Why are currency forwards needed?
Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? Sure, assuming that the company has the money now.  More commonly they don't have that cash now, but will earn it over the time period (presumably in Euros) and will make the large payment at some point in time.  Using a forward protects them from fluctuations in the exchange rate between now and then; otherwise they'd have to stow away USD over the year (which still exposes them to exchange rate fluctuations). Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD.  The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account.   You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk.   If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward.   Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO.    The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business. e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today.  A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging.  Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated). What is the point of this? Can't I achieve the exact same effect and   outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a   bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one   year from now? This is for companies, not individuals. Companies usually take loans, because they think they can make more money (e.g. 10%*) than the interest on the loan (e.g. 5%*). Putting money on a bank account to earn interest there would give them even less (e.g. 1%*). So with your option, instead of earning 10%* interest, they'd earn 1%* interest. If the cost of the currency forward is less than these 9%* difference, the forward saves them money. If they have excess cash and they don't know how to invest that money, your option may be preferable *Simple numbers chosen for simplicity, not accuracy. "To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the ""real economy"" is to ""lock in"" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to ""lock in"" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to ""sit on"" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me."
I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance.  3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality. "Bingo, great question.  I'm not the original poster, ""otherwiseyep"", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker).  I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money.  To answer your question:  the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency.  This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down.  Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency.  These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial ""root demand"" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value.  We don't just *decide* that green paper has value.  We are forced to accumulate it by the government.  Fiat currencies are not money.  We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives.  Let me explain:  A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market.  When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money.  The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds.  The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky.  The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments.  They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens.  That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt).  So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments).  If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a ""credit event"" and investors sell their bonds and freak out.  Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle.  If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates.  This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on.  Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain.  In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks.  So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies.  Real money has ZERO counterparty risk.  What is counterparty risk?  It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt.  Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's.  So they can be real money." Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think. You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money? I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them.   In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10.   So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference.  Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times.  2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you.  However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid.  That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents.  But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it.  I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny.  A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have. Borrowing money from the Federal Reserve (or other central banks) requires full collateral, generally in terms of treasury bonds. In that sense it is only a source of liquidity - getting short term money by pledging guaranteed future cash flows, not random commercial loans. To get a dollar from FR today requires freezing a dollar that you already had. Private deposits, on the other hand, require only a keeping a fraction of them as reserves, so you can use the rest of the money for new loans. "Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these ""shares"" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this ""printing money"" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China" "To expand a bit on @MSalters's answer ... When I read your question title I assumed that by ""retirement funds"" you meant target-date funds that are close to their target dates (say, the 2015 target fund).  When I saw that you were referring to all target-date funds, it occurred to me that examining how such funds modify their portfolios over time would actually help answer your question. If you look at a near-term target fund you can see that a smaller percent is invested internationally, the same way a smaller percent is invested in stocks.  It's because of risk.  Since it's more likely that you will need some of the money soon, and since you'll be cashing out said money in US Dollars, it's risky to have too much invested in foreign currencies.  If you need money that's currently invested in a foreign currency and that currency happens to be doing poorly against USD at the moment, then you'll lose money simply because you need it now. This is the same rationale that goes into target-date funds' moving from stocks to bonds over time.  Since the value of a stock portfolio has a lot more natural volatility than the value of a bond portfolio, if you're heavily invested in stocks when you need to withdraw money, there's a higher probability that you'll need to cash out just when stocks happen to be doing relatively poorly.  Being invested more in bonds around when you'll need your money is less risky. Similarly, being more invested in US dollars than in foreign currencies around when you'll need your money is also less risky." "It's simply supply and demand.   First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros.  Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros.  Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall  in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any.  There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world.  If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros).  If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it.  If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher.  When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's ""Supply:"" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that.  If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank ""have"" and what does it mean for them to have money?  The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders.  If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people.  The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again.  In economics this is called the ""multiplier effect."" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending.   Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the ""supply"" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash.  If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars.  This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress.  You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces.   The bank just facilitates transactions.  If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even.  If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD).  The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter.  The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works.  The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies.  As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official ""basket of goods"" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc.  The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis." It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients.  Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms).  Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity. I think you answered yourself. The rate difference is because of the base rates differences, and it's not worth moving money around because the rate conversions (even if the currency rates don't fluctuate) will eat up the difference. As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction). why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency.   If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing.  But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally.  So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local.   You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true.  But then you have two risks.  One risk you'll have anywhere:  your investments may go down.  The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency.  If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you.  That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes.   Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments.  As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally.  That looks to be about 20% for Australia.  So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash.  That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency.   It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical.  But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability. The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones. "Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with ""buy the home now with a mortgage"" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?"