doobsmeister
New member
- Feb 12, 2014
- 0
- 0
I got this from the schweser book:
“Empirical evidence indicates higher, positive correlation (between asses and currency returns) in bond than in equity portfolios. This makes theoretical sense because interest rate movement tends to drive both bond prices and currency values”
However I still don’t quite get it. When rates go up, that should mean (in theory) that currency values should go up. But when rates go up, the actual value of the bond goes down since it is more attractive ti place cash in that country, so in theory, there should e a negative correlation between bonds and currency values. Why does the book state this then?
“Empirical evidence indicates higher, positive correlation (between asses and currency returns) in bond than in equity portfolios. This makes theoretical sense because interest rate movement tends to drive both bond prices and currency values”
However I still don’t quite get it. When rates go up, that should mean (in theory) that currency values should go up. But when rates go up, the actual value of the bond goes down since it is more attractive ti place cash in that country, so in theory, there should e a negative correlation between bonds and currency values. Why does the book state this then?