Abstract
The unbiased expectations hypothesis is the basis for many current investment strategies, despite its shortcomings. Yet the spot–forward parity theorem and the unbiased expectations hypothesis cannot both hold. Why do some in the investment community continue to believe that there is any more information in forward prices or rates than spot prices or rates? The authors show that forward prices have to be biased predictors of future spot prices, or arbitrage opportunities would arise. The bias is fair compensation for the difference in the timing of the cash flows between the spot and forward markets. The authors argue that the unbiased expectations hypothesis often forms the basis for trading strategies only because of the zero initial value and non–zero future value, the misuse of forwards in performance attribution, and a misunderstanding of the symmetry of risk premiums.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
