Effects of Oral Intervention on Fluctuations in Exchange Rates: Evidence from Japan 1995-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper studies the effects of oral interventions on the JPY/USD rate between 1995 and 2011. Traditionally, monetary authorities have intervened directly in foreign exchange markets. In recent years, however, actual interventions have been supplemented or supplanted by “oral interventions” to influence market expectations. In the Japanese case, monetary authorities did not directly intervene in the market from 2005 to August 2010. They conducted actual interventions only five times between 2010 and 2012, though Japan has been noted for ongoing oral intervention in recent years. Prior studies examining the impact of oral interventions provide mixed results regarding their effectiveness. Our study attempts to contribute to the literature by focusing not only on the speaker of oral interventions, but also on the content of the statements released. Using the event study methodology, we find that market participants give great credence to announcements by monetary authorities that strike a decidedly positive or negative tone about current exchange rates. In addition, market participants give great credence to statements by speakers who actually conduct exchange rate policy, including staff from the Ministry of Finance and people affiliated with the Bank of Japan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".