Fluctuations in the Value of Sterling with Respect to the Yen - Assignment Example

Fluctuations in the Value of Sterling with Respect to the Yen a. Comment on the fluctuations in the value of Sterling with respect to the Yen over the period of 2000 to 2003. (10 Marks) Answer: As we can see from the Table 1 of the group work the value of Sterling over the period of 2000-2003 have not only shown fluctuations on the long term changes but the changes were noticeable on the quarterly basis as well. During 2000 there was a sharp decline in the value of the Sterling against the Japenese Yen. This was noted during the first three quarters of the year. However, the market stabilised and in the forth quarter the Sterling yielded growth.. This was the period when the world economy was facing the recession. The global economy had experienced a slow growth in the year 2001. We know that exchange rate is influenced by the demand of the particular currency. Sterling exchange rate against Yen has shown significant growth in the first quarter of year 2002. It indicates that the demand of the Sterling have grown against Yen. In the year 2003 Yen have appreciated against Sterling. In reviewing the exchange rate on a broader base than quarterly it is evident that although although 2000 was a year of decline for the Sterling against the Yen, there was a remarkable jumps in the first quarter of 2001 which saw the quarter ending at the same rate per se as the first quarter of 2000 (the quarter in which we began the analysis.) In total for year 2001 the Sterling saw no depreciation against the Yen. After its approximate 12 point jump between the 4th quarter of 2000 and the 1st quarter of 2001, the remainder of the year saw slight growth. Then although not as dramatic as was the 10 point leap between 4th quarter of 2001 and the 1st quarter of 2002. During 2002 saw the first depreciation in the Sterling of approximately 4 points in quarter 2 where it remained constant through the 3rd quarter. Again in between quarter 3 of 2002 and the 4th quarter of 2002 the Sterling gained almost 8 points before dropping slightly in the 1st quarter of 2003 only to moderate in the 2nd quarter and then steadily decline through the end of the quarter. A noticeable factor during the four year analysis other than quarter fluctuations the last quarter of 2003 ended with the Sterling just shy of gaining 15 points against the Yen. Figure 1 As we can see from the graph above, the Sterling exchange rates have depreciated to its minimum during the fourth quarter of year 2000. It was the period when the Iraq war had impacted the global economy as a whole and was not in particular related specifically to the Yen. In the year 2001 it has shown slow and steady growth. The value ranged 172.26 to 178.45 with a growing pattern. During the first quarter of year 2002 it was a good jump in the value of sterling against Yen with an increase realization of almost 12. It was 188.79. This value depreciated in the next two quarters. The fourth quarter of the same year it was maximum of all the four years. The fluctuation pattern of the Sterling exchange rate in the year 2003 has been of depreciation. The Sterling value has increased to 191.9 in the quarter 2 of the 2003 which was higher than the first quarter which again depreciated sharply in the next two quarters. The Sterling Exchange Rate against The Japanese Yen 2000-2003 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 2000 171.99 163.52 159.19 158.89 2001 172.26 174.19 174.67 178.45 2002 188.79 185.29 184.85 192.42 2003 190.67 191.9 189.14 185.64 Source: Economic Trends (2004), Table 6.1, P126 Table 1: Sterling Exchange Rate against Japanese Yen Year 2000-2003 b. Provide an analysis of the possible causes of exchange rate appreciation of Sterling against Yen.(20 Marks) (a n b 1250 words) Answer: The fluctuation of the value of any currency means appreciation or depreciation of the value of the currency against the other currency. The cause of fluctuation of any currency against some other currency depends upon various factors. These factors are socio-economic, political and global factors. The overall business environment factors like government policy, competitive environment, export import of various goods and services. The social and economic factors includes the cost of labour, labour reports, consumer price index, producer price index, demands of goods and services in the market, productivity, inflation rate, employment rate, exchange rates and gross domestic product. The political factor includes factors like political stability and anticipation of the future political condition. The possible factors can be the demands of the goods and services for the imports. UK despite of the fact of gulf war and oil price hike predictions had a stable growth rate of GDP in four years. The fall which occurred was noticed during 2000 to 2001 due to the Iraq war. This war has impacted the overall economy of the world. Apart from these the domestic product and the domestic market have shown considerable growth during this period. Europe has experienced considerable growth and pickup in the economy due to the growing domestic demand and rising of the foreign demand in the second half of 2003 it helped in capital formation and growth during this period. The exchange rate demand and supply is influenced by various factors and it influences the direction of the economic growth. The gross national product of any country is a value arrived after adding gross domestic product and income from abroad. The income from abroad is based on the exchange rates apart from the various other factors. Microeconomic Factors: If we concentrate on the consumer demand theory we will find that the demand of the Sterling would have increased during the periods when it has showed appreciation. In the year 2000 Sterling was depreciating against it. It was due to the political factor. The gulf war, unstable and uncertain political and economical conditions have resulted in that. On the other hand the economy has stability in Japan. The Japanese economy is one of the strongest economies in the world. The demand for the Japanese goods might have gone up during this period as compared to European goods in Japan. This would have resulted in the demand of Japanese currency. More of the Yen would have been flowing in the European economy. Japanese firms would have been doing well and contributing to the economy resulted in the loss of the traders and lending organisation and fund management. The depreciation of the Sterling against Yen would have resulted in the loss on the investment or trading in Sterling for those dealing in these two currencies. At the same time traders and firms who have done trading with the Japanese companies during the period of 2000-2001 would have benefited with the exchange rate values. The anticipation of the fluctuation in particular currency or market is also one area where people earn. The increase in the value of Sterling against Japanese Yen can be indications of various things. The sharp indication in rise or fall of the value can be implication of some new government policy or regulation. It can also be an implication of some new global economical influence. It can be due to some sudden change in the political environment of these two countries. Macroeconomic Factors: The macroeconomic factors like unemployment, the price level, national income, GDP etc also have impact on the exchange rate fluctuations. The employment level in any country is directly related to the production factor. As employment opportunities rise due to an expanding economy, more disposable income results in spurred customer spending. This will have overall impact in the economy by increasing demands and supply of the various products and services. It will increase the investments. The GDP will be positively affected as the actual value of output should increase with the quantity of sales not merely as prices increase. The overall national income of any country includes the value of the money from abroad as well. c. Apply a theoretical framework to analyse how rising UK house prices can stimulate an expansion of your analysis. (20 marks) (1000 words) Answer: We will be following the basic model of demand and supply of the houses in UK for our analysis. With the economy growth, prices of all the goods and services increase with respect to that. These same things happened in the case of housing industry. The house prices have gone up during the economy boom of 1990s. Sooner with the downturn in the economy the prices of all the other goods and services got stagnant considerably but House industry was not affected by that. The demand of all kind of housing is increasing with the growing population and the availability of funds. Building and construction companies did not take more interest in the segments like low income group who required the housing most. The numbers of dwellings and renovation have also been considerable during this period providing consistent employment opportunity. Determinants of Demand in UK House Market a. Choice, Tastes and Fashions Usually this has less influence or minimum influence on the demand of house. The reason for it is the high cost involvement, high involvement of individual and availability of the houses. b. The number and price of related goods (Substitute/Complement) Numbers of available houses, rental rates, tax structure etc have impact on this e.g. The Rental accommodation is the substitute for the own accommodation. If people feel that the rent rate is almost equal to the instalments they would be paying if they buy house the decision to buy house becomes stronger increasing demand. c. Income When the income raises demand for goods and services rises. This is same in the case of house as well. A person can think about buying house when he has sufficient savings after fulfilling his basic expenditure. d. Expectations of future price changes If the prices of houses/rental rates are going to increase, this may compel people to buy the house before the hike starts. e. Population Demand of houses is directly linked with the population. The growing number of immigrants and concentration of population in a certain geographic location will increase the demand of the houses in that area. If the supply is less, the prices will go up. d. Determinants of Supply In the UK House Market a. Costs of Production Cost of the land, wage rates, availability of technology, prices and availability of construction material and government policies are some of the key factors. b. Profitability of alternative goods in supply If the constructor gets better profit margins in giving consultancy than building a house, this may prompt him to do it. c. Nature, random shocks This includes the factors beyond the control of the marketer. These are natural disasters like earthquake, change in government policies and industrial disputes etc. d. Expectations of future prices If the prices of the houses are likely to grow, manufacturer may hold some of the houses to get more profit later. e. Profitability of goods in joint-supply The house can be fully furnished and the builder can charge extra for that. Figure c.1: Supply Demand Curve: Increased demand pushes the price. (Source: http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/housing/housing_boom.htm) Factors Influencing UK House Market There are various factors influencing the UK house market. The social factors decide the level of importance of having own house. It will also show the need for any particular class of the society. At present the aging population of baby boomers and their specific requirements are one of the areas of concern. The economic factors influence the overall purchasing behaviour and the prices of the goods in the market. Higher the growth in the overall economy so will be the opportunity of employment and earning possibility likewise. This will have direct impact on the buying pattern. Figure c.2 Factors Influencing Building and Construction Industry If we see the Table there is approximately 17% growth in the new dwellings and at the same time the percentage growth in the construction of other buildings and structures was approximately 9.5%. The GDP growth on a 12-month basis stood at 1.7 percent (3rd quarter) 2005. There is slowdown seen in the growth recently. This has become one of the issues of concerns. The GDP last year was 3.1%. The downturn in the growth of GDP and increased level of inflation impacts the demand supply curve. The disposable income will go down, prices of things will increase result in lowering the demand and supply of the houses. (Source: http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/stats/constat2005.pdf) d. Apply theoretical frameworks to analyse and evaluate the consequences for the macro-economy of the increase in the broad money supply in the UK over the period 2000 to 2003 (30 MARKS) (1750 words) Although the Gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) is by no means an accurate measure of the value of the total fixed capital stock, it is a good beginning at analysing trends within the various business, government and private sectors. As the GFCF is a fluid number it can not be use to determine the health of the economy nor a true indicator of total investment but it is a economic indicator of the business activity by sector and will reveal trends in new fixed investments. As our beginning to examine the consequences for the macro economy of the increase in broad money supply between 2000 and 2003 we will begin by examining the GFCF. The chart above will be used to analyse the GFCF for the period 2000 to 2003. As seen in the above chart we will examine the private sector, Non-public financial sector, government and others. As the table is noted in millions of pounds those will be amused when discussing the data for brevity sake. The Private sector has seen a steady growth since 2000 in both the new building and other category. As there were no anomalies in the period in question, we will discuss the total value. The total value of private sector in 2000 was 57, 380 while 2001 saw a marginal increase to 59,760, an increase of just over 2,300. 2003 saw a year end total of 64,645, an aggregate increase of just fewer than 5,000. The last period we are covering is 2003 which again saw an increase of just over 5,200, the second straight year with a gain over 5,000 in the private sector. The final total for 2003 was 69,850. A total increase for the private sector at the end of the period being examined, 2003, was 12,470. The public non financial sector also saw improvement during the first three years of the analysis period but had a decline in 2003, although the total for the 4 year period still yielded a gain. The total for the public non financial sector beginning 2000 was. 1,761. This figure increased to 1850 ending 2001 for a gain of 89. 2002 saw the year end with a total 2303 an increase of 453. The next year 2003 saw a decrease in the public sector with a drop to 2,017, a loss just under 300. However, at the culmination of the period being examined the total gain for the public non financial sector was 252. Likewise the general government sector saw an increase for each of the years beginning 2000 and ending with 2003. The 2000 total for the government sector was 11,866. 2001 followed with an increase of 1,139 at 13,525. Again 2002 saw another increase to 14,958 with an increase of 1,433. 2003 rounded out the 4 year period with the most dramatic increase of 3,333 at 18,291. The total sum increase for the four year period 2000 to 2003 form the general government sector was 6,425 indicating a strong growth in the building sector. The last area broken down was the other category covering intangible fixed assets, machinery, transport equipment, and costs associated with transfers. Although there was some fluctuation within the various groups there were no remarkable changes by category. Again the first 3 years showed rather stable totals with little variation. 2003 showed a noticeable decrease mainly precipitated by declines in the transport and other machinery sub groups. The total for the ‘other’ category beginning 2000 was 90,803 while 2001’s ending total was 90,532, a decrease of 71. 2002 ended at 90,632 an increase of 100. 2003, as previously stated had a decline of 4,844 ending at 85,788. This was the only category showing an overall loss for the four year period at 5,015. In the last area of the above chart, we will examine the total for all sectors over the four year period. These economic indicators are, as stated earlier, a good marker of the direction the economy is going. However, they are not exact markers and as such merely give us an idea, not a definite answer. To further answer the question we will need to investigate other data to make a determination as to how the macro economy of the increase in broad money supply impacts the UK. The totals inclusive of all categories will now be discussed. Although the totals for all categories with the exception of the other had total gains for the four year period ending 2003, it should not come as a surprise that the sum totals will also show an increase. The period ending 2000 the combined total across all sectors was 161,810. 2001 saw an increase to 165,447, a rise of approximately 3,500. 2002 finished the year at 172,559. Again the increase between the two years was almost 8,000. Finally 2003 ended at 176,946 and a yearly increase of almost 5,000. The total increase across all sectors for the four year period beginning 2000 and ending 2003 was 15,136; again this was per million pounds. Having viewed this strong indicator of growth during the period in question, we will now examine some of the other economic factors that affect the broad base. Gross Domestic Products (GDP) as we know is one of the elements of the macro economics. Examining the values of goods and services produced within the country is a good indicator of its growth and is a good measure in particular of the state of the production with the country. (Shim and Siegel 1993, p 38) The analysis of these trends gives a good indication on where economically the UK is headed, not accounting for minor variations, which are a normal part of the economic cycle. That being said we will turn now to examining the GDP of the UK in comparison with several other industrialised countries. The Annual Growth Rate of GDP 2000-2003 (constant market price) GDP Rates Year France Italy USA U.K 2000 4.2% 3.7% 3.1% 3.9% 2001 2.1% 0.5% 1.7% 2.3% 2002 1.1% 2.2% 0.3% 1.8% 2003 0.5% 3.1% 0.4% 2.2% Source: Economic Trends (2004), Table 2, 3, 4, 2.2，P22 – 25，P66 Source: Office of National Statistics, (2004). Economic Trends: August Monthly Supplement. London: The Stationary Office. The above diagrams present the different growth rates of GDP in four industrial countries, which are France, Italy, USA and UK between 2000 and 2003. All the figures were calculated by the expenditure method at constant price. In the following paragraphs the data of the UK will be regarded as the basis, and the compare and contrast will be made with the growth rates of other three countries. As can be seen from the table, UK had a relevant stable growth rate of GDP during the four years. The total GDP grew approximately £62,680 million, whereas the growth rate decreased until the end of 2002. From 2000 to 2002, the GDP growth rate fell by 2.1% from 3.9% to 1.8%. There was a slightly increase from 1.8% in 2002 to 2.2% in 2003. On the other hand, the other three countries had a dramatic changing rate in each year. In the USA, the percentage of the GDP growth dropped rapidly, hitting the bottom of 0.5% in 2001. Following by dramatically increasing to 3.1%, this was more than 6 times higher than previous. Both Italy and France, there was an overall decrease in growth rate of GDP before 2002. However, in the last year, Italy began to rise slightly, and reached 0.4 % in 2003. Meantime, the growth rate of France was falling by 0.6%, from 1.1% to 0.5%. In general, the GDP growth rates in 2000 were the highest compared with the following three years. Within four countries, in 2000 France was in the first position with 4.2% GDP growth rate, and UK only had 0.3% less than this figure. In 2001, the growth rates of four countries started to decline. The USA had the most significant decrease by 3.2% from 3.7% in 2000; this was the lowest point in this year. Meanwhile, the UK got the highest GDP growth rate at 2.3%. The further decreases took place in the next year except USA, which had a remarkable increase to 2.2% that was the largest growth rate in 2002. In 2003, the figure of USA remained a good increase of 3.1%. UK was in the second place at 2.2%. France was the only country with a constant decrease growth rate. However, this rate was still higher than Italy which even had 0.1% increase in 2003. In comparing the GDP with the GFCF remembering that it merely shows a trend, we surmise that although the UK GDP was 3.9% in 2000 and dropped to 2.3% in 2001 a decline of 1.6% and again fell an addition .5% in 2002 to 1.8% for a total three year decline of 2.1%, 2003 showed an improvement up .4% to 2.2%. Coupled with the steady increase of the same four year period from 2000 to 2003 of the GFCF leads us to surmise that economic conditions are improving and the improvement in the broad band will yield improved economic conditions. We will now examine one final indicator which yields a good view of the domestic industrial strength and consumer’s disposable income potential, the unemployment rate. (Baumol 2004, p. 363). UNEMPLOYMENT Rate [ IFS code : 67R.. ] ,,UK ,, Units: Percent per annum (1) ,, From: Prices, Production, Labor ,, ES Source: International Financial Statistics , Month , 1983 to Aug 2004 1 , 2004 Aug , 2.70000 2 , 2004 Jul , 2.70000 3 , 2004 Jun , 2.70000 4 , 2004 May , 2.80000 5 , 2004 Apr , 2.90000 6 , 2004 Mar , 3.00000 7 , 2004 Feb , 3.10000 8 , 2004 Jan , 3.10000 9 , 2003 Dec , 2.90000 10 , 2003 Nov , 2.80000 11 , 2003 Oct , 2.90000 12 , 2003 Sep , 3.00000 13 , 2003 Aug , 3.10000 14 , 2003 Jul , 3.00000 15 , 2003 Jun , 3.00000 16 , 2003 May , 3.10000 17 , 2003 Apr , 3.10000 18 , 2003 Mar , 3.20000 19 , 2003 Feb , 3.30000 20 , 2003 Jan , 3.20000 21 , 2002 Dec , 3.00000 22 , 2002 Nov , 2.90000 23 , 2002 Oct , 2.90000 24 , 2002 Sep , 3.00000 25 , 2002 Aug , 3.10000 26 , 2002 Jul , 3.10000 27 , 2002 Jun , 3.00000 28 , 2002 May , 3.10000 29 , 2002 Apr , 3.20000 30 , 2002 Mar , 3.20000 31 , 2002 Feb , 3.30000 32 , 2002 Jan , 3.30000 33 , 2001 Dec , 3.10000 34 , 2001 Nov , 3.00000 35 , 2001 Oct , 3.00000 36 , 2001 Sep , 3.10000 37 , 2001 Aug , 3.20000 38 , 2001 Jul , 3.20000 39 , 2001 Jun , 3.10000 40 , 2001 May , 3.20000 41 , 2001 Apr , 3.30000 42 , 2001 Mar , 3.40000 43 , 2001 Feb , 3.50000 44 , 2001 Jan , 3.50000 45 , 2000 Dec , 3.30000 46 , 2000 Nov , 3.30000 47 , 2000 Oct , 3.30000 48 , 2000 Sep , 3.40000 49 , 2000 Aug , 3.60000 50 , 2000 Jul , 3.60000 51 , 2000 Jun , 3.60000 52 , 2000 May , 3.70000 53 , 2000 Apr , 3.80000 54 , 2000 Mar , 3.90000 55 , 2000 Feb , 4.10000 56 , 2000 Jan , 4.10000 Source: Econstats retrieved 10 Jan. 2006 from http://www.econstats.com/IMF/IFS_UK1_67R__.htm UK Monthly Unemployment 2000 – 2003. Finally in examining the unemployment statistics for the period beginning January 2000 through December 2003 will give us further indication of the trend of the economy when compared with other economic indicators analysed. We see that the average unemployment rate for 2000 was 3.6% based on the monthly totals provided. The average unemployment rate for 2001 was 3.2%, a decrease of .4%. The 2002 unemployment average was 3.1% just .1% below the 2001 average. Lastly, the 2003 unemployment average was 3.0%. Again this total was .1% below the previous year’s average. With a beginning unemployment rate in 2000 of 3.6% and an ending rate of 3.0% in 2003 and a small but steady decline between in appears the economy is growing at a slow but steady rate. When we look at the various indicators, examine GDP with its decline, then reversal to show moderate gains and couple that with declining unemployment and a strong GFCF. The economy based on these broad money indicators tend to reveal that growth should occur precluding any unforeseen economic anomaly. e. Apply an appropriate framework to analyse why Hutton claims further rises in the Euro (i.e. due to declining value for he US Dollar will mean “stagnation and even recession” for the European community. Answer. The January of 1999 gave the world in general and Europe in specific, its new currency. It marked the launch of Euro as an electronic currency categorically limited in its functions to bankers, stock brokers and foreign exchange dealers. Almost immediately as it was commenced, the Euro fell down in the international currency markets against the attractions of American dollar, coupled by the booming US stock market and its economic health. Intervened and buoyed by the European Central Bank, it sustained its lowly ranking against the dollar. The early quarter of 2001 saw US President George Bush- faced with a US economic recession, being compelled to impose 13 interest cuts by the US Central Bank and the Federal Reserve. This was the breather the Euro looked for, and first time since its inception, it stabilised, and then began a slow climb upwards. During the January of 2002, the Euro was launched in the form of cash currency to be used by the 300 million strong Euro zone. This time, the timing could not have been perfect as during this period, the US dollar was one of its lows owing to US budget and trade deficits. Added to it was the fact that the traders feared investors would refuse to finance US deficit by continuing to pump money from abroad and that further brought the down fall of the dollar. The result is evident in the fact that the Euro has gone up 50% against the dollar since then. This could well startle some, seeing it spent its first three years as a rubbish tip in the currency market’s world. From a layman’s perspective, a healthier Euro against the weak Dollar may sound encouraging. But trade pundits since then, in low and high voices, have cried out that the weakening dollar would come back to hit the Euro down on its knees, and as their vision would have it, it came straight to that. A few facts should bring to reckoning the standing facts of a stronger Euro have entailed “The rise of the euro is turning some of the European Union's main cities into the most expensive on earth, according to a new survey, but London still outstrips them all. Milan, Dublin and Paris have all climbed the latest cost-of-living league table, which is traditionally dominated by Asia's conurbations. Tokyo has succeeded Hong Kong as the world's most expensive city with Moscow and Osaka in second and third position. London, with its high housing and transport costs, moves up from 10th place to seventh and remains the most expensive city in the EU. The weakening dollar means New York was the only North American metropolis to make the top 10. The survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting ranks the cost of living for foreign workers by pricing 200 items in 144 cities, including housing, food, transport and entertainment. Milan shot from number 63 in 2002 to 17 this year, while Dublin rose from 73 to 21 and Paris jumped from 74 to 23.“ (Guardian, 2003) How did it come to happen? As evident, a strong currency is looked upon as a benchmark for a vibrant and healthy economy. But when we are considering a common currency across volatile and sporadic nations, the imbalance the currency can create often is more baffling than can be envisaged. This can be better understood by the disparity in twelve different countries (which have adopted the Euro as their national currency since 1st January 2002) economies as reflected by their conversion rates of the local currencies to the Euro. Belgian franc 40.3399 Deutsche Mark 1.95583 Greek drachma 340.750 Spanish peseta 166.386 French franc 6.55957 Irish pound 0.787564 Italian lira 1936.27 Luxembourg franc 40.3399 Dutch guilder 2.20371 Austrian schilling 13.7603 Portuguese escudo 200.482       Finnish markka 5.94573 (courtesy: http://www.cretetravel.com/Currency/EURO.htm) Given such a scenario, a stronger economy of one country can result in a stronger Euro, forcing the impact to be shared by those of weaker currency. In other words, weaker currencies will need more money to pay for the same goods owing to the increase in Euro. Germany made a steep recessional visit last year, the first time in a decade, owing to the impact of the strong Euro on its exports. Though the German markets were weak domestically, its cause was offset by robust exports in the past. The rising value of Euro made it difficult to keep up its exports. Italian premier carmaker, Ferrari pointed out it is loosing money when selling cars in the US Market owing to the fall in the dollar. This also caused leading European carmakers such as BMW and Porsche take a dip in the profits rather than pass the burden to their consumers. Conclusion In world’s economics, no currency is independent of another and in mutual exchanges; one currency’s loss will inevitably mean another’s gain. As rightly observed by Will Hutton, the weaker the dollar goes against the Euro, the more Euro will rise. This rise, through initial interpretation may mean a healthier economy, but in the long run will suffer Europe’s cause. Europe’s business interests and economies will take a plunge not only in USA, but in all the countries whose economy is directly or indirectly linked to the dollar, which in other words, is the entire world. References Baumol, W. J. (2004). Principles and Policy, 2004 Update. Stamford, Connecticut: Thomson Publications. Crawford, P., Young, T., & Takhtarov, J. (27 Apr. 2004). Graziadio Business Report, Journal of contemporary Business Practice. Pepperdine University Website. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/041/devaluation.html “The fall and rise of the euro.” (5 Jan. 2004). BBC News Online. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3322225.stm “International private capital flows.” (2 Dec. 2005). United Nations Website, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/ Mackinnion, N. (24 Feb. 2004). “Rollercoaster euro could cause sickness.” This is London Website. The Evening Star Standard. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid74720 Marrewijk, C. V. (Oct. 2004). “An introductions to international money and foreign exchange rates.” The University of Adelaide Website. Centre for International Economic Studies. Accessed 1 Jan. 2006, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/macrofin/pubs.html Richardson, T. G. (Jan. 2004). “International banking.” Seneca college Website. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://www.witiger.com/ “Rise of euro pushes up costs of EU cities.” (17 Jun. 2003). Guardian Newspapers. Buzz Website. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-17-2003-41782.asp Shim, J. K. and Siegel, J. G. (1993). Macroneconomics outline notes. Hauppauge, New York: Barron’s Educational Services, Inc. “Unemployment stats.” (Aug. 2004). EconStats Website. Accessed 10 Jan. 2006, from http://www.econstats.com/IMF/IFS_UK1_67R__.htm Read More