interest emerging markets entails both high potential returns and significant currency risk.

In conclusion, the decision between licensing and acquisition hinges on the trade-off between risk exposure and control. Licensing limits direct political risk, while acquisitions offer higher returns with increased exposure. Currency intervention effectiveness depends on market structure and central bank credibility, with indirect methods often exerting more influence through expectation management. Lastly, understanding the interplay between PPP, IFE, and interest rates is essential for predicting currency movements and returns in international investments. Investors must consider these factors comprehensively to manage risks and capitalize on opportunities in global markets.

References

• Cavusgil, S. T., Knight, G., Riesenberger, J. R., Rammal, H. G., & Rose, E. L. (2014). International Business. Pearson.
• Fama, E. F. (1984). Forward and spot exchange rates. Journal of Monetary Economics, 14(3), 319-338.
• Frankel, J. A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Intervention to Stabilize Exchange Rates. In International Handbook on International Financial Management (pp. 181-213). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.
• Menkhoff, L., & Taylor, M. P. (2007). Official intervention and foreign exchange markets: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(1), 45-83.