BAFI3200 – INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

ASSESSMENT 1 – CASE STUDY

Course name International finance

Course code BAFI3200
School RMIT Vietnam University
Location Saigon South campus
Student name Tran Nguyen Ngoc Khanh
Student number S3740817
Lecturer Devmali Perera
Assignment Assessment 1 – Case study
Date of submission 1st August 2021
Word count 1635 (excluding graphs, tables)
Declaration I declare that in submitting all work for this
assessment I have read, understood, and agree to the
content and expectations of the Assessment
Declaration

SEMESTER 2, 2021

RMIT VIETNAM UNIVERSITY

 Assessment declaration

1. I have not impersonated, or allowed myself to be impersonated by any person for the
purposes of this assessment.

2. This assessment is my/our original work and no part of it has been copied from any
other source except where due acknowledgement is made.

3. No part of this assessment has been written for me/us by any other person except
where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned.

4. Where this work is being submitted for individual assessment, I declare that it is my
original work and that no part has been contributed by, produced by or in conjunction
with another student.

5. I give permission for my assessment response to be reproduced, communicated

compared and archived for the purposes of detecting plagiarism.

6. I give permission for a copy of my assessment to be retained by the university for

review and comparison, including review by external examiners.

I understand that:

 Plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as

though it is your own. It is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence
that may lead to exclusion from the University. Plagiarised material can be drawn
from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data and
oral presentations. Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not
appropriately cited.

 Plagiarism includes the act of assisting or allowing another person to plagiarise or to

copy my work.

I agree and acknowledge that:

1. I have read and understood the Declaration and Statement of Authorship above.

2. I accept that use of my RMIT account to electronically submit this assessment

constitutes my agreement to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship

3. If I do not agree to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship in this context, the
assessment outcome is not valid for assessment purposes and cannot be included in my
aggregate score for this course.
 Table of Contents
1) The nature of foreign exchange exposure faced by Geo Tech.....................................3
2) Calculate net operating cashflow of the project in CAD..............................................4
Net Operating Cashflow calculation............................................................................................4
3) Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return in USD calculation...........................6
Net present value (NPV)...............................................................................................................6
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)......................................................................................................7
Quantitative Evaluation...............................................................................................................7
4) Effect of inflation rate on the values of USD & CAD.................................................8
5) Forecast Purchasing Power Parity and recalculate NPV and IRR in USD...............10
Adjusted net present value (NPV)...............................................................................................11
Adjusted internal rate of return (IRR)........................................................................................11
Quantitative evaluation & comparison.......................................................................................12
6) Literature review of Purchasing Power Parity arguments and personal opinions.....14
PPP may hold for some countries than for others......................................................................14
PPP may hold better in long term than in short term.................................................................15
Discussion..................................................................................................................................16
PPP hold in Canada for the project’s the period........................................................................16
Reference:.......................................................................................................................17
 1) The nature of foreign exchange exposure faced by Geo Tech

Broad-currency-volatile-over-decades-defines-the-vulnerability-of-multinational-companies-
to-foreign-exchange-risk-and-affects-operation-cashflows, discount-rate-manipulated-to-
value-a firm-with-empirical-researches-(Muller, 2006). Some-key-variables-influence-the-
firm’s value through-currency-risk-include-domestic-price-exposure, foreign-real-asset-
exposure, inflation (Holder, 1982); competitiveness-(Williamson, 2001); cost-structure,
purchasing-power-parity deviation, transaction-cost-related-to-economic-barriers-to-
arbitrage, government-restriction (Booth, et.al 1990); macroeconomics-effects-(Hekman,
1985). Along-with-these, first-exposure confronted-by-Geo-Tech-is-translation-risk-when-
the-Canada-facility’s-valuation-affected-by exchange-rate-fluctuation-express-in-balance-
sheet into home currency (Collier, et.al, 1985). At the given rates, USD appreciation against
CAD over 5-year weakens the value of Canadian subsidiary, following Shapiro’s two-country
model (1975). For example, in 2021-2022, the exchange rate deducts from CAD/USD 0.86-
0.825, assume worth of the facility remains at CAD1m, there will be a fall of $35,000 in-its-
valuation-from-$860,000-to-$825,000. Another exposure-refers-to-transaction-risk-when-
sales-and-incurred-cost-amounts-priced-in-CAD. Based-on-appreciation/depreciation-
percentage-of-foreign-currency-which-traded-and-distance of-settlement-and-delivery-dates,
financial-transactions-involving-payables, receivables, short-term-investment-or-inter-
company-trade-accounts-will-arise-gain/loss. Forecast-CAD-depreciation-may-reduce-sales-
revenue-of-Geo-Tech-when-converting-back-into-USD.

2) Calculate net operating cashflow of the project in CAD

Net Operating Cashflow calculation

Value in CAD 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

(1) Quantity sold /year 20 30 20 10 10
(2) Initial setup fees 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000
per contract
 (3) Generated amount
from initial setup fees 420,000 630,000 420,000 210,000 210,000
[(1) x (2)]
(4) Annual licensing 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
fees per contract
(5) Yearly ongoing 20 50 70 60 40
contracts
(6) Generated money
from annual licensing 180,000 450,000 630,000 540,000 360,000
fees
[(4) x (5)]
(7) Total sales revenue 600,000 1,080,000 1,050,000 750,000 570,000
[(3) + (6)]
(8) Yearly initial setup cost
per unit = 14,245 14,494 14,748 15,006 15,269
14,000 ×(1+ inflation)n

(9) Yearly operating cost = 244,200 248,474 379,233 385,869 261,748

n
Operating cost ×(1+inflation)

Table 1. Worksheet for Cashflow of Geo Tech company (CAD) from 2022 to 2026

Value in CAD 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

(1) Initial investment (840,000)

(2) Total sales revenue 600,000 1,080,000 1,050,000 750,000 570,000

(3) Initial cost (Setup (284,900) (434,829) (294,959) (150,060) (152,686)

of contract)
(4) Operating Cost (244,200) (248,474 379,233) (385,869) (261,748)

(5) EBITDA 70,900 396,698 375,809 214,070 155,566

[(2) – (3) – (4)]
(6) Depreciation (280,000) (280,000) (280,000)
straight-line over 3-year
(7) EBIT (209,100) 116,698 95,809 214,070 155,566
[(5) – (6)]

(8) Tax (35%) ((73,185)) (40,844) (33,533) (74,925) (54,448)

(9) EAT (135,915) 75,854 62,276 139,146 101,118
[ (7) – (8)]
(10) Depreciation
straight line 280,000 280,000 280,000
over 3-year

(11) Net operating

cashflow
(840,000) 144,085 355,854 342,276 139,146 101,118
[(9) + (10)]

Table 2. Incremental Cashflow of Geo Tech company (CAD) from 2021 to 2026

3) Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return in USD calculation

Net present value (NPV)

Using weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 9.65% decided by Thomas and Eagle as
the project’s discount rate incorporates calculated annual NOFCs for NPV estimation where
CF o is initial outlays at CAD840,000. Then we convert values of NOFCs and initial
investment into USD through provided forecast CAD/USD exchange rate (refer to Excel
file). NPV computes as follow:

Net operating CAD/USD Net operating

cashflow exchange cashflow
Year
(CAD) rate forecast (USD)
(1) (2) [(1) x (2)]
2021
(spot rate) (840,000) 0.860 (722,400)
2022 144,085 0.825 118,870
 2023 355,854 0.805 286,462
2024 342,276 0.790 270,398
2025 139,146 0.780 108,534
2026 101,118 0.775 78,366
NPV (CAD) 7,058 NPV (USD) (46,105)

Table 3. Net Present Value and Net Operating Cashflow of Geo Tech company (USD) from
2021 to 2026

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

When letting NPV equals to 0, IRR considers as percentage of return rate of the decision to
compare with given WACC subtracting CF o. Values of annual NOCFs and initial investment
will be converted into USD for IRR measurement (refer to Excel file) with following
calculation:

Net operating CAD/USD Net operating

cashflow exchange cashflow
Year
(CAD) rate forecast (USD)
(1) (2) [(1) x (2)]
2021
(spot rate) (840,000) 0.860 (722,400)
2022 144,085 0.825 118,870
2023 355,854 0.805 286,462
2024 342,276 0.790 270,398
2025 139,146 0.780 108,534
2026 101,118 0.775 78,366
IRR (CAD) 10% IRR (USD) 7%
Table 4. Internal Rate of Return and Net Operating Cashflows of Geo Tech company (USD)
from 2021 to 2026

Quantitative Evaluation

Regarding NPV US and IRRUS , the-foreign-market-decision-of-Geo-Tech-is-rejected-means

operating-expenses-foreseeably-overweight-profitability-despite-the-positive-annual-NOCFs
over-5-year. Hence, the-project-is-pointless-to-invest. IRR-refers-to-the-method-estimating
profitability-by-comparing-the-actual-rate-of-return-with-WACC-but-the-gained-amounts-of
cash-are-unwell-reflected-while-NPV-calculation-outlines-variation-between-PV-of-cash-
inflows-and-outflows.
As-the-effective-approach-to-measure-the-project’s-possibility, negative-NPV-(-$46,105 <
0)-at 9.65%-discount-rate-indicates-annual-operating-cashflows-cannot-offset-the-expenses-
by-any chance. Whereas-IRR-(7% < WACC)-is-the-annual-rate-of-return-of-initial-
investment-means the-project-less-yield-and-devalues. Elaborated-that, NCF-in-2023-
generates the-most-because-of-insignificant-inflation-magnitude-and-associated-number-of-
ongoing contracts-in-2022; vice versa for NCF in 2026 (Table 2). Overall, both-financial-
approaches-conclude-the-same-result that-the-decision-is-unprofitable-which-is-worthless-to-
invest.
However, CAD-depreciation-against-USD-based-on-given-CAD/USD-forecast-exchange-
rate-during 5-year-worsen-the-investment. NPV CA and IRRCA differ-from-results-in-USD-
because-of its positive result ( NPV CA = CAD7,058 > 0; IRRCA = 10% > WACC). Foreign-
currency devaluation-over-5-year-reduces-sales-revenue-causing-loss-of-the-project-when-
converting-back-into-home-currency-in-the-future, holding-all-the-factors. Likewise, the-
firm-confronts transaction-exchange-risk.
Another-factor-relates-to-inflation-rate. Higher-Canadian-inflation-during-the-time-provokes
expenses-more-expensive-but-the-prices-irrelatively-increase, holding-all-the-factors. The-
reason-is-competitiveness-as-emerging-company-to-other-rivals. The-consistent-price-of-
Canada operation-potentially-obtains-some-clients. Yet, operating-costs-incorporate-Canada-
inflation making-the-firm-suffer.

4) Effect of inflation rate on the values of USD & CAD

The-implementation-of-monetary-policy-by-central-banks-control-inflation-framework-
(Souza, et.al., 2012). Inflation-rate-differentials-embossed-in-nominal-interest-rates-can-
affect-future-spot-exchange-rate-regarding-International-Fisher-Effect-(IFE) (Sundqvist,
2002). Negative correlation-presents-between-inflation-and-exchange-volatility-when-a-
country-with-higher inflation-devalues-its-currency-against-others, keeping-other-factors-
constant-(Engle, et.al, 1987). Evidences-from-Paul-(1997)-or-Saini-(1982)-examined-
inflation’s effect-on-exchange rate-in-Asian-countries-while-inflation-differentials-as-tool-to-
anticipate-the-exchange-rate-in long-run-(Duasa, 2007). Derive-from-relative-inflation,
import-and-export-prices-impact-value-of-currencies-(Hakkio, 1986). The-Purchasing-
Power-Parity-theory-related-to-so-called-Law-of one-price-(LOP)-because-of-international-
goods-arbitrage-(Taylor&Taylor, 2004)-which-reflects relationship-between-inflation-rates-
differentials-and-exchange-rate-where-new-price-indexes-of both-countries-will-be-adjusted-
for-parity-(Jeff, 2014)-as-converted-at-a-common-currency. Appreciation/depreciation-
percentage-change-and-home-country-inflation-are-positively correlated-but-negatively-with-
foreign-inflation-in-relative-form-of-PPP. Canada-and-USA-are closely-cross-border-where-
their-inflation-levels-mutually-affect (Don, 2021).
In-this-case, Canada-inflation-rate-as-trading-partner-assumes-to-exceed-US-inflation-rate-as
domestic-country. Lower-inflation-causes-US-goods-cheaper-that-encourages-exporting-
demand while-decreases-importing-demand. Excess-US-goods-demand-increases-demand-
of-domestic currency-where-its-supply-challengeable-satisfies, which-appreciates-USD-
against-CAD-in future. Hence, US-current-account-surplus.
Canada’s higher-inflation-makes-its-goods-expensive-and-deteriorates-demand-that-expands
importing-demand, especially-from-US-because-of-its-lower-inflation-and-distance-and-
worsen exporting-demand-then-CA-deficit, lowering-exchange-rates. Likewise, CAD-
depreciate-against USD-in-future-due-to-more-currency-supply-than-demand. The-change-
establishes-new equilibrium-point-diminishing-exchange-rate-(Figure 1). Depends-on-
relative-form-of-PPP theory, high-prices-or-high-costs-of-goods-sold-of-Geo-Tech-
generated-in-Canada-from-its-high inflation-level-can-be-somewhat-offset-by-depreciation-
of-CAD.
However, there-is-deviation-from-PPP-between-the-given-exchange-rates-and-the case’s
inflation-rates-of-both-countries. In-practice, exchange-rate-movement-fluctuate wildly-with-
inflation-differentials-further-from-PPP-suggestion. It-also-impacted-by-other determinants-
including-modification-of-interest-rate, income-level, political-control, expectation
regarding-cofounding-effect-or-market-imperfection-including-transaction-cost, trade-
barriers (Jeff, 2014).
The given scenario is identical to Thomas’s concern about CAD depreciation by 12% over
first three-year hampering the profitability where a country of higher inflation depreciates its
currency.

Figure 1. Graph of Supply and Demand for Canada dollar in forward 5-year

5) Forecast Purchasing Power Parity and recalculate NPV and IRR

in USD

In relative form of Purchasing Power Parity, new-adjusted forecast exchange rates over 5-
year are computed based on provided two countries’ inflation and spot exchange rates as
follows:

Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

(1) US inflation: home
country (i) 1.50%  
(2) Canada inflation: foreign
country (i*) 1.75%  

(3) Spot rate CAD/USD

(2021) (S) 0.86  
(4) % depreciation of CAD
1+ i n
eF =( )
1+i ¿
−1
-0.245% -0.490% -0.735% -0.980% -1.222%
 (5) Expected CAD/USD
exchange rate
(forward rate)
F=S ׿)   0.857 0.855 0.853 0.851 0.849

Table 5. New forecast exchange rate CAD/USD and its percentage change from 2021 to 2026

Following that, annual NOCF CA are exchanged into new CAD/USD quotes then the project’s
NPV US and IRRUS are altered. They are still calculated by the previous formulas with discount
rate at 9.65% (WACC).

Adjusted net present value (NPV)

Net operating New forecast New net operating cashflow

Year cashflow exchange rate
(CAD) (CAD/USD) (USD)

2021
(spot rate) (840,000) 0.86 (722,400)
2022 144,085 0.857 123,481
2023 355,854 0.855 304,255
2024 342,276 0.853 291,961
2025 139,146 0.851 118,413
2026 101,118 0.849 85,849
NPV (CAD) 7,058.27 NPV (USD) 810.58

Table 6. Adjusted Net Present Value of Geo Tech company (USD) from 2021 to 2026
Adjusted internal rate of return (IRR)

Net operating New forecast New net operating cashflow

Year cashflow exchange rate
(CAD) (CAD/USD) (USD)

2021
(spot rate) (840,000) 0.86 (722,400)
2022 144,085 0.857 123,481
2023 355,854 0.855 304,255
2024 342,276 0.853 291,961
2025 139,146 0.851 118,413
2026 101,118 0.849 85,849
IRR (CAD) 10% IRR (USD) 10%

Table 7. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return of Geo Tech company (USD) from 2021 to 2026

Quantitative evaluation & comparison

With unchanged values of NOCFCA , NPV CA , IRRCA , values of NOCF US , NPV US , IRRUS rather
improve against the former consequences. NPV US increases to $810.58 (> 0) and IRRUS
reaches by 10% (> WACC). More interestingly, IRRUS even equals to IRRCA (10%) in this
case. Given new positive results of two approaches, the company likely accepts the project
and invests money in context of forward PPP exchange rates albeit new NPV US quite
narrows. PPP theory recommends the parity is maintained between both countries’ price
indexes regarding percentage change of foreign currency e f .

In-this-case, relative-form-of-PPP-holds-means-purchasing-powers-between-US-and-
Canada-are identical. The-CAD-accumulatively-depreciates-by-approximately-0.25%-each-
year-due-to 0.25%-of-US-and-Canada-inflation-variation-as-computed, holding-all-factors-
constant. The-burden-may-be-paid-off-by-CAD-depreciation-as-PPP-advises. Considering-
exchange-rate-impact, price-index-of-foreign-country-will-be-as-tremendous-as-home-
country’s-index-from-view-of-home-country’s-consumers. In-US-consumers’ perspective,
CAD-depreciation-make-downward-pressure-on-prices-in-CAD-which-force-prices-of-both-
countries-to-rise-by-1.5%-due-to-US-inflation-as-exchange-rate-change-occurs-although
inflation-lower-in-US, PPP-holds-in-terms-of-exchange-rate-adjustment, keeping-other-
factors anchored. However, operation-costs-of-Geo-Tech-in-Canada-believes-to-change-
with-inflation-of 1.75%-in-forward-5-year as calculated. The-PPP-rates-still-decline-during-
the-period-but-slightly-surpass-the-given-future-exchange rates.
In-contrast, the-given-exchange-rates-represent-points-off-PPP-line-where CAD undervalues
and USD overvalues. In other words, there is disparity of purchasing power when the given
forward exchange rates differ from inflation differential. I f outweighs- I h-by 0.25%, yet,
CAD-depreciates-by-approximately-2%-in-the-first 3-year-and-by-nearly-1%-in-last 2-year-
(Table 8), keeping-other-factors-equal. Purchasing-power-of-US-consumers-for Canada-
goods-has-decreased-against-US-goods in this background.

Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

(1) US inflation: home
country 1.50%  

(2) Canada inflation: foreign

country 1.75%  

(3) Spot rate CAD/USD

(2021) 0.86  
(4) % depreciation of CAD
F−S
( S ) -4.07% -6.395% -8.14% -9.302% -9.883%
 (5) Expected CAD/USD
exchange rate
(forward rate)
Given in the case   0.825 0.805 0.79 0.78 0.775

Table 8. Given exchange rates CAD/USD and its percentage change from 2021 to 2026

As shown, gap in the new CAD depreciation percentage changes is smaller than gap in the
assumed CAD depreciation percentage changes (Table 8 & 7) means gap in USD
appreciation percentage changes decrease from the previous rates, which reforms sales
revenue then yearly NOCFs converted back into USD and capital budgeting.

6) Literature review of Purchasing Power Parity arguments and

personal opinions

PPP may hold for some countries than for others

Abundant empirical studies examine the existence of PPP among different areas. The
argument by McNown & Wallace (1989) protested the previous researches only focused on
advanced economies while their results displayed PPP rather holds in high-inflation or
developing countries due to rapid monetary growth.

There were investigations had adverse point to that discussion. The study (Dono, 2016)
interrogated eight different countries including developed and less-developed countries using
one step general ECM and Johansen-Juselius cointegration technique then concluded PPP
holds in Chile, Germany and UK. Detecting that, developed countries were still held by PPP
theory. While Snell’s evidence (1996) advocated PPP holds in 10 industrialized countries,
Baharumsah & Ariff (1997) employed two-step cointegrating testing and symmetry to
discover that five developing economies rejected PPP hypothesis.

Combining KKS, STAR models and theoretical economic knowledge, nine European
countries’ data were collected by Kai (2012) to evaluate their real exchange rate behaviors.
The research supported that exchange rates volatility stabilized in most pairs of 9 countries or
PPP holds at least within Euro zone over 1975-1999 under ERM regime (1970s) and euro
introduction (1999)-by building scatter plots to examine their relationships against each other.
David & Joseph (2005) investigated 84 countries’ real exchange rate in USD for PPP
existence through panel data methods to test for unit roots. The results illustrated PPP
evidence pronounced in trade-openness, adjacent to US economic growth rate, spatially
nearby US, low inflation level, moderate nominal exchange rate volatility countries involving
European, Latin America excluding African or Asian countries. Based on this study,
emerging economies with rapid growth assemble with developed ones’ growth rate expect to
have strong PPP proof.

The robustness of PPP concept was undertaken by Imed & Christophe (2007) through 80
developed and developing countries sample. The paper applied advanced panel cointegration
technique proposed by Pedroni (1999) covering 1964-1998 period and its outcomes showed
intense PPP likely approved in countries with high inflation and OECD countries. It claimed
PPP deviation as nominal shocks accounts for exchange rate fluctuation in high-inflation
countries is inconsistent which encourages countries’ price convergence.

PPP may hold better in long-term than in short-term

The regression of panel unit root methods involving 20 countries implemented by

MacDonald & Bayoumi (1998) that summarized a long-run PPP phenomenon against month-
to-month or quarter-to-quarter because of transitory effect on PPP deviations if predominant
force upsetting the PPP relation is nominal. Rather than price stickiness in short-term in
goods market, relative prices have long-run trends where basis real factors constitute long-
term trends in exchange rates.

Taylor & Taylor (2004)’s panel plots data figured relative PPP rather holds in long-run by
taking 29-year averages and measured higher correlation of inflation and depreciation using
PPIs relative to CPIs and concluded PPP deviations usually happens in short-run then retains
as long-run average that is similar to Michael & Stefan’s comprehension (2017).

Huizinga (1987) supported thesis PPP holds in long-run where real exchange rates slowly
adjust to PPP rate. In other words, short-run PPP collapse related to exchange rate
overshooting (Dornbusch, 1976). He allowed significant short-run deviations due to sticky
prices while PPP was obtained as equilibrium to equalize supply and demand for domestic,
foreign goods.
Giving layer of complexity to the former discussion, long-run PPP theory suggests PPP rates
necessarily no longer hold in particular point of time and represent targets where the spot rate
is slowly drawn (Andy, 2012). The interpretation of delayed respond to prices difference
because of imperfect information, long-term contracts or marketing costs.

The case of South African of Brian & Ashok (1998) employed cointegration methods
including three-stages measurement to examine its currency behavior against USD and GBP
during 1975-1994 period. Along with 1980s-1990s political events of South African, the
conclusion referred PPP hypothesis is long-run relation while PPP deviations in short-run
induced by differences in transportation cost, productivity, monetary and fiscal programs.

Kenneth (1995) reviewed giant time series OLS regression testing simple PPP of Argentina
peso against USD and GBP over 1913-1988. The paper realized PPP mostly convinced in
long-run thanks to data sets with some fixed-rate, high noise of exchange rate likely mask
low convergence toward long-run equilibrium. Identically, Frenkel (1981) consented PPP
failure might be attributable to temporary real shocks and sticky prices.

The argument was also informed in above Kai’s report (2012) by outlining nonlinear data
generating process (DGP) to explain PPP puzzle. As a region of unit root behavior, DGP
approaches the equilibrium exchange rate to interpret why it takes long time for the rates to
converge predicted by PPP theory.

Discussion

The scenarios emphasize confliction among those studies that represents PPP succeed in
some areas determined by alternative reasons. Relied on the researches, PPP is analyed to be
problematic in a country when there is discrepancy between market-actual and PPP exchange
rates means the volatility unfollows the inflation differential, rather than that, extreme events
or market imperfection as discussed are also explanations.
Because of prices adjustment in long-run to preserve full-employment, long-run PPP theory
is preferable as most of the studies applied longer time span for analysis whereas PPP
deviation in short-run is prevailing. Personally, although arbitrage opportunity may occur in
absence of PPP, profitability is insufficient to cover expenses which is pointless to do
business.

PPP hold in Canada for the project’s the period

Observed the case, there are two different perspectives. If the project bases on the forecast
PPP rates, its relative form suggests Canada has higher inflation level with CAD depreciation
against USD will offset the inflation differential. However, to determines whether PPP holds
between countries, Geo Tech considerably regresses historical data of their exchange rates
volatility relative to inflation changes. Factors deteriorate PPP relationship including non-
traded goods (i.e., service) increase transaction cost or no substitutes for tradeable goods. In
this case, Geo Tech products are tradeable between two countries because Thomas supposes
to have potential customers after 5-year marks when he hopefully exports them into Canada
in future. Provided that, it is expected that PPP probably holds.
Otherwise, the given diminished CAD/USD exchange rates and CAD depreciation exceeds
inflation differentials represent deviations from relative PPP. If depending on the given rates,
it is hopeful that PPP will be retained as equilibrium in long-run (e.g 5-year). Sizeable
deviations of PPP exchange rates were typical in major industrialized economies during
1970-2000 where Canada’s deviation least fluctuate (Robert & Schembri, 2002). PPP rates
estimation between US and Canada are stated to relatively match since comparable monetary
policies have similar evolution of price levels.

Reference:

A.C. Shapiro 1975, ‘Exchange rate changes, inflation and the value of multinational
corporations’, Journal of Finance, vol.30, pp. 485-502

Andy Schmitz 2012, ‘PPP in the Long Run’, International Finance: Theory and Policy, vol.1

AM Taylor 2004, ‘The Purchasing Power Parity Debate’, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
vol.18, no. 4, pp 135–158

Baharumsah AZ & Ariff M 1997, ‘Purchasing power parity in South East Asian countries
economies: cointegration approach’, Asian Economic Journal, vol.11, no.2, pp. 141-153
Brian Kahn & Ashok Parikh 1988, ‘Does Purchasing Power Parity Survive Political Shocks
in South Africa?’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol.134, no.1, pp. 99-116

C.R. Hekman 1985, ‘A financial model of foreign exchange exposure’, Journal of

International Business Studies, vol. 41, pp. 83-99

Collier, P. and Davis, E.W., 1985, ‘The management of currency transaction risk by UK
multi-national companies’, Accounting and business research, 15(60), pp.327-334.

David H. Papell & Joseph D. Alba 2005, Purchasing Power Parity and Country
Characteristics: Evidence from Panel Data Tests, JEL classification: F31 O57, University of
Houston and Nanyang Technological University, viewed 27 July 2021, University of
Houston and Nanyang Technological University database

De Mendonca H.F & e Souza, G.J.D.G. 2012, ‘Is inflation targeting a good remedy to control
inflation?’, Journal of Development economics, 98(2), pp.178-191

Don Pittis 2021, ‘Jump in US inflation may signal that history is repeating itself’, CBC News,
13 May, viewed 27 July 2021, < https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inflation-history-column-
don-pittis-1.6022412>

Dornbusch, Rudiger. 1976, ‘Expectations and Exchange Rate Dynamics’, Journal of

Political Economy, vol.84, no.6, pp. 1161–176

Duasa, J., 2009, ‘Exchange Rate Shock on Malaysian Prices of Import and Exports: An
Empirical Analysis’, Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, vol.30, no.3,
pp.99-144

Engle, R.F. and C.W.J. Granger, 1987. Co-integration and error-correction: Representation,
estimation and testing. Econometrica, vol.55, no.2, pp. 251-276

Frenkel, J. (1981), "The collapse of purchasing power parity during the 1970s", European
Economic Review 16:145-165

Hakkio, C.S., 1986, ‘Interest rates and exchange rates: What is the relationship?’, Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp.33-43.

Huizinga, John. 1987, ‘An Empirical Investigation of the Long-Run Behavior of Real
Exchange Rates’, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, vol.27, pp. 149–
215.

Imed Drine & Christophe Rault 2007, Purchasing Power Parity for Developing and
Developed Countries: What Can We Learn from Non-Stationary Panel Data Models,
discussion paper no.2887, Institute for the Study of Labor, viewed 27 July 2021, Institute for
the Study of Labor database
J.E. Hodder 1982, ‘Exposure to exchange rate movements’, Journal of International
Economics, vol.13, pp. 375-386

Jeff, M. 2014, International financial management, viewed 27 July 2021,

<http://ebookcentral.proquest.com>

Kenneth A. Froot & Rogoff 1995, ‘Perspectives on PPP and Long-Run Real Exchange
Rates’, International Economics, vol.3, pp.1647-1688

Kai Zhang 2021, Does Purchasing Power Parity hold between European countries? –
Investigation using non-linear STAR model, report no.152110155, Lancaster University
Management School, viewed 27 July 2021, Lancaster University Management School
database

L. Booth, W. Rotenberg 1990, ‘Assessing foreign exchange exposure: theory and application

using Canadian firms’, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, vol.
2, pp. 1-22

McNown R & Wallace Ms 1989, ‘National price level, purchasing power parity and
cointegration: a test of four high inflation economies, Journal of International Money and
Finance, vol.8, no.4, pp. 533-545

Michael Melvin & Stefan Norrbin 2017, ‘Prices, Exchange Rates and Purchasing Power
Parity’, International Money and Finance, pp. 135-154

Muller, A. and Verschoor, W.F., 2006. Foreign exchange risk exposure: Survey and
suggestions. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, vol.16, no. 4, pp.385-410

Paul, M.T., 1997, ‘Inflation in Asian countries: 1970- 1992’, Asian Economic Review, pp:
248-275.

Pedroni P. 1999, ‘Critical values for cointegrating tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple
regressors’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol 61, pp. 653-670

R.G. Williamson 2001, ‘Exchange rate exposure and competition: evidence from the
automotive industry’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol 59, pp. 441-475

Robert Lafrance & Lawrence Schembri 2002, Purchasing Power Parity: Definition,
Measurement and Interpretation, International Department, Bank of Canada Review

Saini, K.G., 1982, ‘The monetarist explanation: The experience of six Asian countries”,
World Development, vol.10, no.10, pp.871-884
Snell, A 1996, ‘ A test of purchasing power parity based on the largest principal component
of real exchange rates of the main OECD countries’, Economic Letter, vol.51, no.2, pp. 225-
231

Sulistiadi Dono Iskandar 2016, ‘The Existence of Long-Run PPP: A Comparison between
Developed and Developing Countries’, vol.62, no.2, pp.88-97

Sundqvist, E., 2002, ‘An empirical investigation of the International Fisher Effect’, Social
Science and Business Administration Programmes, vol.42, pp.1-41

Tamim Bayoumi & Ronald MacDonald 1998, Deviations of Exchange Rates from
Purchasing Power Parity: A Story Featuring Two Monetary Unions, JEL classification no.
C12; C23; F31, IMF, viewed 27 July 2021, IMF database