Hubbry Logo
Foreign exchange marketForeign exchange marketMain
Open search
Foreign exchange market
Community hub
Foreign exchange market
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Foreign exchange market
Foreign exchange market
Foreign exchange market
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Foreign exchange
Exchange rates
Markets
Assets
Historical agreements
See also
US Dollar Index DXY
  US Dollar Index (DXY)
  USD/GBP exchange rate
  USD/Canadian dollar exchange rate
  EUR/USD (inverted) exchange rate
  USD/JPY exchange rate
  USD/SEK exchange rate
  USD/CHF exchange rate

The foreign exchange market (forex, FX, or currency market) is a global decentralized or over-the-counter (OTC) market for the trading of currencies. This market determines foreign exchange rates for every currency. By trading volume, it is by far the largest market in the world, followed by the credit market.[1]

The main participants are the larger international banks. Financial centres function as anchors of trading between a range of multiple types of buyers and sellers around the clock, with the exception of weekends. As currencies are always traded in pairs, the market does not set a currency's absolute value, but rather determines its relative value by setting the market price of one currency if paid for with another. Example: 1 USD is worth 1.1 Euros or 1.2 Swiss Francs etc. The market works through financial institutions and operates on several levels. Behind the scenes, banks turn to a smaller number of financial firms known as "dealers", who are involved in large quantities of trading. Most foreign exchange dealers are banks, so this behind-the-scenes market is sometimes called the "interbank market". Trades between dealers can be very large, involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Because of the sovereignty issue when involving two currencies, Forex has little supervisory entity regulating its actions. In a typical foreign exchange transaction, a party purchases some quantity of one currency by paying with some quantity of another currency.

The foreign exchange market assists international trade and investments by enabling currency conversion. For example, it permits a business in the US to import goods from European Union member states, and pay Euros, even though its income is in United States dollars. It also supports direct speculation and evaluation relative to the value of currencies and the carry trade speculation, based on the differential interest rate between two currencies.[2]

The modern foreign exchange market began forming during the 1970s. This followed three decades of government restrictions on foreign exchange transactions under the Bretton Woods system of monetary management, which set out the rules for commercial and financial relations among major industrial states after World War II. Countries gradually switched to floating exchange rates from the previous exchange rate regime, which remained fixed per the Bretton Woods system. The foreign exchange market is unique because of the following characteristics:

  • huge trading volume, representing the largest asset class in the world leading to high liquidity;
  • geographical dispersion;
  • continuous operation: 24 hours a day except weekends, i.e., trading from 22:00 UTC on Sunday (Sydney) until 22:00 UTC Friday (New York);
  • variety of factors that affect exchange rates;
  • low profit margins compared with other markets of fixed income; and
  • use of leverage to enhance profit and loss margins and with respect to account size.

As such, it has been referred to as the market closest to the ideal of perfect competition, notwithstanding currency intervention by central banks.

Trading in foreign exchange markets averaged US$9.6 trillion per day in April 2025, up from US$7.5 trillion in 2022. Measured by value, foreign exchange swaps were traded more than any other instrument in 2025, at US$4 trillion per day, followed by spot trading at US$3 trillion.[3]

History

[edit]

Ancient

[edit]

Currency trading and exchange first occurred in ancient times.[4] Money-changers (people helping others to change money and also taking a commission or charging a fee) were living in the Holy Land in the times of the Talmudic writings (Biblical times). These people (sometimes called "kollybistẻs") used city stalls, and at feast times the Temple's Court of the Gentiles instead.[5] Money-changers were also the silversmiths and/or goldsmiths[6] of more recent ancient times.

During the 4th century AD, the Byzantine government kept a monopoly on the exchange of currency.[7]

Papyri PCZ I 59021 (c.259/8 BC), shows the occurrences of exchange of coinage in Ancient Egypt.[8]

Currency and exchange were important elements of trade in the ancient world, enabling people to buy and sell items like food, pottery, and raw materials.[9] If a Greek coin held more gold than an Egyptian coin due to its size or content, then a merchant could barter fewer Greek gold coins for more Egyptian ones, or for more material goods. This is why, at some point in their history, most world currencies in circulation today had a value fixed to a specific quantity of a recognized standard like silver and gold.

Medieval and later

[edit]

During the 15th century, the Medici family were required to open banks at foreign locations in order to exchange currencies to act on behalf of textile merchants.[10][11] To facilitate trade, the bank created the nostro (from Italian, this translates to "ours") account book which contained two columned entries showing amounts of foreign and local currencies; information pertaining to the keeping of an account with a foreign bank.[12][13][14][15] During the 17th (or 18th) century, Amsterdam maintained an active Forex market.[16] In 1704, foreign exchange took place between agents acting in the interests of the Kingdom of England and the County of Holland.[17]

Early modern

[edit]

Alex. Brown & Sons traded foreign currencies around 1850 and was a leading currency trader in the USA.[18] In 1880, J.M. do Espírito Santo de Silva (Banco Espírito Santo) applied for and was given permission to engage in a foreign exchange trading business.[19][20]

The year 1880 is considered by at least one source to be the beginning of modern foreign exchange: the gold standard began in that year.[21]

Prior to the First World War, there was a much more limited control of international trade. Motivated by the onset of war, countries abandoned the gold standard monetary system.[22]

Modern to post-modern

[edit]

From 1899 to 1913, holdings of countries' foreign exchange increased at an annual rate of 10.8%, while holdings of gold increased at an annual rate of 6.3% between 1903 and 1913.[23]

At the end of 1913, nearly half of the world's foreign exchange was conducted using the pound sterling.[24] The number of foreign banks operating within the boundaries of London increased from 3 in 1860, to 71 in 1913. In 1902, there were just two London foreign exchange brokers.[25] At the start of the 20th century, trades in currencies was most active in Paris, New York City and Berlin; Britain remained largely uninvolved until 1914. Between 1919 and 1922, the number of foreign exchange brokers in London increased to 17; and in 1924, there were 40 firms operating for the purposes of exchange.[26]

During the 1920s, the Kleinwort family were known as the leaders of the foreign exchange market, while Japheth, Montagu & Co. and Seligman still warrant recognition as significant FX traders.[27] The trade in London began to resemble its modern manifestation. By 1928, Forex trade was integral to the financial functioning of the city. However, during the 1930s, London's pursuit of widespread trade prosperity was hindered by continental exchange controls and additional factors in Europe and Latin America.[28] Some of these additional factors include tariff rates and quota,[29] protectionist policies, trade barriers and taxes, economic depression and agricultural overproduction, and impact of protection on trade.

After World War II

[edit]

In 1944, the Bretton Woods Accord was signed, allowing currencies to fluctuate within a range of ±1% from the currency's par exchange rate.[30] In Japan, the Foreign Exchange Bank Law was introduced in 1954. As a result, the Bank of Tokyo became a center of foreign exchange by September 1954. Between 1954 and 1959, Japanese law was changed to allow foreign exchange dealings in many more Western currencies.[31]

U.S. President Richard Nixon is credited with ending the Bretton Woods Accord and fixed rates of exchange, eventually resulting in a free-floating currency system. After the Accord ended in 1971,[32] the Smithsonian Agreement allowed rates to fluctuate by up to ±2%. In 1961–62, the volume of foreign operations by the U.S. Federal Reserve was relatively low.[33][34] Those responsible for managing exchange rates then found the boundaries of the Agreement unrealistic. As a result, it led to its discontinuation in March 1973. Afterwards, none of the major currencies (such as the US dollar, the British pound, or the Japanese yen) were maintained with a capacity for conversion to gold. Instead, organizations relied on reserves of currency to facilitate international trade and back the value of their own currency.[35][36] From 1970 to 1973, the volume of trading in the market increased three-fold.[37][38][39] At some time (according to Gandolfo during February–March 1973) some of the markets were "split", and a two-tier currency market was subsequently introduced, with dual currency rates. This was abolished in March 1974.[40][41][42]

Reuters introduced computer monitors during June 1973, replacing the telephones and telex used previously for trading quotes.[43]

Markets close

[edit]

Due to the ultimate ineffectiveness of the Bretton Woods Accord and the European Joint Float, the forex markets were forced to close sometime during 1972 and March 1973.[44] This was a result of the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, as major currencies began to float against each other, ultimately leading to the abandonment of the fixed exchange rate system.[45][46] Meanwhile, the largest purchase of US dollars in the history of 1976[47] was when the West German government achieved an almost 3 billion dollar acquisition (a figure is given as 2.75 billion in total by The Statesman: Volume 18 1974). This event indicated the impossibility of balancing of exchange rates by the measures of control used at the time, and the monetary system and the foreign exchange markets in West Germany and other countries within Europe closed for two weeks (during February and, or, March 1973. Giersch, Paqué, & Schmieding state closed after purchase of "7.5 million Dmarks" Brawley states "... Exchange markets had to be closed. When they re-opened ... March 1 " that is a large purchase occurred after the close).[48][49][50][51]

After 1973

[edit]

In developed nations, state control of foreign exchange trading ended in 1973 when complete floating and relatively free market conditions of modern times began.[52] Other sources claim that the first time a currency pair was traded by U.S. retail customers was during 1982, with additional currency pairs becoming available by the next year.[53][54]

On 1 January 1981, as part of changes beginning during 1978, the People's Bank of China allowed certain domestic "enterprises" to participate in foreign exchange trading.[55][56] Sometime during 1981, the South Korean government ended Forex controls and allowed free trade to occur for the first time. During 1988, the country's government accepted the IMF quota for international trade.[57]

Intervention by European banks (especially the Bundesbank) influenced the Forex market on 27 February 1985.[58] The greatest proportion of all trades worldwide during 1987 were within the United Kingdom (slightly over one quarter). The United States had the second highest involvement in trading.[59]

During 1991, Iran changed international agreements with some countries from oil-barter to foreign exchange.[60]

Market size and liquidity

[edit]
Main foreign exchange market turnover, 1988–2007, measured in billions of USD

The foreign exchange market is the most liquid financial market in the world. Traders include governments and central banks, commercial banks, other institutional investors and financial institutions, currency speculators, other commercial corporations, and individuals. According to the 2025 Triennial Central Bank Survey, coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements, average daily turnover was $9.6 trillion in April 2025 (compared to $4 trillion in 2010).[3] Of this $9.6 trillion, $3 trillion was spot transactions and $6.6 trillion was traded in outright forwards, swaps, and other derivatives.

Foreign exchange is traded in an over-the-counter market where brokers/dealers negotiate directly with one another, so there is no central exchange or clearing house. The biggest geographic trading center is the United Kingdom, primarily London. In April 2025, trading in the United Kingdom accounted for 37.8% of the total, making it by far the most important center for foreign exchange trading in the world. Owing to London's dominance in the market, a particular currency's quoted price is usually the London market price. For instance, when the International Monetary Fund calculates the value of its special drawing rights every day, they use the London market prices at noon that day. Trading in the United States accounted for 18.6%, Singapore and Hong Kong account for 11.8% and 7.0%, respectively, and Japan accounted for 3.5%.[3]

Turnover of exchange-traded foreign exchange futures and options was growing rapidly in 2004–2013, reaching $145 billion in April 2013 (double the turnover recorded in April 2007).[61] As of April 2025, exchange-traded currency derivatives represent 2% of OTC foreign exchange turnover. Foreign exchange futures contracts were introduced in 1972 at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and are traded more than to most other futures contracts.

Most developed countries permit the trading of derivative products (such as futures and options on futures) on their exchanges. All these developed countries already have fully convertible capital accounts. Some governments of emerging markets do not allow foreign exchange derivative products on their exchanges because they have capital controls. The use of derivatives is growing in many emerging economies.[62] Countries such as South Korea, South Africa, and India have established currency futures exchanges, despite having some capital controls.

Foreign exchange trading increased by 20% between April 2007 and April 2010 and has more than doubled since 2004.[63] The increase in turnover is due to a number of factors: the growing importance of foreign exchange as an asset class, the increased trading activity of high-frequency traders, and the emergence of retail investors as an important market segment. The growth of electronic execution and the diverse selection of execution venues has lowered transaction costs, increased market liquidity, and attracted greater participation from many customer types. In particular, electronic trading via online portals has made it easier for retail traders to trade in the foreign exchange market. By 2010, retail trading was estimated to account for up to 10% of spot turnover, or $150 billion per day (see below: Retail foreign exchange traders).

Market participants

[edit]
See also: Forex scandal
Top 10 currency traders[64]
% of overall volume, June 2020
Rank Name Market share
1 United States JP Morgan 10.78%
2 Switzerland UBS 8.13%
3 United Kingdom XTX Markets 7.58%
4 Germany Deutsche Bank 7.38%
5 United States Citi 5.50%
6 United Kingdom HSBC 5.33%
7 United States Jump Trading 5.23%
8 United States Goldman Sachs 4.62%
9 United States State Street Corporation 4.61%
10 United States Bank of America Merrill Lynch 4.50%

Unlike a stock market, the foreign exchange market is divided into levels of access. At the top is the interbank foreign exchange market, which is made up of the largest commercial banks and securities dealers. Within the interbank market, spreads represent the gap between the bid (the highest price a buyer is willing to pay) and ask (the lowest price a seller is willing to accept) prices in trading.[65] Relationships play a role in a bank's access to interbank market liquidity. Banks with reserve imbalances may prefer to borrow from banks with established relationships and can sometimes secure loans at more favorable interest rates compared to other sources.[65]

The difference between the bid and ask prices widens (for example from 0 to 1 pip to 1–2 pips for currencies such as the EUR) as you go down the levels of access. This is due to volume. If a trader can guarantee large numbers of transactions for large amounts, they can demand a smaller difference between the bid and ask price, which is referred to as a better spread. The levels of access that make up the foreign exchange market are determined by the size of the "line" (the amount of money with which they are trading). The top-tier interbank market accounts for 51% of all transactions.[66] After that, smaller banks, large multinational corporations (requiring risk hedging and cross-border payroll), major hedge funds, and even a few retail market makers come into play. According to Galati and Melvin, “Pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, and other institutional investors have played an increasingly important role in financial markets in general, and in FX markets in particular, since the early 2000s.” (2004) In addition, he notes, “Hedge funds have grown markedly over the 2001–2004 period in terms of both number and overall size”.[67] Central banks also participate in the foreign exchange market to align currencies to their economic needs.

Commercial companies

[edit]

An important part of the foreign exchange market comes from the financial activities of companies seeking foreign exchange to pay for goods or services. Commercial companies often trade fairly small amounts compared to those of banks or speculators, and their trades often have a little short-term impact on market rates. Nevertheless, trade flows are an important factor in the long-term direction of a currency's exchange rate. Some multinational corporations (MNCs) can have an unpredictable impact when very large positions are covered due to exposures that are not widely known by other market participants.

Central banks

[edit]

National central banks play an important role in the foreign exchange markets. They try to control the money supply, inflation, and/or interest rates and often have official or unofficial target rates for their currencies. They can use their often substantial foreign exchange reserves to stabilize the market. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of central bank "stabilizing speculation" is doubtful because central banks do not go bankrupt if they make large losses as other traders would. There is also no convincing evidence that they actually make a profit from trading.

Foreign exchange fixing

[edit]

Foreign exchange fixing is the daily monetary exchange rate fixed by the national bank of each country. The idea is that central banks use the fixing time and exchange rate to evaluate the behavior of their currency. Fixing exchange rates reflect the real value of equilibrium in the market. Banks, dealers, and traders use fixing rates as a market trend indicator.

The mere expectation or rumor of a central bank foreign exchange intervention might be enough to stabilize the currency. However, aggressive intervention might be used several times each year in countries with a dirty float currency regime. Central banks do not always achieve their objectives. The combined resources of the market can easily overwhelm any central bank.[68] Several scenarios of this nature were seen in the 1992–93 European Exchange Rate Mechanism collapse, and in more recent times in Asia.

Investment management firms

[edit]

Investment management firms (who typically manage large accounts on behalf of customers such as pension funds and endowments) use the foreign exchange market to facilitate transactions in foreign securities. For example, an investment manager bearing an international equity portfolio needs to purchase and sell several pairs of foreign currencies to pay for foreign securities purchases.

Some investment management firms also have more speculative specialist currency overlay operations, which manage clients' currency exposures with the aim of generating profits as well as limiting risk. While the number of this type of specialist firms is quite small, many have a large value of assets under management and can, therefore, generate large trades.

Retail foreign exchange traders

[edit]
Main article: Retail foreign exchange trading

Individual retail speculative traders constitute a growing segment of this market. Currently, they participate indirectly through brokers or banks. Retail brokers, while largely controlled and regulated in the US by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and National Futures Association, have previously been subjected to periodic foreign exchange fraud.[69][70] To deal with the issue, in 2010 the NFA required its members that deal in the Forex markets to register as such (i.e., Forex CTA instead of a CTA). Those NFA members that would traditionally be subject to minimum net capital requirements, FCMs and IBs, are subject to greater minimum net capital requirements if they deal in Forex. A number of the foreign exchange brokers operate from the UK under Financial Services Authority regulations where foreign exchange trading using margin is part of the wider over-the-counter derivatives trading industry that includes contracts for difference and financial spread betting.

There are two main types of retail FX brokers offering the opportunity for speculative currency trading: brokers and dealers or market makers. Brokers serve as an agent of the customer in the broader FX market, by seeking the best price in the market for a retail order and dealing on behalf of the retail customer. They charge a commission or "mark-up" in addition to the price obtained in the market. Dealers or market makers, by contrast, typically act as principals in the transaction versus the retail customer, and quote a price they are willing to deal at.

Non-bank foreign exchange companies

[edit]

Non-bank foreign exchange companies offer currency exchange and international payments to private individuals and companies. These are also known as "foreign exchange brokers" but are distinct in that they do not offer speculative trading but rather currency exchange with payments (i.e., there is usually a physical delivery of currency to a bank account).

It is estimated that in the UK, 14% of currency transfers/payments are made via Foreign Exchange Companies.[71] These companies' selling point is usually that they will offer better exchange rates or cheaper payments than the customer's bank.[72] These companies differ from Money Transfer/Remittance Companies in that they generally offer higher-value services. The volume of transactions done through Foreign Exchange Companies in India amounts to about US$2 billion[73] per day. This does not compete favorably with any well developed foreign exchange market of international repute, but with the entry of online Foreign Exchange Companies the market is steadily growing. Around 25% of currency transfers/payments in India are made via non-bank Foreign Exchange Companies.[74] Most of these companies use the USP of better exchange rates than the banks. They are regulated by FEDAI and any transaction in foreign Exchange is governed by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

Money transfer/remittance companies and bureaux de change

[edit]
Main articles: Payment system and Bureaux de change

Money transfer companies/remittance companies perform high-volume low-value transfers generally by economic migrants back to their home country. In 2007, the Aite Group estimated that there were $369 billion of remittances (an increase of 8% on the previous year). The four largest foreign markets (India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines) receive $95 billion. The largest and best-known provider is Western Union with 345,000 agents globally, followed by UAE Exchange.[75]

Bureaux de change or currency transfer companies provide low-value foreign exchange services for travelers. These are typically located at airports and stations or at tourist locations and allow physical notes to be exchanged from one currency to another. They access foreign exchange markets via banks or non-bank foreign exchange companies.

Most traded currencies by value

[edit]
Most traded currencies by value
Currency distribution of global foreign exchange market turnover[76]
Currency ISO 4217
code 		Proportion of daily volume Change
(2022–2025)
April 2022 April 2025
U.S. dollar USD 88.4% 89.2% Increase 0.8pp
Euro EUR 30.6% 28.9% Decrease 1.7pp
Japanese yen JPY 16.7% 16.8% Increase 0.1pp
Pound sterling GBP 12.9% 10.2% Decrease 2.7pp
Renminbi CNY 7.0% 8.5% Increase 1.5pp
Swiss franc CHF 5.2% 6.4% Increase 1.2pp
Australian dollar AUD 6.4% 6.1% Decrease 0.3pp
Canadian dollar CAD 6.2% 5.8% Decrease 0.4pp
Hong Kong dollar HKD 2.6% 3.8% Increase 1.2pp
Singapore dollar SGD 2.4% 2.4% Steady
Indian rupee INR 1.6% 1.9% Increase 0.3pp
South Korean won KRW 1.8% 1.8% Steady
Swedish krona SEK 2.2% 1.6% Decrease 0.6pp
Mexican peso MXN 1.5% 1.6% Increase 0.1pp
New Zealand dollar NZD 1.7% 1.5% Decrease 0.2pp
Norwegian krone NOK 1.7% 1.3% Decrease 0.4pp
New Taiwan dollar TWD 1.1% 1.2% Increase 0.1pp
Brazilian real BRL 0.9% 0.9% Steady
South African rand ZAR 1.0% 0.8% Decrease 0.2pp
Polish złoty PLN 0.7% 0.8% Increase 0.1pp
Danish krone DKK 0.7% 0.7% Steady
Indonesian rupiah IDR 0.4% 0.7% Increase 0.3pp
Turkish lira TRY 0.4% 0.5% Increase 0.1pp
Thai baht THB 0.4% 0.5% Increase 0.1pp
Israeli new shekel ILS 0.4% 0.4% Steady
Hungarian forint HUF 0.3% 0.4% Increase 0.1pp
Czech koruna CZK 0.4% 0.4% Steady
Chilean peso CLP 0.3% 0.3% Steady
Philippine peso PHP 0.2% 0.2% Steady
Colombian peso COP 0.2% 0.2% Steady
Malaysian ringgit MYR 0.2% 0.2% Steady
UAE dirham AED 0.4% 0.1% Decrease 0.3pp
Saudi riyal SAR 0.2% 0.1% Decrease 0.1pp
Romanian leu RON 0.1% 0.1% Steady
Peruvian sol PEN 0.1% 0.1% Steady
Other currencies 2.6% 3.4% Increase 0.8pp
Total[a] 200.0% 200.0%

There is no unified or centrally cleared market for the majority of trades, and there is very little cross-border regulation. Due to the over-the-counter (OTC) nature of currency markets, there are rather a number of interconnected marketplaces, where different currencies instruments are traded. This implies that there is not a single exchange rate but rather a number of different rates (prices), depending on what bank or market maker is trading, and where it is. In practice, the rates are quite close due to arbitrage. Due to London's dominance in the market, a particular currency's quoted price is usually the London market price. Major trading exchanges include Electronic Broking Services (EBS) and Thomson Reuters Dealing, while major banks also offer trading systems. A joint venture of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Reuters, called Fxmarketspace opened in 2007 and aspired but failed to the role of a central market clearing mechanism.[77]

The main trading centers are London and New York City, though Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore are all important centers as well. Banks throughout the world participate. Currency trading happens continuously throughout the day; as the Asian trading session ends, the European session begins, followed by the North American session and then back to the Asian session.

Fluctuations in exchange rates are usually caused by actual monetary flows as well as by expectations of changes in monetary flows. These are caused by changes in gross domestic product (GDP) growth, inflation (purchasing power parity theory), interest rates (interest rate parity, Domestic Fisher effect, International Fisher effect), budget and trade deficits or surpluses, large cross-border M&A deals and other macroeconomic conditions. Major news is released publicly, often on scheduled dates, so many people have access to the same news at the same time. However, large banks have an important advantage; they can see their customers' order flow.

Currencies are traded against one another in pairs. Each currency pair thus constitutes an individual trading product and is traditionally noted XXXYYY or XXX/YYY, where XXX and YYY are the ISO 4217 international three-letter code of the currencies involved. The first currency (XXX) is the base currency that is quoted relative to the second currency (YYY), called the counter currency (or quote currency). For instance, the quotation EURUSD (EUR/USD) 1.5465 is the price of the Euro expressed in US dollars, meaning 1 euro = 1.5465 dollars. The market convention is to quote most exchange rates against the USD with the US dollar as the base currency (e.g. USDJPY, USDCAD, USDCHF). The exceptions are the British pound (GBP), Australian dollar (AUD), the New Zealand dollar (NZD) and the euro (EUR) where the USD is the counter currency (e.g. GBPUSD, AUDUSD, NZDUSD, EURUSD).[citation needed]

The factors affecting XXX will affect both XXXYYY and XXXZZZ. This causes a positive currency correlation between XXXYYY and XXXZZZ.

On the spot market, according to the 2025 Triennial Survey, the most heavily traded bilateral currency pairs were:

  • EURUSD: 21.2%
  • USDJPY: 14.3%
  • USDCNY: 8.1%

The U.S. currency was involved in 89.2% of transactions, followed by the euro (28.9%), the yen (16.8%), and sterling (10.2%) (see table). Volume percentages for all individual currencies should add up to 200%, as each transaction involves two currencies.

Trading in the euro has grown considerably since the currency's creation in January 1999, and how long the foreign exchange market will remain dollar-centered is open to debate. Until recently, trading the euro versus a non-European currency ZZZ would have usually involved two trades: EURUSD and USDZZZ. The exception to this is EURJPY, which is an established traded currency pair in the interbank spot market.

Determinants of exchange rates

[edit]
Main article: Exchange rate
Part of a series on
Financial markets
Looking up at a computerized stocks-value board at the Philippine Stock Exchange
Bond market
Stock market
Other markets
Alternative investment
Over-the-counter (off-exchange)
Trading
Related areas

In a fixed exchange rate regime, exchange rates are decided by the government, while a number of theories have been proposed to explain (and predict) the fluctuations in exchange rates in a floating exchange rate regime, including:

  • International parity conditions: Relative purchasing power parity, interest rate parity, Domestic Fisher effect, International Fisher effect. To some extent the above theories provide logical explanation for the fluctuations in exchange rates, yet these theories falter as they are based on challengeable assumptions (e.g., free flow of goods, services, and capital) which seldom hold true in the real world.
  • Balance of payments model: This model, however, focuses largely on tradable goods and services, ignoring the increasing role of global capital flows. It failed to provide any explanation for the continuous appreciation of the US dollar during the 1980s and most of the 1990s, despite the soaring US current account deficit.
  • Asset market model: views currencies as an important asset class for constructing investment portfolios. Asset prices are influenced mostly by people's willingness to hold the existing quantities of assets, which in turn depends on their expectations on the future worth of these assets. The asset market model of exchange rate determination states that “the exchange rate between two currencies represents the price that just balances the relative supplies of, and demand for, assets denominated in those currencies.”

None of the models developed so far succeed to explain exchange rates and volatility in the longer time frames. For shorter time frames (less than a few days), algorithms can be devised to predict prices. It is understood from the above models that many macroeconomic factors affect the exchange rates and in the end currency prices are a result of dual forces of supply and demand. The world's currency markets can be viewed as a huge melting pot: in a large and ever-changing mix of current events, supply and demand factors are constantly shifting, and the price of one currency in relation to another shifts accordingly. No other market encompasses (and distills) as much of what is going on in the world at any given time as foreign exchange.[78]

Supply and demand for any given currency, and thus its value, are not influenced by any single element, but rather by several. These elements generally fall into three categories: economic factors, political conditions, and market psychology.

Economic factors

[edit]

Economic factors include: (a) economic policy, disseminated by government agencies and central banks, (b) economic conditions, generally revealed through economic reports, and other economic indicators.

  • Economic policy comprises government fiscal policy (budget/spending practices) and monetary policy (the means by which a government's central bank influences the supply and "cost" of money, which is reflected by the level of interest rates).
  • Government budget deficits or surpluses: The market usually reacts negatively to widening government budget deficits, and positively to narrowing budget deficits. The impact is reflected in the value of a country's currency.
  • Balance of trade levels and trends: The trade flow between countries illustrates the demand for goods and services, which in turn indicates demand for a country's currency to conduct trade. Surpluses and deficits in trade of goods and services reflect the competitiveness of a nation's economy. For example, trade deficits may have a negative impact on a nation's currency.
  • Inflation levels and trends: Typically a currency will lose value if there is a high level of inflation in the country or if inflation levels are perceived to be rising. This is because inflation erodes purchasing power, thus demand, for that particular currency. However, a currency may sometimes strengthen when inflation rises because of expectations that the central bank will raise short-term interest rates to combat rising inflation.
  • Economic growth and health: Reports such as GDP, employment levels, retail sales, capacity utilization and others, detail the levels of a country's economic growth and health. Generally, the more healthy and robust a country's economy, the better its currency will perform, and the more demand for it there will be.
  • Productivity of an economy: Increasing productivity in an economy should positively influence the value of its currency. Its effects are more prominent if the increase is in the traded sector.[79]

Political conditions

[edit]

Internal, regional, and international political conditions and events can have a profound effect on currency markets.

All exchange rates are susceptible to political instability and anticipations about the new ruling party. Political upheaval and instability can have a negative impact on a nation's economy. For example, destabilization of coalition governments in Pakistan and Thailand can negatively affect the value of their currencies. Similarly, in a country experiencing financial difficulties, the rise of a political faction that is perceived to be fiscally responsible can have the opposite effect. Also, events in one country in a region may spur positive/negative interest in a neighboring country and, in the process, affect its currency.

Market psychology

[edit]

Market psychology and trader perceptions influence the foreign exchange market in a variety of ways:

  • Flights to quality: Unsettling international events can lead to a "flight-to-quality", a type of capital flight whereby investors move their assets to a perceived "safe haven". There will be a greater demand, thus a higher price, for currencies perceived as stronger over their relatively weaker counterparts. The US dollar, Swiss franc and gold have been traditional safe havens during times of political or economic uncertainty.[80]
  • Long-term trends: Currency markets often move in visible long-term trends. Although currencies do not have an annual growing season like physical commodities, business cycles do make themselves felt. Cycle analysis looks at longer-term price trends that may rise from economic or political trends.[81]
  • "Buy the rumor, sell the fact": This market truism can apply to many currency situations. It is the tendency for the price of a currency to reflect the impact of a particular action before it occurs and, when the anticipated event comes to pass, react in exactly the opposite direction. This may also be referred to as a market being "oversold" or "overbought". To buy the rumor or sell the fact can also be an example of the cognitive bias known as Anchoring, when investors focus too much on the relevance of outside events to currency prices.
  • Economic numbers: While economic numbers can certainly reflect economic policy, some reports and numbers take on a talisman-like effect: the number itself becomes important to market psychology and may have an immediate impact on short-term market moves. "What to watch" can change over time. In recent years, for example, money supply, employment, trade balance figures and inflation numbers have all taken turns in the spotlight.
  • Technical trading considerations: As in other markets, the accumulated price movements in a currency pair such as EUR/USD can form apparent patterns that traders may attempt to use. Many traders study price charts in order to identify such patterns.[82]

Financial instruments

[edit]

Spot

[edit]
Main article: Foreign exchange spot

A spot transaction is a two-day delivery transaction (except in the case of trades between the US dollar, Canadian dollar, Turkish lira, euro and Russian ruble, which settle the next business day), as opposed to the futures contracts, which are usually three months. This trade represents a “direct exchange” between two currencies, has the shortest time frame, involves cash rather than a contract, and interest is not included in the agreed-upon transaction. Spot trading is one of the most common types of forex trading. Often, a forex broker will charge a small fee to the client to roll-over the expiring transaction into a new identical transaction for a continuation of the trade. This roll-over fee is known as the "swap" fee.

Forward

[edit]
See also: Forward contract

One way to deal with the foreign exchange risk is to engage in a forward transaction. In this transaction, money does not actually change hands until some agreed upon future date. A buyer and seller agree on an exchange rate for any date in the future, and the transaction occurs on that date, regardless of what the market rates are then. The duration of the trade can be one day, a few days, months or years. Usually the date is decided by both parties. Then the forward contract is negotiated and agreed upon by both parties.

Non-deliverable forward (NDF)

[edit]
See also: Non-deliverable forward

Forex banks, ECNs, and prime brokers offer NDF contracts, which are derivatives that have no real deliver-ability. NDFs are popular for currencies with restrictions such as the Argentinian peso. In fact, a forex hedger can only hedge such risks with NDFs, as currencies such as the Argentinian peso cannot be traded on open markets like major currencies.[83]

Swap

[edit]
Main article: Foreign exchange swap

The most common type of forward transaction is the foreign exchange swap. In a swap, two parties exchange currencies for a certain length of time and agree to reverse the transaction at a later date. These are not standardized contracts and are not traded through an exchange. A deposit is often required in order to hold the position open until the transaction is completed.

Futures

[edit]
Main article: Currency future

Futures are standardized forward contracts and are usually traded on an exchange created for this purpose. The average contract length is roughly 3 months. Futures contracts are usually inclusive of any interest amounts.

Currency futures contracts are contracts specifying a standard volume of a particular currency to be exchanged on a specific settlement date. Thus the currency futures contracts are similar to forward contracts in terms of their obligation, but differ from forward contracts in the way they are traded. In addition, Futures are daily settled removing credit risk that exist in Forwards.[84] They are commonly used by MNCs to hedge their currency positions. In addition they are traded by speculators who hope to capitalize on their expectations of exchange rate movements.

Option

[edit]
Main article: Foreign exchange option

A foreign exchange option (commonly shortened to just FX option) is a derivative where the owner has the right but not the obligation to exchange money denominated in one currency into another currency at a pre-agreed exchange rate on a specified date. The FX options market is the deepest, largest and most liquid market for options of any kind in the world.

Speculation

[edit]

Controversy about currency speculators and their effect on currency devaluations and national economies recurs regularly. Economists, such as Milton Friedman, have argued that speculators ultimately are a stabilizing influence on the market, and that stabilizing speculation performs the important function of providing a market for hedgers and transferring risk from those people who don't wish to bear it, to those who do.[85] Other economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz, consider this argument to be based more on politics and a free market philosophy than on economics.[86]

Large hedge funds and other well capitalized "position traders" are the main professional speculators. According to some economists, individual traders could act as "noise traders" and have a more destabilizing role than larger and better informed actors.[87]

Currency speculation is considered a highly suspect activity in many countries, such as Thailand.[88] While investment in traditional financial instruments like bonds or stocks often is considered to contribute positively to economic growth by providing capital, currency speculation does not; according to this view, it is simply gambling that often interferes with economic policy. For example, in 1992, currency speculation forced Sweden's central bank, the Riksbank, to raise interest rates for a few days to 500% per annum, and later to devalue the krona.[89] Mahathir Mohamad, one of the former Prime Ministers of Malaysia, is one well-known proponent of this view. He blamed the devaluation of the Malaysian ringgit in 1997 on George Soros and other speculators.

Gregory Millman reports on an opposing view, comparing speculators to "vigilantes" who simply help "enforce" international agreements and anticipate the effects of basic economic "laws" in order to profit.[90] In this view, countries may develop unsustainable economic bubbles or otherwise mishandle their national economies, and foreign exchange speculators made the inevitable collapse happen sooner. A relatively quick collapse might even be preferable to continued economic mishandling, followed by an eventual, larger, collapse. Mahathir Mohamad and other critics of speculation are viewed as trying to deflect the blame from themselves for having caused the unsustainable economic conditions.

Risk aversion

[edit]
See also: Hard currency
The MSCI World Index of Equities fell while the US dollar index rose.

In order to mitigate risk, traders may liquidate their positions in various currencies to take up positions in safe-haven currencies, such as the US dollar.[91] Sometimes, the choice of a safe haven currency is more of a choice based on prevailing sentiments rather than one of economic statistics. An example would be the 2008 financial crisis, where value of equities across the world fell while the US dollar strengthened (see Fig.1). This happened despite the strong focus of the crisis in the US.[92]

Carry trade

[edit]
Main article: Carry trade

Currency carry trade refers to the act of borrowing one currency that has a low interest rate in order to purchase another with a higher interest rate. A large difference in rates can be highly profitable for the trader, especially if high leverage is used. However, with all levered investments this is a double edged sword, and large exchange rate price fluctuations can suddenly swing trades into huge losses.

Further reading

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Foreign exchange market

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The foreign exchange market, commonly abbreviated as forex or , is a global decentralized over-the-counter (OTC) marketplace where national currencies are bought and sold, with exchange rates emerging from the interaction of among participants seeking to facilitate , hedge risks, or speculate on movements. Unlike centralized exchanges for or commodities, it operates electronically across major financial centers without a single physical location, enabling near-continuous trading from Monday morning in to Friday evening in New York. As of 2025, average daily turnover reached $9.6 trillion, surpassing all other combined and underscoring its pivotal role in global liquidity and for cross-border transactions. The market's structure is dominated by interdealer trading among large banks and institutional investors, which accounts for the majority of volume, alongside corporate hedging for imports/exports and speculative flows from hedge funds and retail traders via electronic platforms. The U.S. dollar features in approximately 88% of transactions, reflecting its status as the primary reserve and invoicing currency, followed by the , yen, and in major pairs that drive most activity. Trading occurs mainly in spot contracts (immediate delivery), forwards, swaps, and options, with handling over 40% of global volume due to its overlap and regulatory environment. Exchange rates fluctuate based on differentials in rates, , growth, and geopolitical events, often amplifying economic imbalances through rapid capital flows rather than directives alone. Historically, the contemporary FX market crystallized after the 1971 collapse of the , which ended fixed pegs to gold and ushered in floating rates amid U.S. dollar pressures from deficits and European gold outflows, enabling market-driven pricing over pegged regimes. Turnover has expanded exponentially since, from under $100 billion daily in the to today's multitrillion scale, fueled by , derivative innovations, and , though episodes of bank on benchmarks—like the 2013-2015 rigging scandals resulting in billions in fines—highlight vulnerabilities to manipulation despite high liquidity. This evolution has cemented FX as a of macroeconomic , where sustained misalignments can precipitate crises, as seen in the 1992 breakdown or the 1997 Asian financial turmoil.

History

Pre-Modern Foundations

The roots of currency exchange lie in ancient networks where evolved into the use of , primarily silver and , to bridge transactions across regions with differing goods and standards. In circa 3000 BCE, silver served as a proto-currency measured by weight (e.g., the equivalent to a specific quantity of or metal), enabling merchants to settle imbalances in long-distance involving commodities like textiles, grains, and metals without direct . Temple complexes acted as early clearinghouses, standardizing values and facilitating exchanges with foreign partners, as evidenced by records of tied to silver inflows from and the . In from the 6th century BCE, money changers operated in marketplaces and temples, converting foreign and silver coins into Attic drachmas based on assayed metal content, supporting commerce with , Persia, and the colonies. extended this system empire-wide by the 1st century BCE, with argentarii handling conversions of provincial coinage into the , often at rates reflecting silver purity and transport costs, as documented in legal texts like the Digest of Justinian. These exchanges were inherently tied to trade expansion, with rates causally linked to bullion availability—scarce metals commanded premiums, while debasements or inflows prompted adjustments, mirroring supply-driven volatility observed in later markets. Medieval Europe saw formalized instruments emerge amid Crusades-era trade (11th–13th centuries), where Italian merchant bankers introduced bills of exchange around 1150 CE to remit funds from wool sales in to pepper purchases in , circumventing the risks of coin transport. These negotiable orders, drawn on correspondents in foreign cities and settled at usance (delayed payment), incorporated implicit interest via differentials, with records from Genoese notarial archives showing rates fluctuating 5–15% between major centers like and based on seasonal trade flows and metal . Parallel to European innovations, Islamic commerce along and routes relied on systems from the CE onward, where agents (hawaladars) balanced books via trust networks, transferring value through offsetting debts without physical money movement—facilitating spice and textile trades from to . Empirical price records from Fatimid and Abbasid ledgers indicate exchange parities between dinars and dirhams shifted with and silver supplies, such as influxes from Nubian mines elevating 's relative value and prompting rate realignments. Such medieval mechanisms underscore causal ties between volumes, scarcities, and exchange variability, laying groundwork for organized markets without reliance on sovereign . The evolution from these ancient barter systems to standardized currencies in the 19th century set the stage for modern foreign exchange mechanisms.

Gold Standard and Interwar Period

The classical , operative from approximately 1870 to 1914, fixed national currencies to specified quantities of , thereby establishing stable s through automatic mechanisms that equalized across borders when was maintained. Britain led the adoption in 1821, with most major economies following by 1880, creating an international gold standard that facilitated global commerce during European imperialism. Exchange rates were determined by the relative gold content of currencies, minimizing volatility and promoting investment, though the system was vulnerable to gold supply shocks. This system facilitated low volatility, with bilateral rates among major powers adhering closely to theoretical parities, supported by specie flows correcting imbalances via Hume's price-specie flow mechanism. Empirical evidence from the era indicates annual averaging just 0.1 percent in the United States, reflecting the discipline imposed by on monetary expansion. The outbreak of in 1914 prompted major belligerents, including Britain, , , and others, to suspend gold convertibility and impose export embargoes to enable inflationary war financing through unrestricted fiat issuance, resulting in depreciating currencies and floating exchange rates. This deviation from fixed specie standards allowed governments to print money unbacked by reserves, eroding the automatic adjustment processes that had stabilized pre-war trade, and leading to hyperinflation in some nations. Post-WWI, attempts to restore the gold standard faltered amid economic instability, including the Great Depression (1929–1939). Many countries abandoned gold convertibility in the 1930s, devaluing currencies competitively through "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies to boost exports. The U.S. dollar strengthened after President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 devaluation and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which raised the gold price to $35 per ounce. World War II further disrupted FX markets with wartime controls and black markets. Interwar restoration efforts, such as Britain's return to in 1925 at the pre-war parity of $4.86 per pound, aimed to revive stability but faltered due to overvaluation, which induced deflationary pressures, high , and gold outflows. France's delayed adherence in at an undervalued rate led to gold , exacerbating global liquidity shortages, while fiat experiments in defeated nations like fueled —peaking in when one U.S. dollar equaled 4.2 trillion marks—stemming from reparations-funded money printing untethered from gold reserves. These policy-induced imbalances culminated in competitive devaluations after Britain's 1931 abandonment, as over 50 countries depreciated currencies amid the , amplifying trade frictions without restoring equilibrium. The causal chain—from wartime suspensions enabling unchecked monetary expansion to interwar misalignments—underscored the fragility of partial gold adherence, where deviations from full propagated instability rather than mitigating it. By war's end, the need for a stable postwar system was evident, setting the stage for international cooperation.

Bretton Woods Era

The emerged from the Monetary and Financial Conference held in July 1944 at , where representatives from 44 Allied nations agreed to establish fixed but adjustable exchange rates to foster post-World War II economic recovery and international trade. Under this framework, participating currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar within a 1% band, while the dollar itself was convertible to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per , positioning the as the anchor of global liquidity. The (IMF) was created to oversee adjustments, provide short-term financing for balance-of-payments issues, and enforce rules, though the system implicitly permitted U.S. current-account deficits to supply dollars as international reserves, which supported trade expansion but sowed seeds of imbalance by decoupling reserve creation from gold backing. The agreement also established the World Bank to aid reconstruction. It succeeded in stabilizing postwar economies, with the U.S. holding most global gold reserves due to its wartime economic strength. By the 1960s, U.S. balance-of-payments deficits and inflation eroded confidence, leading to speculative attacks on the dollar. This dynamic crystallized in the , articulated by economist Robert Triffin in 1960, which highlighted the inherent conflict: to meet global demand for dollar reserves, the U.S. had to run deficits, yet sustained outflows undermined faith in the dollar's gold peg, creating a self-reinforcing instability independent of short-term policy tweaks. Empirical strains intensified as European and Japanese recoveries led to trade surpluses against the U.S., amplifying reserve accumulation pressures without corresponding gold inflows. By the 1950s, persistent U.S. balance-of-payments deficits—averaging $1.3 billion annually from 1950 to 1957—generated a "dollar overhang," where foreign holdings of dollars surpassed the U.S. gold stock, eroding confidence in convertibility and exposing the system's vulnerability to asymmetric adjustments. Efforts to stabilize the , such as the 1961 —where eight central banks coordinated interventions to cap private prices at $35 per —temporarily masked pressures but collapsed in March 1968 amid massive speculative selling that drained over 3,000 metric tons of from official in a single month, revealing the limits of collaborative defense against market forces. Capital controls, widely imposed under Bretton Woods provisions to curb speculative flows, further obscured underlying mismatches between fixed rates and divergent national trajectories, delaying but not resolving the causal tensions from trade imbalances and demands. While proponents emphasized the 's role in postwar growth, evidence from reserve discrepancies and intervention failures underscores its empirical unsustainability, as pegged rates could not indefinitely accommodate U.S. fiscal expansions without eroding the anchor. In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended dollar-gold convertibility (the "Nixon Shock"), effectively ending Bretton Woods by 1973.

Shift to Floating Exchange Rates

On August 15, 1971, U.S. President announced the suspension of the dollar's convertibility into gold for foreign governments, effectively ending a key pillar of the and imposing a 10% import surcharge to address balance-of-payments deficits and pressures. This "Nixon Shock" triggered immediate market turmoil, with currencies like the and German mark appreciating sharply against the dollar as speculative pressures mounted against fixed parities. Attempts to restore stability culminated in the of December 1971, which devalued the by approximately 8% against gold and widened fluctuation bands from 1% to 2.25% around new central rates, but these measures proved unsustainable due to persistent capital outflows, speculative attacks, and underlying U.S. fiscal imbalances that undermined confidence in pegged rates. By early 1973, amid escalating strains including the October 1973 oil embargo—which quadrupled oil prices and exacerbated global inflationary shocks—major currencies such as the , yen, pound, and mark transitioned to managed floating regimes, with the G-10 nations effectively abandoning fixed parities in March. The 1970s oil crises highlighted FX risks, with currencies like the U.S. dollar fluctuating amid inflation and energy shocks. Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, began coordinating interventions, while the IMF adapted to oversee flexible rates. The shift to floating rates markedly increased volatility, as evidenced by a significant rise in the standard deviation of bilateral rates among major currencies post-1973 compared to the Bretton Woods era, reflecting market-driven responses to economic divergences rather than defenses of artificial pegs. However, empirical analyses indicate that floating regimes facilitated faster real adjustments to shocks, such as terms-of-trade changes from the , by allowing prices to equilibrate without depleting reserves or requiring contractionary policies to sustain untenable parities. Studies further show that countries under floating or flexible regimes experienced fewer and less severe crises than those maintaining fixed pegs, as market pricing incorporated risks adaptively, reducing the buildup of imbalances that precipitate speculative collapses. This transition underscored the limitations of pegged systems in accommodating asymmetric shocks, prioritizing liquidity and endogenous adjustment over the illusions of stability under Bretton Woods.

Deregulation and Globalization (1980s–1990s)

The 1980s saw deregulation accelerate FX market growth, with daily volumes rising from approximately $60 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion by the late 1990s. The Plaza Accord of 1985, signed by G7 nations at the Plaza Hotel in New York, coordinated interventions to depreciate the overvalued U.S. dollar and address trade imbalances, particularly with Japan and Germany, demonstrating the role of policy coordination in managing exchange rates. Financial liberalization, including London's "Big Bang" deregulation on October 27, 1986, which abolished fixed commissions and allowed electronic trading, expanded market access and boosted liquidity. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), established to promote stability ahead of the euro's introduction in 1999, faced challenges, such as the 1992 "Black Wednesday" crisis when the British pound exited the ERM due to speculative pressures. Globalization integrated emerging markets, with rapid growth in Asia increasing FX liquidity and participation.

Technological Advancements and the Digital Era (2000s–2010s)

The internet and technological innovations transformed the FX market in the 2000s, shifting from phone-based dealing to electronic platforms. Systems like Reuters Dealing 2000 and EBS, introduced in the 1990s, gained prominence, with electronic trading accounting for a growing share of volumes by the 2000s. Algorithmic and high-frequency trading (HFT) emerged, significantly increasing market speeds and volumes. Retail trading expanded through online brokers, democratizing access. The 2008 global financial crisis heightened volatility and exposed systemic risks, leading to regulatory responses such as the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which enhanced transparency and oversight in over-the-counter derivatives markets, including FX. By the 2010s, HFT accounted for a substantial portion of trading activity, while mobile apps and APIs further reduced barriers to entry.

Recent Developments (2020–2025)

The COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022 caused significant volatility in FX markets, with safe-haven currencies like the U.S. dollar surging amid lockdowns, stimulus measures, and economic uncertainty. Exchange rate connectedness increased, particularly among major currencies, reflecting heightened global risk transmission. Geopolitical tensions, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict starting in 2022, amplified currency swings through sanctions, energy shocks, and inflation pressures, impacting emerging markets and commodity currencies. Central banks responded with rate hikes to combat inflation, further influencing exchange rates. By April 2025, daily FX turnover reached a record $9.6 trillion, a 28% increase from $7.5 trillion in 2022, driven by a 42% rise in spot trading and 60% in forwards, amid automation, AI integration, and ongoing uncertainties like U.S.-China trade tensions. The U.S. dollar maintained dominance, comprising 88% of trades.

Market Structure

The (FX) market exhibited average daily turnover of $9.6 in April 2025, measured on a net-net basis across all FX instruments, representing a 28% increase from $7.5 recorded in the prior triennial survey of April 2022. This growth reflects heightened trading activity amid elevated volatility from factors such as U.S. policies and divergences among major economies. Spot transactions accounted for 30% of total turnover, outright forwards 15%, foreign exchange swaps 48%, and currency swaps 4%, with options comprising the remainder. Liquidity in the FX market remains exceptionally high, underpinned by its vast scale and the concentration of activity in major currency pairs, where bid-ask spreads for pairs like EUR/USD typically range from 0.1 to 0.5 pips under normal conditions, facilitating rapid execution with minimal price impact. Market depth is particularly robust in USD-involved pairs, which dominate trading; the U.S. dollar featured on one side of 89% of all FX trades in April 2025, slightly up from 88% in 2022, underscoring its central role in providing liquidity across global transactions. This dominance enhances overall market resilience, as evidenced by the ability to absorb large orders without significant slippage, though liquidity can thin during periods of geopolitical stress, overlapping session transitions, or holidays—including end-of-year periods and U.S. holidays such as Thanksgiving, Labor Day, or Good Friday—due to reduced participation from institutional traders and liquidity providers on vacation. The decentralized over-the-counter structure of the FX market ensures it does not close completely even on these holidays, but trading occurs with significantly reduced liquidity, wider bid-ask spreads, heightened slippage risk, amplified or misleading price movements, and unreliability for trading strategies; it is particularly unsuitable for scalping, which requires high-volume sessions for precise entries. Volume trends since the have shown steady expansion, with daily turnover recovering from $4.0 trillion in 2010 to the current levels, driven by , increased cross-border capital flows, and the proliferation of platforms that have broadened participation. The 2022-2025 surge aligns with post-pandemic economic fragmentation and interest rate differentials, rather than speculative bubbles, as FX volumes correlate empirically with trade imbalances and hedging demands from multinational firms. Projections based on recent growth patterns suggest continued expansion at a (CAGR) of approximately 6-7% through 2033, potentially elevating annual notional turnover toward quadrillion-scale figures, though precise forecasts depend on evolving geopolitical stability.

Trading Venues and Operational Mechanics

The foreign exchange market functions primarily on an over-the-counter (OTC) basis, with bilateral transactions executed directly between counterparties via electronic platforms or voice communications, rather than through centralized exchanges. This structure predominates spot and forward trading, accounting for the vast majority of daily volume, as evidenced by the Bank for International Settlements' (BIS) Triennial Central Bank Survey, which reported OTC FX turnover at $9.6 trillion per day in April 2025. In contrast, exchange-traded FX instruments, such as futures on platforms like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), represent a minor fraction, typically limited to standardized contracts and lacking the flexibility of OTC customization. Electronic broking platforms serve as the core venues for OTC execution, with EBS Market and Matching (formerly Dealing) handling significant spot volumes through streaming quotes and order matching. Execution protocols emphasize efficiency via request-for-quote (RFQ) mechanisms, where dealers respond to client inquiries within seconds, or algorithmic streaming for passive provision. has surged in prevalence, with machines executing over 75% of trades in certain FX segments by processing data and orders in milliseconds, thereby minimizing latency and enabling rapid but also fragmenting across venues. Settlement mechanics address principal through systems like Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS), which commenced operations on September 9, 2002, and employs payment-versus-payment (PvP) to ensure simultaneous currency transfers across 18 eligible currencies, covering an average of one million instructions daily. CLS mitigates Herstatt —arising zone mismatches—by netting obligations multilaterally, though not all trades settle via CLS due to cut-off times and eligibility constraints. Quoting conventions standardize pricing, with pairs expressed as base/quote (e.g., EUR/USD indicates euros per US dollar), where the base currency is the first-listed asset whose value is expressed in units of the quote currency. The pip, or percentage in point, denotes the smallest typical price increment, equaling 0.0001 for most pairs (e.g., a move from 1.1050 to 1.1051), facilitating precise measurement of gains or losses in high-volume trades. Leverage in OTC mechanics amplifies exposure via margin requirements, but interdealer settlements emphasize collateral and netting to manage exposure without inherent gearing seen in client-broker models.

Geographic Centers and 24-Hour Cycle

The foreign exchange market's trading activity is concentrated in several key geographic centers, with accounting for 38% of global turnover, New York for 19%, for approximately 9%, and for around 5% as of the 2022 BIS Triennial Survey. These hubs facilitate a continuous 24-hour cycle from Monday morning in the region (starting with around 22:00 GMT Sunday) through Friday evening in (ending around 22:00 GMT), excluding weekends, driven by the need to match buyers and sellers across time zones without interruption. Trading is segmented into primary sessions: the Asian session (roughly 00:00–09:00 GMT, centered on and ), the European session (08:00–17:00 GMT, dominated by ), and the North American session (13:00–22:00 GMT, led by New York). Liquidity and volatility exhibit empirical peaks during session overlaps, particularly the London-New York overlap from 13:00–17:00 GMT, when participation from European and American institutions surges, accounting for heightened order flow and tighter spreads in major currency pairs like EUR/USD. This period often sees the day's highest trading volumes due to coincident market hours, enabling efficient price discovery across overlapping participant bases. can diminish during non-overlap hours or when major centers observe holidays—such as U.S. Day reducing activity in dollar-denominated pairs—or geopolitical events disrupting normal operations, leading to wider bid-ask spreads and potential slippage for large trades. The clustering in these centers arises from causal factors including time-zone positioning—London's GMT location permits sequential access to , European, and early U.S. markets—along with deep talent pools of multilingual traders and established from historical dollar dealing expertise. Regulatory environments, such as the UK's post-1986 "" deregulation, foster low-friction inter-dealer markets attractive for , drawing providers without reliance on geopolitical subsidies. New York's prominence stems similarly from U.S. economic scale and capabilities, though its later start limits overlap with compared to London. These dynamics reflect self-reinforcing agglomeration effects, where high in prime hubs incentivizes further concentration over dispersed alternatives.

Participants

Central Banks and Policy Interventions

Central banks participate in the foreign exchange market primarily to accumulate and manage official reserves for buffers, intervention capabilities, and international payment facilitation, holding approximately $12 trillion in global as of late 2024. The US dollar dominates these holdings, accounting for 58 percent of allocated reserves in 2024, which underscores its role in enabling cross-currency transactions and reserve diversification challenges. Beyond reserve management, central banks deploy foreign exchange swaps—temporary exchanges of currencies with counterparties—to address short-term dollar funding pressures, as seen in swap lines extended to major central banks during the and 2020 turmoil, totaling over $450 billion in peak outstanding amounts in March 2020. Policy interventions involve direct purchases or sales of foreign currency in spot markets to counter perceived excessive volatility or misalignment, often aiming to moderate appreciation or pressures without fully reversing market trends. Unsterilized interventions directly impact the domestic by altering —such as selling foreign reserves to buy , which contracts —whereas sterilized interventions neutralize this effect through offsetting domestic operations, like issuing bonds to absorb excess , thereby preserving independent monetary control. A prominent example is the Swiss National Bank's enforcement of a minimum of 1.20 Swiss francs per from September 6, 2011, to January 15, 2015, involving massive purchases to cap franc appreciation amid safe-haven inflows, which expanded the SNB's by over CHF 500 billion before abandonment due to escalating intervention scale and risks. Empirical analyses reveal mixed efficacy, with interventions frequently achieving short-term volatility reduction—such as dampening intraday swings by 10-20 percent in targeted episodes—but limited success in sustainably altering exchange rate levels against fundamentals, given the FX market's daily turnover exceeding $7.5 trillion. Sterilized operations, common in advanced economies to avoid inflationary spillovers, show weaker evidence of portfolio balance effects (shifting investor currency preferences) or signaling credibility, often undermined by the market's capacity to anticipate and front-run central bank actions. In emerging markets, where interventions pair with capital controls, temporary level impacts occur more reliably, yet long-term reliance fosters moral hazard, delaying structural adjustments like productivity enhancements or fiscal reforms that exchange rates naturally signal. Under fiat currency regimes detached from commodity anchors, such interventions distort relative price signals that reflect underlying economic disequilibria, such as imbalances or differentials, prioritizing administrative smoothing over market-driven corrections that promote efficient capital allocation. While proponents cite coordination successes, like pledges averting disorderly depreciations, critiques emphasize that persistent interventions erode reserve credibility and amplify vulnerability to sudden stops, as evidenced by post- surges exceeding 20 percent in days following policy reversal. Overall, evidence favors restraint, with interventions most defensible as bridge measures during acute strains rather than routine overrides of market .

Banks and Institutional Dealers

Banks and institutional dealers serve as the core intermediaries in the foreign exchange (FX) market, functioning primarily as market makers who provide continuous two-way quotes to facilitate and execute trades among themselves and with other participants. These entities operate as both principals, taking positions on their own books to profit from bid-ask spreads and directional trades, and agents, offering services such as execution, clearing, and financing for institutional clients. Their activities center on aggregating order flow, managing inventory through hedging, and disseminating via electronic platforms and direct dealer networks. A concentrated group of major global banks dominates this segment, with and consistently ranking among the top FX revenue generators and volume handlers. In 2023, overtook as the leading U.S. dealer in FX trading revenues, exceeding $5.5 billion annually, reflecting their outsized role in spot, forwards, and execution. These top dealers, including also and , collectively handle a substantial portion of interdealer flows, leveraging desks, algorithmic tools, and vast balance sheets to absorb and redistribute across pairs. Interdealer trading constitutes approximately 46% of global FX turnover, amounting to $3.5 trillion daily as of April 2022, underscoring banks' pivotal role in price discovery and risk transfer within the wholesale market. The shift toward electronic trading has accelerated since the early 2000s, with platforms enabling anonymous, high-speed execution that now predominates interdealer spot and swap volumes, diminishing traditional voice broking to niche, high-touch segments like emerging market currencies. This evolution has lowered operational costs and expanded access, though primary electronic brokers' share has stabilized post-Global Financial Crisis amid fragmentation into multi-bank and venue-agnostic systems. Competition among these dealers drives exceptionally tight bid-ask spreads—often 0.5 to 1 pip for liquid pairs like EUR/USD in quotes—reflecting efficient matching of without reliance on collusive pricing. Empirical evidence from dealer quote data shows that higher numbers of competing market makers correlate with narrower spreads, as banks vie for flow to internalize trades and minimize external hedging costs. However, this competitive dynamic was undermined during the – period by collusion scandals, where banks including , JPMorgan, , and manipulated fix rates, resulting in over $10 billion in global fines and temporary erosion of trust, though subsequent regulatory reforms like enhanced surveillance have reinforced decentralized pricing mechanisms. Despite such lapses, the oligopolistic yet rivalrous structure sustains low-friction , with spreads remaining responsive to volatility and order imbalance rather than systemic markups.

Non-Financial Corporations and Hedgers

Non-financial corporations engage in foreign exchange markets primarily to currency risks stemming from and activities, such as mismatches between the currency of invoices and domestic reporting currencies or the repatriation of foreign earnings. Exporters facing receivables in foreign currencies, for instance, to safeguard against of those currencies relative to their home currency, while importers protect against appreciation that would inflate costs. This is essential for maintaining stable cash flows amid volatility, particularly for firms with significant cross-border operations. Empirical data indicate that non-financial end-users account for a modest portion of overall FX turnover, reflecting their focus on hedging rather than frequent trading. In the 2025 BIS Triennial Central Bank Survey, trading with non-financial customers represented 5% of global FX turnover, down from 6% in 2022, underscoring their ancillary role in total volume dominated by financial intermediaries. Despite this, their transactions underpin real economic flows, as seen in sectors like energy where major oil producers hedge substantial exposures from commodity priced in U.S. dollars against operational currencies. Hedging by non-financial corporations stabilizes firm-level outcomes, facilitating sustained global specialization and that would otherwise be curtailed by unmitigated volatility in floating rate environments. Without such practices, fluctuations could erode profit margins and deter cross-border expansion, contrasting with fixed regimes where central banks historically absorbed similar risks on behalf of the . Evidence from firm-level studies shows that effective FX hedging correlates with more consistent and operational resilience, particularly for exporters and importers in volatile markets.

Speculative Entities: Funds and Prop Traders

Hedge funds and firms (prop traders) participate in the foreign exchange market primarily for through directional bets on currency movements, distinct from hedging motives. These entities deploy sophisticated quantitative models and leverage to execute high-volume trades, often amplifying during periods of stress. , typically conducted by in-house desks at investment banks or independent firms using their own capital, focuses on short-term and opportunities in spot and markets. Key strategies employed include carry trades, which involve borrowing in currencies with low interest rates (e.g., ) to invest in higher-yielding ones (e.g., ), capturing differentials while betting on stability. strategies, conversely, identify and ride trends in currency pairs based on technical indicators like moving averages, entering positions anticipating continuation of recent price directions. These approaches have been prevalent among hedge funds, with carry trades showing persistent profitability in low-volatility environments until unwinds, as observed in the . In the 2022 BIS Triennial Survey, other financial institutions—including hedge funds and principal trading firms (a proxy for traders)—accounted for approximately 14% of global turnover, equivalent to over $1 trillion daily amid total volumes of $7.5 trillion, underscoring their non-trivial scale without dominating bank-led flows. Iconic instances, such as George Soros's short of the British pound via Quantum Fund, which netted about $1 billion by exploiting policy inconsistencies and forcing , highlight potential for outsized impacts, yet such unilateral moves are outliers. Empirical analyses, including CFTC examinations of futures data, demonstrate that speculative positions by these entities reduce overall market volatility through informed trading and absorption, countering destabilization narratives by enhancing and provision—effects evident across multiple commodities and currencies where speculators correctly anticipated 75% of weekly rate direction changes. Aggregate event studies further affirm that facilitates quicker convergence to fundamentals, mitigating rather than exacerbating deviations during shocks.

Retail and Alternative Participants

Retail participants primarily comprise individual speculators accessing the foreign exchange market via brokers that offer leveraged instruments, such as contracts for difference (CFDs) on currency pairs. This segment expanded significantly with the rise of retail-oriented platforms in the , enabling low-barrier entry through margin trading and mobile applications. In regulated jurisdictions like the , maximum leverage for major pairs is capped at 1:30 for retail clients under ESMA rules implemented in 2018 to curb excessive risk-taking, while offshore brokers in places like or commonly extend ratios up to 1:500 or higher, attracting traders seeking amplified exposure but exposing them to magnified drawdowns. Empirical evidence underscores the precarious nature of retail forex trading, where leverage and frequent trading exacerbate losses in a market dominated by institutional providers. ESMA-mandated disclosures from brokers indicate that 74-89% of retail CFD accounts lose , with average client deficits reflecting both directional errors and frictional costs like spreads and overnight fees. Similarly, U.S. (CFTC) data affirm that approximately two-thirds of retail forex traders incur net losses, attributable to overconfidence-driven position sizing and the inherent edge of market makers in retail flows. Retail activity accounts for roughly 5% of global FX turnover, yet it generates disproportionate personal financial distress, as small accounts deplete rapidly under volatile conditions without the diversification or hedging sophistication of professionals. Alternative participants encompass non-bank entities, including payment processors and money transfer operators, which execute conversions for transactional purposes rather than . Firms like and Wise (formerly TransferWise) aggregate retail cross-border flows for remittances and e-commerce settlements, bypassing traditional correspondent banking networks to offer competitive mid-market rates minus fees. These operators have captured growing shares of low-value transfers, leveraging technology for real-time execution, though they face heightened regulatory oversight amid concerns over anti-money laundering compliance. platforms further diversify access, matching individual currency swaps directly to minimize intermediary markups. Vulnerabilities to compound retail risks, with operators mimicking legitimate brokers to solicit deposits via promises of automated high returns, often vanishing funds post-withdrawal attempts. Empirical patterns from agencies reveal such schemes thrive on unregulated offshore entities, where weak oversight enables signal-selling Ponzi-like operations; links these to behavioral susceptibilities, as novice traders misattribute short-term variances to , escalating exposure. Regulatory interventions, including CFD marketing bans in some regions, reflect acknowledgments of parallels without eliminating inherent market hazards.

Exchange Rate Determinants

Fundamental Economic Drivers

Exchange rates are fundamentally anchored to economic variables that reflect relative scarcities and productivity across economies, such as differentials, interest rates, trade balances, and productivity growth. (PPP) posits that exchange rates should adjust to equalize the price of identical baskets of goods, ensuring no opportunities in real goods markets. In practice, deviations persist due to transportation costs, non-tradable goods, and barriers, but long-run convergence toward PPP underscores the role of differentials in driving nominal exchange rate movements. The , constructed by , illustrates PPP deviations by comparing the dollar price of a across countries; as of July 2025, the index implied the British pound was undervalued by 15% against the U.S. dollar, with a costing £5.09 in the UK versus $6.01 in the U.S., based on an implied rate of 0.85 versus the actual rate. Such metrics highlight how persistent inflation gaps—driven by and supply shocks—erode and pressure currencies to depreciate in real terms, grounding exchange rates in the of tradable commodities rather than isolated policies. Interest rate differentials also exert influence through capital flows seeking higher real returns, though uncovered interest parity (UIP)—which predicts that expected changes offset nominal interest gaps—fails empirically, often exhibiting a forward premium puzzle where high-interest currencies appreciate rather than depreciate. This deviation is attributed to time-varying risk premiums compensating investors for currency risk, as evidenced in studies showing UIP holds intermittently but breaks down over longer horizons due to uncertainty in future fundamentals. Empirically, the U.S. dollar's appreciation from 2022 to 2024 exemplified these dynamics, as the raised its from near zero to 5.25-5.50% by mid-2023 to combat peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, widening rate gaps with peers like the ECB (peaking at 4.5%) and attracting capital inflows that strengthened the USD by over 10% on broad indices despite a widening U.S. current account deficit to 3.7% of GDP in 2023. Higher U.S. rates reflected tighter policy to anchor expectations, reinforcing dollar via carry trades and safe-haven flows tied to robust U.S. growth differentials. Trade balances influence rates through current account positions, where sustained deficits signal reliance on foreign capital, pressuring , yet short-term deviations arise from -led competitiveness. The Balassa-Samuelson effect formalizes this: faster growth in tradable sectors (e.g., ) raises wages and non-tradable prices economy-wide, causing real appreciation independent of parity. Empirical tests confirm this in developing economies catching up to advanced ones, with a 1% tradable differential correlating to 0.3-0.5% real appreciation over time. Thus, exchange rates ultimately track relative economic efficiencies in producing and trading goods, with responses amplifying but not overriding these real drivers.

Political and Institutional Factors

Political events, such as and geopolitical conflicts, can induce sharp volatility in foreign exchange rates by altering expectations of trade, regulatory, and capital flow dynamics. The United Kingdom's on June 23, 2016, resulted in an immediate 11% depreciation of the British pound against the US dollar between June 23 and 27, driven by uncertainty over future EU trade access and potential capital outflows, marking one of the largest single-event drops in modern FX history. Similarly, Western sanctions imposed on following its invasion of in February 2022 caused the to lose nearly 50% of its value against the US dollar within days, reflecting restricted access to international reserves and export revenues, though subsequent capital controls and export restrictions partially mitigated the decline. These episodes illustrate how policy shocks disrupt market equilibria, often amplifying depreciation in currencies perceived as vulnerable to isolation from global financial systems. Institutional frameworks, including regimes and monetary unions, shape FX resilience to such shocks, with favoring flexible arrangements over rigid pegs. In emerging markets, "sudden stops" in capital inflows—abrupt reversals of foreign funding—tend to precipitate deeper crises under fixed pegs, as they prevent automatic adjustment via , leading to output collapses and reserve depletion; floating regimes, by contrast, allow currencies to absorb shocks through price signals, fostering quicker recoveries without the buildup of imbalances. The pre-euro convergence process within the European Monetary Union (EMU) exemplifies institutional stabilization, where adherence to criteria like ERM-II participation narrowed fluctuations and aligned rates among aspiring members from the mid-1990s, reducing volatility ahead of the 1999 launch but at the cost of suppressed national adjustments. Pegged systems, however, often mask underlying distortions, as seen in historical EM crises where maintenance of artificial stability delayed necessary rebalancing. Central bank interventions and capital controls further exemplify policy distortions, yielding mixed outcomes that rarely alter long-term trends despite short-term smoothing. Empirical studies across 33 countries indicate interventions succeed in influencing exchange rates about 80% of the time under specific criteria, primarily by reducing volatility rather than shifting levels durably, with effects amplified when coordinated or during high-liquidity conditions. In Russia's 2022 case, capital outflow restrictions and mandatory ruble conversions temporarily propped up the currency post-depreciation, but such measures distort and incentivize evasion, undermining efficient . Meta-analyses confirm modest impacts—a 1% domestic depreciation per $1 billion intervention on average—but highlight that sterilized operations (offsetting domestic ) fail to signal credible policy shifts, often prolonging misalignments compared to market-driven corrections. Thus, while institutions aim for "stability," evidence suggests they frequently impede causal adjustments, favoring endogenous market mechanisms for sustainable equilibrium.

Behavioral and Market Sentiment Influences

Behavioral factors and market sentiment exert influence on foreign exchange rates through psychological mechanisms such as , where traders imitate perceived crowd actions, and overreaction to or sentiment indicators, leading to temporary deviations from fundamental values. Variance ratio tests on exchange rate increments frequently reject the in short horizons, indicating positive and over/undershooting consistent with behavioral overreaction rather than efficient incorporation of information. For instance, high trading activity mitigates but does not eliminate such overreaction, as measured by variance ratios closest to unity during periods of elevated . Risk-on and risk-off sentiment shifts drive pronounced capital flows, with risk-off episodes prompting rapid unwinds into safe-haven currencies like the and US , exacerbating volatility in and high-yield currencies. The 2008 global exemplified this through carry trade cascades, where leveraged positions borrowing in low-yield yen to fund higher-yield assets unraveled amid , causing the yen to appreciate over 20% against the from July to October 2008 and amplifying cross-asset contagion. Empirical analysis links these unwinds to negative in high-yield currency returns, with abrupt crashes following prolonged trends fueled by sentiment-driven . has been detected in specific FX contexts, such as Pakistan's market, where cross-sectional absolute deviation measures decline during high volatility, signaling reduced dispersion in trading decisions. Despite short-term inefficiencies, longer-horizon studies reveal greater adherence to , with effects dominating briefly before reversals align prices with fundamentals, suggesting aids correction of sentiment-induced mispricings. Adaptive market responses, rather than dominant irrationality, emerge from data showing and overreaction as transient phenomena moderated by and information diffusion over time. This balance underscores how behavioral influences amplify volatility without undermining the market's overall capacity for .

Financial Instruments

Spot Market Transactions

Spot market transactions in the foreign exchange (FX) market refer to agreements to exchange one for another at an agreed-upon rate, with settlement occurring on the spot date, typically two business days after the trade date (T+2), excluding weekends and holidays for the involved currencies. This standard T+2 convention aligns with the time required for trade confirmation, clearing, and final transfer of balances between counterparties, primarily via continuous linked settlement (CLS) systems that execute payment-versus-payment to eliminate . Physical delivery of notes is rare; instead, transactions involve electronic transfers of corresponding deposits, emphasizing the market's focus on financial claims rather than tangible assets. Currency pairs are quoted bid-ask spreads in the spot market, with the base currency against the quote currency (e.g., EUR/USD at 1.10 means 1 buys 1.10 U.S. dollars), and major pairs like USD/JPY or GBP/USD dominating volume due to . rates, such as EUR/GBP, are derived from direct quotes via triangular relationships (e.g., EUR/USD × USD/GBP = EUR/GBP), enforced by opportunities that traders exploit using high-frequency algorithms to correct deviations, ensuring no-risk profits from inconsistencies are fleeting in efficient markets. These mechanisms maintain quote consistency across pairs, with platforms handling over 60% of spot volume through automated matching engines that pair buy and sell orders based on price-time priority. Empirically, spot transactions constitute 30-40% of total daily turnover, underscoring their foundational role amid a market averaging $7.5 trillion in April 2022, with spot activity reaching approximately $2.1 trillion per day before netting adjustments. This segment's immediacy supports for underlying exchange rates, while electronic broking and interdealer platforms facilitate anonymous, high-speed execution, minimizing counterparty exposure through multilateral netting. Despite growth in algorithmic participation, spot markets exhibit resilience, with liquidity buffers absorbing shocks without widespread physical delivery failures.

Forward and Outright Contracts

Forward contracts, or outright forwards, in the foreign exchange market are customized over-the-counter agreements between two parties to exchange a specified amount of one for another at a predetermined on a future settlement date, without an accompanying spot transaction. Unlike swaps, which combine a spot leg with a forward leg, outright forwards involve only the future delivery, making them suitable for isolating long-term exposure . The pricing of outright forwards adheres to covered interest rate parity (CIRP), a no-arbitrage condition linking spot rates, forward rates, and differentials between the two currencies. The forward exchange rate FF is calculated as F=S×(1+id×t)(1+if×t)F = S \times \frac{(1 + i_d \times t)}{(1 + i_f \times t)}, where SS is the spot rate, idi_d and ifi_f are the domestic and foreign s, respectively, and tt is the time to maturity in years; this yields forward points (the difference between forward and spot rates, often expressed in pips) that reflect expected divergences. Tenors for these contracts range from (one day) to several years, with medium- to long-term maturities more prevalent in outright forwards compared to shorter-term swaps, enabling participants to exposures like anticipated payments or receivables over extended periods. A specialized variant, non-deliverable forwards (NDFs), applies to currencies with capital controls or convertibility restrictions, such as the Chinese yuan (CNY), where physical delivery is impractical; settlement occurs in a freely convertible currency (typically USD) based on the difference between the contracted rate and the spot rate at maturity. CNY NDFs, for instance, represent about 5% of global NDF turnover, facilitating offshore hedging for investors avoiding onshore restrictions. Corporations and institutions primarily use outright forwards to transactional exposures, locking in future exchange costs via CIRP to neutralize currency fluctuations while accounting for differentials, as in a U.S. exporter securing euro receivables against weakening. However, imperfect matches between the , notional amount, or underlying exposure introduce , where residual mismatches (e.g., timing discrepancies) leave participants vulnerable to unanticipated rate shifts despite the contract. Daily global turnover in outright forwards reached $999 billion in April 2019, underscoring their scale in allocation.

Swaps and Currency Derivatives

Foreign exchange (FX) swaps represent a core instrument in the derivatives market, involving the temporary exchange of principal amounts in two at the prevailing spot rate, coupled with a commitment to reverse the transaction at a on a specified future date. This structure facilitates short-term cross- provision, enabling banks and institutions to fund operations in foreign without permanent capital transfers, often rolling over swaps to manage ongoing funding needs. As of the 2022 BIS Triennial Survey, FX swaps accounted for $3.8 trillion in average daily turnover, comprising roughly 50% of total global FX trading volume, underscoring their dominance in providing temporary amid mismatches. Currency futures and options complement swaps by offering standardized, exchange-traded alternatives for price . Futures contracts, such as the future on the , obligate the buyer to purchase (or seller to deliver) a fixed amount of the base at a predetermined on expiry, with daily marking-to-market to limit exposure. These contracts exhibit high leverage, typically requiring initial margins of 2-5% of notional value, amplifying exposure while central clearing mitigates default through standardized terms and daily settlement. In 2023, CME futures volumes reflected sustained growth, with contracts contributing to overall exchange-traded activity averaging millions of contracts daily across products. Currency options grant the holder the right, but not obligation, to buy (call) or sell (put) a currency at a by expiry, enabling asymmetric payoffs suited to directional bets or hedges against tail risks. Pricing in FX options markets often displays a , with implied volatilities elevated for deep out-of-the-money strikes relative to at-the-money options, reflecting market anticipation of extreme movements beyond lognormal assumptions. This pattern, empirically observed across major pairs, arises from demand for protection against crashes or rallies, influencing premium calculations via models adjusting for and . Over-the-counter (OTC) currency derivatives like non-deliverable swaps predominate in flexibility, allowing customized notional amounts, maturities, and settlement terms tailored to specific liquidity or hedging needs, but they expose participants to bilateral counterparty risk absent central clearing. In contrast, exchange-traded futures and options enforce rigid standardization—fixed contract sizes (e.g., 125,000 euros for CME euro FX), expiry dates, and leverage caps via margining—which enhances liquidity and transparency but limits adaptability. Post the 1997 Asian financial crisis, emerging market (EM) currency derivatives volumes expanded markedly, with OTC FX options and non-deliverable forwards growing to facilitate hedging in restricted regimes, rising from negligible levels to significant shares of global EM flows by the 2010s. This development, driven by post-crisis reforms, improved risk allocation in volatile EM currencies, though OTC dominance persists due to bespoke requirements.

Core Functions and Mechanisms

Price Discovery and Informational Efficiency

The foreign exchange market facilitates through the aggregation of diverse informational signals from global participants, primarily via decentralized over-the-counter trading that incorporates both announcements and private order flows. Order flow, representing net buying or selling pressure, reveals private information held by market makers and clients, such as informed trades based on economic fundamentals or portfolio reallocations, leading to persistent impacts on s that reflect underlying value adjustments. Empirical analyses confirm that customer order flows dissect into components signaling future movements, supporting the market's role in processing heterogeneous efficiently without centralized coordination. High-frequency data underscore the market's informational , particularly in semi-strong form, where public information is rapidly impounded into prices. Studies using tick-level quotes demonstrate that macroeconomic announcements trigger immediate price revisions in major currency pairs, with incorporation speeds measured in milliseconds to seconds, minimizing post-announcement drifts that would indicate exploitable inefficiencies. Microstructure noise, such as bid-ask bounce, introduces short-term deviations but does not undermine overall , as evidenced by vector error correction models showing prices revert to fundamentals swiftly. further accelerates this process, enhancing by reducing informational asymmetries at ultra-short horizons. The decentralized structure of the FX market, characterized by minimal regulatory and 24-hour global interconnectivity, enables superior informational aggregation compared to centralized venues, where order routing delays or fragmentation could slow updates. This free-market dynamism counters claims of inherent inefficiency, as major pairs exhibit low predictability in returns following news events, with drifts often attributable to rather than informational lags. BIS triennial surveys highlight sustained high turnover volumes—$7.5 trillion daily in —facilitating robust testing grounds where empirical tests reject strong evidence of systematic underreaction in liquid pairs like EUR/USD.

Risk Allocation via Hedging

Hedging in the foreign exchange market facilitates the transfer of currency risk from entities seeking stability, such as exporters and importers, to counterparties better equipped to manage volatility, including financial institutions and speculators. This allocation occurs primarily through financial instruments like forward contracts, options, and swaps, which lock in exchange rates or provide downside protection, thereby insulating hedgers from adverse movements while counterparties assume the exposure for a premium or spread. Empirical analyses indicate that such hedging reduces earnings variance by offsetting transactional exposures, with a five-year study of over 6,000 firms across 47 countries linking FX hedging to lower and return volatility. Distinctions exist between natural and financial hedges in allocating FX risk. Natural hedges arise operationally by aligning foreign inflows with outflows, such as sourcing inputs in the same as revenues, thereby minimizing net exposure without derivative costs. In contrast, financial hedges employ to explicitly offset mismatches, offering greater precision but incurring transaction fees and basis risks from imperfect correlations. Multinational corporations often combine both, with surveys showing approximately 60% of non-financial firms globally utilizing as a primary tool, reflecting widespread adoption to cover transactional and translational exposures. Hedging empirically enhances corporate stability and lowers financing costs by mitigating volatility. Research demonstrates that firms employing hedges sustain higher financial leverage without proportional increases, as reduced exposure variance signals lower default probabilities to creditors, decreasing the cost of issuance. For instance, effective allows greater capacity in foreign currencies, where borrowing rates often undercut domestic alternatives due to diversified sources. This stability supports resilience, as hedged firms maintain and operational continuity amid rate swings, with global non-financial notionals reaching $15 trillion in 2022 to safeguard such activities. Crises underscore hedging's role in risk allocation, particularly during the 1997 Asian financial turmoil, where unhedged foreign borrowings amplified corporate insolvencies and contagion. Inadequate hedging exposed firms to sharp depreciations, eroding reserves and triggering defaults, whereas those with coverage preserved and operational viability. This event highlighted how under-hedging represents a managerial or policy shortfall, as proactive coverage enables specialization in core competencies without currency distortions deterring cross-border trade or investment. Post-crisis data from Asian markets affirm derivatives' hedging value in stabilizing firm-level outcomes amid heightened volatility.

Speculation's Contributions to Liquidity and Stability

Speculators in the foreign exchange market act as counterparties to hedgers and other traders, thereby enhancing and , particularly during periods of low trading volume or in less liquid currency pairs. Empirical analysis of currency futures markets indicates that higher speculative positions, as measured by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) Commitment of Traders reports, correlate with narrower bid-ask spreads and increased trading volumes, facilitating smoother price adjustments without significant slippage. This liquidity provision is evident in emerging market currencies, where speculators bridge gaps left by limited commercial participation, reducing execution costs for all participants. Regarding stability, from CFTC studies demonstrate that speculative activity tends to dampen volatility rather than amplify it, as informed speculators away temporary deviations from fundamental values. For instance, regressions on historical futures show that elevated non-commercial (speculative) net positions are associated with lower realized volatility in major pairs, contradicting claims of inherent destabilization. This aligns with theoretical models where rational speculators stabilize rates by responding to real economic shocks, such as differentials or changes, rather than trading. Profitable speculative strategies further underscore their stabilizing role, as sustained positive returns imply efficient incorporation of information into prices. Carry trades, which involve borrowing in low-yield currencies to invest in high-yield ones, have delivered robust excess returns averaging 5-7% annually over extended periods, including data spanning more than two centuries, signaling that such positions correct mispricings driven by divergences. Similarly, momentum strategies exploiting past trends yield significant cross-sectional spreads in returns, with empirical tests confirming their persistence after controlling for risk factors, thereby aiding and reducing long-term deviations. These outcomes counter Keynesian analogies to self-referential "beauty contests," where data reveals that informed speculation, rather than , dominates and promotes equilibrium. While critics highlight potential excess from retail speculators, their remains minor—typically under 10% of total volume per CFTC classifications—and shows negligible impact on aggregate stability compared to institutional flows. Overall, speculation's net effect supports market resilience, as lower volatility from these activities reduces hedging costs and enables more predictable and .

Risks and Crises

Inherent Market Risks

The foreign exchange market exposes participants to inherent risks stemming from the fundamental uncertainty in currency valuations, including volatility in exchange rates, counterparty exposure, and liquidity evaporation during stress. volatility arises from unpredictable shifts in supply-demand dynamics influenced by macroeconomic differentials, policy changes, and geopolitical events, often exhibiting clustering and persistence captured by Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models. These models demonstrate that FX returns display leptokurtic distributions with fat tails, where extreme deviations exceed normal assumptions, as evidenced in empirical analyses of major pairs like USD/TRY and EUR/USD. Counterparty involves potential default on OTC trades, where settlement lags create principal exposure; this was starkly amplified post-2008 collapse, heightening awareness of bilateral exposures in non-centrally cleared FX derivatives. Liquidity risk, though mitigated by the market's $7.5 trillion daily turnover in 2022, manifests as widening bid-ask spreads or order execution failures under stress, as global liquidity can fragment across venues or currencies. Leverage, commonly 50:1 to 100:1 in retail , exacerbates these risks by magnifying position sizes relative to capital, turning modest rate swings into outsized losses via margin calls. (VaR) metrics, estimating potential losses at a 99% over horizons like 1-10 days, underpin risk limits but often underestimate tail events due to reliance on historical or parametric assumptions ill-suited to 's non-normal loss distributions. For instance, the Swiss National Bank's January 15, 2015, unpegging of the CHF from the EUR triggered a ~30% appreciation against the euro intraday, invalidating models and causing billions in losses despite stop-loss orders, which suffered slippage amid exhaustion. These risks are intrinsic to the decentralized, 24-hour ecosystem's reliance on anchors susceptible to erosion via or policy reversals, rather than solely attributable to speculative flows; empirical measures, such as applied to order flow, confirm higher loss probabilities in low-liquidity currencies, underscoring the need for robust position sizing independent of hedging efficacy.

Historical Currency Crises

The 1992 (ERM) crisis exemplified the vulnerabilities of fixed pegs to divergent monetary policies and overvaluation. On September 16, 1992—known as —the was compelled to withdraw the from the ERM after depleting foreign reserves in a futile defense against speculative attacks. The crisis stemmed from fundamental inconsistencies: necessitated high interest rates to combat inflation, strengthening the and rendering the UK's ERM band—pegging sterling at 2.95 per mark—unsustainable amid Britain's recessionary pressures and reluctance to match German rates. similarly exited the ERM shortly after, as overvalued currencies eroded competitiveness, triggering capital outflows estimated at billions in lost reserves for the . First-generation crisis models, such as those formalized by economists like Maurice Obstfeld, attribute such collapses to predictable reserve drains when fiscal or monetary expansions render pegs inconsistent with balance-of-payments equilibrium, inviting rational speculative attacks once reserves approach depletion. The further illustrated peg fragility amid external imbalances and currency mismatches. It originated in , where the baht's peg to the US dollar—fixed since 1984—collapsed on July 2, 1997, after authorities abandoned defense amid $8 billion in reserve losses over preceding months. Underlying causes included chronic current-account deficits financed by short-term foreign borrowing, real overvaluation exceeding 20% in the years prior, and a strengthening dollar that amplified debt burdens in local currencies. Contagion rapidly spread to (rupiah devalued over 80% by January 1998), , and through trade linkages—where affected countries comprised up to 20-30% of partners' exports—and shared banking exposures, rather than mere . Empirical analyses confirm that pre-crisis overvaluation, coupled with sudden outflows, depleted reserves across the region, forcing depegs and contractions averaging 10% GDP drops. In the Eurozone periphery during the 2010s, analogous pressures arose without formal pegs but under the constraint of a shared currency, underscoring rigid exchange arrangements' risks. Greece's debt crisis erupted in late 2009, revealing fiscal overstatement and overvaluation relative to , prompting on euro exit and implicit drachma ; bond yields spiked to 35% by before ECB interventions. , , and faced balance-of-payments strains, with private capital outflows exceeding €300 billion from periphery to by , driven by competitiveness losses from pre-crisis wage rigidities. These events align with patterns of overvaluation fostering outflows, though contagion operated via banking interconnections rather than direct alone. Across these episodes, empirical patterns reveal that currency crises predominantly afflict pegged regimes when real appreciations—often 15-40% sustained—signal underlying unsustainability, precipitating outflows that exhaust reserves and force abandonment. Contagion frequently transmits via real economic channels like trade (explaining 60-70% of regional clustering in crises) and financial spillovers, amplifying but not originating from fundamentals. Such dynamics expose fixed pegs' causal flaws: their rigidity prevents adjustment to shocks, contrasting with floating regimes' resilience, where restores equilibrium without reserve crises; studies spanning 1970-2010 show pegs experience 2-3 times more frequent events under stress than floats. This underscores floats' superior absorption of imbalances through market-driven corrections, averting the self-reinforcing attacks inherent to defended pegs.

Manipulation Scandals and Cartel Behaviors

In the period from approximately 2007 to 2013, major global banks engaged in collusive practices to manipulate benchmark rates, particularly the WM/ Closing Spot Rate fix conducted at 4:00 p.m. time, which serves as a reference for trillions in daily FX settlements. Traders at institutions including , , , (RBS), and used private chatrooms—such as "The " and ""—to exchange confidential client order flow information and coordinate large trades aimed at influencing closing prices in their favor, often at the expense of end-clients like funds and asset managers. These actions paralleled tactics in the interbank lending scandal, where benchmarks were similarly distorted through shared intentions rather than isolated market actions. Regulatory investigations culminated in 2015, when four banks—, , , and RBS—pleaded guilty in the U.S. to wire fraud and price-fixing charges, resulting in combined penalties exceeding $5.6 billion from the U.S. Department of Justice, , and other agencies; UBS entered a non-prosecution agreement alongside a $290 million fine. Overall global fines for the FX rigging surpassed $10 billion, with specific U.S. [Commodity Futures Trading Commission](/page/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commissio n) penalties including $400 million against for attempted manipulation and false reporting of benchmark rates. Tactics involved "stop-hunting," where coordinated trades targeted client stop-loss orders to trigger artificial price movements, and benchmarking collusion to skew fixes by timing submissions around the one-minute window. A related cartel focused on spot trading in the British pound sterling was addressed in 2021 by the , which fined , , RBS, and a total of €344 million ( received immunity as the whistleblower), for anti-competitive discussions in the "Sterling Lads" chatroom from December 2007 to January 2013. Participants exchanged views on trading positions and agreed to withhold trades during the benchmark window to prevent counter-movements, distorting spot FX prices for GBP against the euro, yen, and U.S. . These fines underscored persistent in voice-assisted trading environments, where informal networks facilitated information sharing absent robust electronic oversight. While some analyses portray such manipulations as symptomatic of broader systemic incentives in opaque over-the-counter markets, ties the major incidents to the pre-electronic dominance era, with no comparable large-scale prosecutions emerging after widespread adoption of and real-time surveillance reforms by 2015. Deterrence effects are evident in the absence of new multi-bank benchmark-rigging cases, though isolated trader persists as a monitored .

Regulation and Governance

Evolving Regulatory Landscapes

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 introduced mandatory reporting requirements for over-the-counter foreign exchange , including FX swaps and forwards, to swap data repositories or the (CFTC), enhancing post-trade transparency in response to opaque practices exposed during the 2013-2015 FX manipulation scandals. These provisions, fully implemented by 2013, required dealers to submit transaction details such as notional amounts, prices, and timestamps, reducing information asymmetries that had facilitated cartel-like behaviors among major banks. Building on Dodd-Frank, the CFTC established federal position limits in 2020 for FX futures and economically equivalent swaps, capping speculative holdings at levels like 10% of in non-spot months to curb excessive and potential market corners, with compliance mandatory by January 2022. Exemptions apply for bona fide hedging, but aggregation rules treat affiliated entities' positions collectively, aiming to prevent evasion while imposing compliance burdens on market participants. In the , the of 2012 mandated central clearing for certain OTC FX derivatives exceeding clearing thresholds, such as those involving interest rate components, through authorized central counterparties to mitigate counterparty risk, with thresholds reviewed periodically by the (ESMA). Complementary to EMIR, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), effective January 2018, required pre- and post-trade transparency for FX transactions on multilateral trading facilities, including quote dissemination and transaction reporting, which empirical analyses indicate improved but elevated compliance costs estimated in billions of euros annually for firms due to and reporting infrastructure. Basel III's Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), phased in from 2015 to 2019, compelled banks to hold high-quality covering 100% of projected 30-day outflows, indirectly constraining FX market-making by increasing the cost of holding inventory for short-term trades and reducing willingness to absorb large orders. Studies post-implementation show these rules diminished FX spot and swap liquidity spillovers during stress periods by limiting dealer usage, though at the expense of higher bid-ask spreads in less liquid pairs. Overall, these regulations have empirically lowered operational opacity—evidenced by a surge in reported FX transaction volumes to regulators exceeding $6.6 trillion daily by 2022—but introduced fragmentation across jurisdictions, with compliance costs potentially eroding provision as dealers prioritize capital over aggressive quoting. Overly stringent limits risk unintended contractions in , as observed in elevated order rejection rates under heightened capital scrutiny.

International Coordination Efforts

The (BIS) facilitates international coordination in the foreign exchange market by hosting committees that develop and promote standards for market infrastructure and risk management. Through the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), the BIS has advanced principles for infrastructures (PFMI), including those addressing FX settlement risks such as the Herstatt risk, where one party delivers without receiving the counterparty's . These standards encourage the use of payment-versus-payment (PvP) mechanisms, with global FX settlement via CLS Bank reducing daily exposure from trillions to about $5.6 trillion as of 2022. The BIS also conducts triennial FX turnover surveys, aggregating data from over 1,200 institutions across 52 jurisdictions to inform policy on liquidity and systemic risks. The (IOSCO), in collaboration with CPMI, endorses the PFMI as core standards for reducing systemic vulnerabilities in FX-related activities, emphasizing robust and operational resilience in benchmarks and clearing systems. IOSCO's principles for financial benchmarks, applied to FX fixings, require methodologies that promote fairness and prevent manipulation, influencing global adoption of transparent rate calculation windows. Committees, including the Global FX Committee, have codified these into the FX Global Code—a voluntary set of 35 principles updated in 2021 for ethics, execution, and information sharing in FX trading, signed by over 800 institutions representing major market participants. Post-2008 global , commitments included strengthening oversight of OTC FX derivatives, which comprise over 90% of FX turnover, through enhanced trade reporting and central clearing mandates to curb opacity and contagion. These pledges spurred harmonization efforts, such as the widespread use of the WM/ FX benchmark—established in 1986 and revised in 2015 to a 5-minute window for spot rates—to standardize valuations and reduce benchmark manipulation risks, with daily fixing volumes exceeding $500 billion equivalent in major currencies. Empirical data shows uneven implementation: advanced economies like the and have integrated FX Global adherence into supervisory practices, while emerging markets (EMs) lag, with only partial PvP adoption and weaker enforcement due to resource constraints and fragmented oversight, leading to higher settlement exposures estimated at 10-20% of daily FX volume in some EM jurisdictions. Such coordination mitigates cross-border spillovers, as evidenced by reduced FX settlement fails during stress events via CLS PvP, but efficacy is constrained by jurisdictional sovereignty, where EMs prioritize capital controls over full BIS/IOSCO alignment, resulting in persistent opportunities and volatility transmission.

Tradeoffs Between Oversight and Market Freedom

The foreign exchange () market's over-the-counter (OTC) framework has long featured light regulatory oversight compared to centralized exchanges, enabling rapid expansion in trading volumes and liquidity. (BIS) triennial surveys document daily global FX turnover rising from $5.3 trillion in April 2013—amid lax pre-scandal conditions—to $5.1 trillion in 2016 following $10 billion-plus in bank fines for rate manipulation, then rebounding to $6.6 trillion in 2019 and $7.5 trillion in 2022, reflecting sustained growth without systemic disruption. This trajectory indicates that permissive environments pre-dating interventions supported market deepening via broader participation, including non-bank entities, while post-sanction resilience avoided collapse through internal adjustments like enhanced compliance and competitive repositioning. Empirical analyses suggest heavy elevates transaction costs, potentially widening bid-ask spreads and diminishing ; theoretical models demonstrate that rules curbing leverage or provision—such as those post-financial —can amplify spreads by altering order information content and discouraging market-making. Conversely, minimal oversight correlates with tighter spreads and higher efficiency in OTC settings, as evidenced by FX's historical stability amid low , where competition among dealers naturally enforces discipline without mandated reporting burdens that raise operational expenses. Advocates for intervention invoke scandals like the 2013–2015 FX cartels, where banks on benchmark rates leading to $5.7 billion in U.S. fines alone, arguing such episodes necessitate curbs on opacity to prevent . Free-market perspectives counter that OTC dynamics foster self-correction via reputational risks, profit-driven exit of malefactors, and , as seen in the market's post-fine adaptation without evaporation or persistent volatility spikes. Fiat currency systems, reliant on credibility, may amplify calls for oversight, yet FX data affirm that competitive freedoms better sustain informational efficiency and risk dispersion than prescriptive controls, which risk entrenching incumbents and inflating costs for end-users.

Contemporary Dynamics

Technological and Digital Transformations

has become predominant in the foreign exchange (FX) market, accounting for approximately 75% of spot FX trading volume as of 2022, driven by advancements in electronic platforms and low-latency infrastructure. (HFT), a subset of algorithmic strategies, represents around 33% of trading volume in major pairs like AUD/USD, enabling sub-millisecond execution but relying on high volumes and minimal margins. The ' 2025 Triennial Survey highlighted a shift toward direct channels, reducing reliance on anonymous venues and enhancing execution speeds, with global FX turnover reaching $9.6 trillion daily in April 2025, up 28% from $7.5 trillion in 2022. These technologies have lowered transaction costs and improved provision, as algorithms respond instantaneously to order flow and . Integration of (AI) into FX trading has accelerated strategy development and , with AI models analyzing vast datasets including economic indicators and sentiment from sources to predict short-term movements. Adoption has surged post-2020, enabling algorithms to optimize trade execution and mitigate biases in human decision-making, though shows potential for amplified volatility during stress events due to synchronized AI responses. For instance, AI-enhanced systems process at scales unattainable manually, contributing to efficiency gains but raising concerns over herding behaviors in algorithmic clusters. Automation and AI have deepened further by 2025, with platforms integrating machine learning for enhanced predictions, though operational disruptions from trade policy uncertainties, such as U.S.-China tensions, have tested resilience. Distributed ledger technology (DLT) and pilots are transforming FX settlement processes, with SWIFT announcing plans in September 2025 to integrate a shared -based ledger for real-time, 24/7 cross-border payments involving over 30 institutions. Live trials commencing in 2025 will test DLT for FX transactions, digital assets, and securities settlement using rails, aiming to reduce settlement times from days to seconds and minimize counterparty risks inherent in traditional correspondent banking. While still experimental, these initiatives promise with existing systems, potentially cutting operational costs by automating reconciliation. Proliferation of application programming interfaces (APIs) has broadened market access, allowing retail and smaller institutional traders to deploy algorithmic strategies via platforms from major banks and fintechs, thus democratizing tools once exclusive to large players. However, this has concentrated influence among technology-proficient firms with superior data centers and proprietary models, exacerbating inequalities in competitive edge. Empirical risks include flash crashes, such as the January 3, 2019, event where algorithmic reactions to a yen surge caused AUD/JPY to plummet nearly 8% in minutes before partial reversal, underscoring vulnerabilities to feedback loops in automated systems. Overall, these transformations have boosted market efficiency through reduced spreads and faster liquidity but necessitate robust safeguards against systemic disruptions.

Geopolitical and Macroeconomic Shifts

The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) spiked volatility in the foreign exchange market, with safe-haven currencies like the U.S. dollar surging amid global lockdowns and massive stimulus measures. The in February 2022 prompted extensive Western sanctions against Russia, including exclusion of major Russian banks from the system and asset freezes, which reinforced the U.S. dollar's role as a global safe-haven currency amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty. These measures disrupted Russian trade and financial flows, leading to a sharp depreciation of the by nearly 30% initially and contributing to broader foreign exchange market volatility as investors sought liquidity in dollar-denominated assets. Geopolitical tensions, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict and U.S.-China trade policy uncertainties, along with inflation-fighting rate hikes by central banks, amplified currency swings through 2025. Despite such shocks, the forex market demonstrated resilience, with indices spiking temporarily but reverting as prices adjusted to incorporate the risks of ongoing conflict without sustained systemic disruption. The U.S. dollar maintained dominance, comprising 88% of trades in 2025. Macroeconomic policy divergences between major central banks further propelled dollar appreciation in the 2020s, particularly as the U.S. Federal Reserve maintained elevated interest rates longer than the European Central Bank (ECB) to combat persistent inflation. The Fed's benchmark rate stood at 5.25-5.50% through much of 2024 before gradual easing, while the ECB initiated rate cuts in June 2024 and continued with five reductions by September 2025, reaching 2.15%, reflecting weaker eurozone growth and disinflation. This yield differential attracted capital inflows to U.S. assets, supporting a 4.0% rise in the nominal trade-weighted U.S. dollar index over the four quarters through June 2024, with additional gains in subsequent months driven by similar dynamics. Empirical evidence underscores the market's capacity to absorb these pressures, as evidenced by EUR/USD forecasts projecting a level around 1.22 by late 2025, implying moderated dollar strength amid anticipated policy convergence, though subject to renewed geopolitical flare-ups. interventions, such as sporadic dollar sales by emerging markets, proved limited in countering these trends, highlighting the forex market's efficiency in pricing multifaceted risks over . This dynamic illustrates causal pathways where exogenous shocks and endogenous policy responses interact to shape s, with decentralized trading mechanisms outperforming coordinated efforts in reflecting real economic adjustments. Emerging markets faced heightened risks from currency mismatches amid these shifts.

Emergence of Cryptocurrencies and Alternatives

The emergence of cryptocurrencies has introduced decentralized alternatives to traditional mechanisms, primarily through blockchain-enabled transfers that bypass intermediaries for cross-border value movement. , launched in 2009, initially demonstrated proof-of-concept for digital scarcity and borderless exchange, but its extreme volatility—often exceeding 50% annualized—limited utility in FX-like hedging or settlement roles. Stablecoins, pegged to fiat currencies such as the US dollar, addressed this by aiming for price stability, enabling functions akin to synthetic FX positions; for instance, (USDT) facilitates rapid conversions between crypto assets and fiat equivalents without relying on banking rails. Stablecoin market capitalization exceeded $300 billion by late 2025, with USDT holding over 59% dominance at approximately $183 billion, underscoring their role as FX proxies in crypto ecosystems. Daily trading volumes for USD-pegged stablecoins hover around $30-40 billion, often involving pairs like USDT/EUR or USDT/BTC on decentralized exchanges, which correlate strongly with risk assets during market stress but represent less than 0.5% of the $9.6 trillion daily traditional turnover reported by the in April 2025. Futures contracts on crypto-FX pairs, such as CME Group's Bitcoin-dollar perpetuals, have grown but remain niche, with under $10 billion amid persistent liquidity gaps compared to spot FX markets. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) represent state-sanctioned alternatives, blending digital efficiency with monetary sovereignty; China's e-CNY (digital yuan) pilot, the largest globally, processed over 7 trillion yuan ($986 billion equivalent) in transactions by mid-2024, expanding into cross-border tests via mBridge with volumes reaching billions in multilateral settlements by 2025. These pilots promise frictionless transfers—settling in seconds versus days for traditional —yet face scalability hurdles, with e-CNY adoption still under 1% of China's cash supply due to and concerns. Despite efficiencies in low-cost, programmable transfers, cryptocurrencies' FX integration remains marginal, hampered by volatility, regulatory scrutiny, and illicit risks; reported $9.9 billion in scam losses for 2024, with over $2 billion stolen in hacks during the first half of 2025 alone, eroding trust in unregulated platforms. demands further complicate adoption, as mining consumed approximately 173 terawatt-hours annually in 2025—equivalent to the ' electricity use—with only 52% from renewables per estimates, prompting critiques of environmental unsustainability absent offsetting efficiency gains. Overall, while offering causal advantages in , empirical data shows cryptocurrencies denting traditional FX dominance minimally, confined by these empirical barriers rather than displacing core settlement infrastructures.

References

  1. https://www.bis.org/publ/work1094.pdf
  2. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/forex/f/foreign-exchange-markets.asp
  3. https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx25_fx.htm
  4. https://www.banxico.org.mx/markets/central-bank-surveys-of-foreign-exchange-and-deriv/%257BAD2EB8E3-502A-5705-6E63-B14B7C1867AD%257D.pdf
  5. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2024/01/towards-increasing-complexity-the-evolution-of-the-fx-market/
  6. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2025/september/bis-triennial-survey-of-foreign-exchange-and-over-the-counter-interest-rate-derivatives-markets
  7. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/yale_money-prices-markets.pdf
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23601882
  9. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/252472
  10. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/BILLEXCH.htm
  11. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589064232/ch04.xml
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057521903000322
  13. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/57199/1/Bell_Brooks_Moore_cambium_not_est_mutuum.pdf
  14. https://www.gold.org/history-gold/the-classical-gold-standard
  15. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html
  16. https://www.hardmoneyhistory.com/end-of-the-gold-standard/
  17. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-reserve-act
  18. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7186/w7186.pdf
  19. https://www.econlib.org/hyperinflation-in-germany-1921-1923/
  20. https://peif.conferences.wcfia.harvard.edu/file_url/216
  21. https://www.cato.org/blog/world-war-i-gold-great-depression
  22. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created
  23. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp
  24. https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1011/how-the-triffin-dilemma-affects-currencies.aspx
  25. https://www.clevelandfed.org/-/media/project/clevelandfedtenant/clevelandfedsite/publications/working-papers/2011/wp-1108-us-intervention-during-the-bretton-wood-era-1962-to-1973-pdf.pdf
  26. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24016/w24016.pdf
  27. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589061170/ch03.xml
  28. https://internationalecon.com/Finance/Fch100/F100-1.php
  29. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock
  30. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends
  31. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/smithsonian-agreement
  32. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/oil-shock-of-1973-74
  33. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5323/w5323.pdf
  34. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/floating-exchange-rates-after-ten-years/
  35. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w8529/w8529.pdf
  36. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1411.pdf
  37. https://www.statista.com/statistics/247328/activity-per-trading-day-on-the-global-currency-market/
  38. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plaza-accord.asp
  39. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bigbang.asp
  40. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/european-exchange-rate-mechanism.asp
  41. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/The-Financial-Crisis-and-Money-Market-Fund-Reform-40239
  42. https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/pov/artiklar/engelska/2022/220314/2022_1-understanding-the-foreign-exchange-market_en.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9356571/
  44. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/05/impacts-of-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-on-financial-market-conditions-and-resilience_a29d11b1/879c9322-en.pdf
  45. https://www.bis.org/press/p250930.htm
  46. https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202509304577/forex-trading-activity-jumps-as-us-tariffs-increase-volatility-bis-2025-triennial-fx-survey-says
  47. https://www.home.saxo/learn/guides/forex/the-major-forex-pairs
  48. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bis_bisstatistics-activity-7379427679663738880-6Bg5
  49. https://paxforex.org/forex-blog/should-you-trade-forex-during-christmas-and-new-year
  50. https://www.globalfxc.org/uploads/20201208_gfxc_overview_of_market_conditions.pdf
  51. https://www.forex.com/en-us/help-and-support/market-trading-hours/
  52. https://insights.exness.com/trading-basics/forex-public-holidays/
  53. https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx22_fx.htm
  54. https://www.imarcgroup.com/foreign-exchange-market
  55. https://www.bis.org/publ/mktc13.pdf
  56. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1912g.pdf
  57. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-07-07/wall-street-giants-replace-traders-with-algorithms-in-new-fx-era
  58. https://www.vtmarkets.com/learn/decoding-the-forex-dilemma-manual-trading-vs-algorithmic-trading/
  59. https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2006/february-223
  60. https://securities.cib.bnpparibas/foreign-exchange-market-benefits-of-cls/
  61. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/pp53_66_mb200301en.pdf
  62. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-fx/understanding-fx-quote-conventions.html
  63. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pip.asp
  64. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2024/topography-of-the-fx-derivatives-market-a-view-from-london.pdf
  65. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/08/3-market-system.asp
  66. https://www.forex.com/en-us/trading-guides/forex-market-hours/
  67. https://www.ig.com/en-ch/learn-to-trade/ig-academy/a-look-at-forex-trading-strategies/24-hour-forex-market
  68. https://blog.e8markets.com/articles/the-role-of-market-liquidity-in-forex-when-to-trade-and-when-to-wait
  69. https://www.currencytransfer.com/blog/expert-analysis/city-of-london-biggest-hub-for-currency-trading
  70. https://ig.ft.com/mapping-london-financial-centre/
  71. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/311338/1/1818067013.pdf
  72. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-international-role-of-the-u-s-dollar-2025-edition-20250718.html
  73. https://www.bis.org/publ/work889.pdf
  74. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sterilizedintervention.asp
  75. https://www.snb.ch/en/publications/communication/speeches/2015/ref_20150424_tjn
  76. https://www.bis.org/publ/work499.pdf
  77. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/display/book/9781484375686/ch004.pdf
  78. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/06/interbank.asp
  79. https://www.risk.net/markets/7959114/jp-morgan-leads-us-banks-fx-trading-revenues
  80. https://assets.euromoneydigital.com/7c/5a/f24e14794ee5af209a7ef82060e4/fx-results-2021-mag.pdf
  81. https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/rev_2025/data/rev25e04.pdf
  82. https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/12/1/61/1592230
  83. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1366947
  84. https://ryan-hawthorne.squarespace.com/s/Bank-Collusion-Review6.pdf
  85. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2011/the-use-of-foreign-exchange-markets-by-non-banks.pdf
  86. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/04/does-corporate-hedging-of-foreign-exchange-risk-affect-real-economic-activity/
  87. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2023/program/paper/9HK8f99r
  88. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1912f.pdf
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521922002058
  90. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3766727
  91. https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx22_fx.pdf
  92. https://economics.umbc.edu/files/2014/09/wp_09_116.pdf
  93. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/6/1/22
  94. https://brokerchooser.com/safety/leverage-margin-limits-eu
  95. https://www.dailyforex.com/forex-articles/maximum-leverage-in-the-us/228692
  96. https://brokerchooser.com/education/investing/cfd-intervention-new-regulations
  97. https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/forexfrauds
  98. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/030215/understand-peertopeer-foreign-currency-exchange.asp
  99. https://www.mx.com/blog/overseas-money-transfer-fintech/
  100. https://www.eccnet.eu/news/understanding-risks-online-forex-trading-platforms-consumers
  101. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Purchasing-Power-Parity-PPP
  102. https://www.economist.com/interactive/big-mac-index
  103. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2003/752/revision/ifdp752r.pdf
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1042443118302725
  105. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/10/14/how-countries-should-respond-to-the-strong-dollar
  106. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
  107. https://www.bis.org/publ/work143.pdf
  108. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5979/w5979.pdf
  109. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ifdp/files/ifdp1373.pdf
  110. https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/no-lehman-moment-currency-markets-after-brexit-vote
  111. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2022/number/3/article/sanctions-and-the-exchange-rate.html
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612322002410
  113. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/089533003772034916
  114. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Exchange_rates_and_interest_rates
  115. https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/460664/when-is-foreign-exchange-intervention-effective.pdf
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572308920300930
  117. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781484375686/ch004.xml
  118. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0048.pdf
  119. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2328848
  120. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269208
  121. https://www.bis.org/publ/work382.pdf
  122. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/024/2009/002/article-A007-en.xml
  123. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/593088
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1059056010000535
  125. https://journalofeconomicstructures.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40008-022-00270-y
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176521002081
  127. https://twu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/1e0f25a5-4cfe-4aa8-894c-e8ad5787eebc/download
  128. https://www.bis.org/statistics/triennialrep/2025survey_guidelinesturnover.pdf
  129. https://www.cls-group.com/media/mrgpmp2c/sringlobalfxoctober2016.pdf
  130. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/7386/ln1.pdf
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037843710400929X
  132. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/microsites/fxc/files/2022/BIS_2022_Triennial_Central_Bank_Survey.pdf
  133. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/microsites/fxc/files/annualreports/fxcar08.pdf
  134. https://www.cmegroup.com/articles/whitepapers/covered-interest-parity-implied-forward-foreign-exchange-swaps-cross-currency-basis-and-cme-estr-futures.html
  135. https://www.dailyforex.com/forex-articles/fx-swaps-vs-fx-forwards/209920
  136. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/covered-interest-rate-parity-cirp/
  137. https://www.financialexamhelp123.com/covered-interest-rate-parity-irp-pricing-currency-forwards/
  138. https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx19_fx.htm
  139. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612h.htm
  140. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2020/179/article-A001-en.xml
  141. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interestrateparity.asp
  142. https://www.bis.org/basel_framework/chapter/MAR/40.htm?inforce=20230101&published=20201126&tldate=20230202
  143. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/foreign-currency-swaps.asp
  144. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1055.pdf
  145. https://www.bis.org/statistics/rpfx22.htm
  146. https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/fx/g10/euro-fx.html
  147. https://www.orientfutures.com.sg/5-differences-between-etd-and-otc-derivatives/
  148. https://investor.cmegroup.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cme-group-reports-record-average-daily-volume-233-million
  149. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/volatility-smile/
  150. http://spekulant.com.pl/article/Volatility%2520Surface%2520Modeling/FX%2520options%2520and%2520Volatility%2520Smile.pdf
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612319302831
  152. https://hedgestar.com/single-post/2024/06/27/five-differences-between-otc-and-exchange-traded-derivatives/
  153. https://analystprep.com/cfa-level-1-exam/derivatives/derivatives-exchange-traded-otc/
  154. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1012f.pdf
  155. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1312g.htm
  156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1059056015001987
  157. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7317/w7317.pdf
  158. https://www.bis.org/publ/work405.pdf
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261560621001534
  160. https://rodneywhitecenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/0209.pdf
  161. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/8553/1/Price_discovery_in_the_foreign_exchange_market.pdf
  162. https://www.sfm.url.tw/php/Papers/CompletePaper/079-1894142865.pdf
  163. https://bw.bse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1420-file.pdf
  164. https://www.usbank.com/corporate-and-commercial-banking/insights/international/hedging/fx-risk-management-strategies.html
  165. https://convera.com/blog/risk-management/how-foreign-exchange-risk-works/
  166. https://sites.duke.edu/thefinregblog/2022/01/25/hedging-of-currency-exposures-lessons-for-sme-exporters-and-importers/
  167. https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/25802/FXHedging.pdf
  168. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200816/200816pap.pdf
  169. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/09/lane.htm
  170. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2017/dec/pdf/bu-1217-9-foreign-exchange-derivative-markets-in-asia.pdf
  171. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40swaps/documents/file/plstudy_03_cftc.pdf
  172. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr13.html
  173. https://quantpedia.com/fx-carry-value-momentum-strategies-over-their-200-year-history/
  174. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X12001353
  175. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386418106000346
  176. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=73941
  177. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349352277_Modelling_exchange_rate_volatility_using_GARCH_models
  178. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2212i.htm
  179. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr393.pdf
  180. https://www.bis.org/publ/work1229.pdf
  181. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/07/forex_leverage.asp
  182. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/var.asp
  183. https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/research-technical-papers/6rt02---forex-risk-measurement-and-evaluation-using-value-at-risk-%28bredin-and-hyde%29.pdf?sfvrsn=6
  184. https://trademakers.com/2023/06/15/cautionary-tales-of-poor-risk-management-4-the-2015-swiss-franc-shock/
  185. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/013015/why-switzerland-scrapped-euro.asp
  186. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.5661
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560611001732
  188. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/black-wednesday.asp
  189. https://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S84.pdf
  190. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp98130.pdf
  191. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/economists/pesenti/whatjapwor.p
  192. http://cms-content.bates.edu/prebuilt/glick_&_rose.pdf
  193. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/current_issues/ci20-2.pdf
  194. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/publications/wp/00-9.pdf
  195. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp0067.pdf
  196. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/20/banks-hit-by-record-57bn-fine-for-rigging-forex-markets
  197. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/global-banks-admit-guilt-in-forex-probe-fined-nearly-6-billion-idUSKBN0O50CQ/
  198. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2015/05/21/forex-barclays-citi-ubs-jpmorgan-online-chat-instant-messenger/
  199. https://fideres.com/fx-scandals-and-fines-market-manipulation/
  200. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7181-15
  201. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/cs/ip_21_6548
  202. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/eu-fines-barclays-rbs-hsbc-credit-suisse-344-mln-euros-forex-cartel-2021-12-02/
  203. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/tg1773
  204. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/03/dodd-frank-rules-impact-end-users-of-foreign-exchange-derivatives/
  205. https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/index.htm
  206. https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/PositionLimitsforDerivatives/index.htm
  207. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2021/10/a-summary-the-cftc-position-limits-compliance-deadline-of-january-2022
  208. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2020/11/cftc-finalizes-revised-rules-on-position-limits-for-futures-and-swaps
  209. https://www.esma.europa.eu/post-trading/clearing-obligation-and-risk-mitigation-techniques-under-emir
  210. https://www.esma.europa.eu/post-trading/clearing-thresholds
  211. https://fxtransparency.com/resources-and-regulations/
  212. https://www.pionline.com/article/20171211/PRINT/171219956/shadow-of-mifid-ii-is-falling-on-fx-trading-transparency
  213. https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.pdf
  214. https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/regulatory/regulatory_baseliiiimpactonthemm_en.pdf
  215. https://www.bis.org/publ/work836.pdf
  216. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/groups/pdf/omg/2017/201706/2017-06-22_Item2_MiFID_II_impact_for_the_FX_market.pdf?f0274ad6e5addda606b21b1a796ae993
  217. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378426621003058
  218. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD154.pdf
  219. https://www.bis.org/stats_triennial_surveys/index.htm
  220. https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/pot150714
  221. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24176/w24176.pdf
  222. https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000604016/A_deep_dive_into_the_impact_of_financial_regulatio.pdf
  223. https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150930
  224. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557759993/ch04.xml
  225. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-32815188
  226. https://www.aei.org/articles/markets-as-error-correction-processes/
  227. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589064218/ch02.xml
  228. https://cib.bnpparibas/algorithmic-trading-in-foreign-exchange-increasingly-sophisticated/
  229. https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/research-articles/role-high-frequency-traders-fx-markets
  230. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2212z.htm
  231. https://iongroup.com/blog/markets/how-ai-impacts-the-fx-market/
  232. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/15/artificial-intelligence-can-make-markets-more-efficient-and-more-volatile
  233. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319157824001046
  234. https://www.swift.com/news-events/press-releases/swift-add-blockchain-based-ledger-its-infrastructure-stack-groundbreaking-move-accelerate-and-scale-benefits-digital-finance
  235. https://www.ledgerinsights.com/swift-to-start-live-digital-asset-digital-currency-trials-in-2025/
  236. https://www.swift.com/news-events/news/swift-add-blockchain-based-ledger
  237. https://www.nomuraconnects.com/focused-thinking-posts/the-rise-of-algo-trading-in-fx-markets/
  238. https://www.bis.org/publ/mktc05.pdf
  239. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-02/yen-surge-algos-set-off-flash-crash-moves-in-currency-market
  240. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15020-w
  241. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/emerging-market-currencies-have-been-hammered-by-covid-19.html
  242. https://econofact.org/is-the-dollar-losing-its-edge
  243. https://topfx.com.sc/pt/daily-market-digest/forex/dollar-gains-strength-amid-russian-sanctions
  244. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2024/0521
  245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1703494923000403
  246. https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/analysis/forex-volatility-hits-15-year-high-as-geopolitical-tensions-reshape-currency-markets/
  247. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2025/html/ecb.blog20250205~44578cf53f.en.html
  248. https://www.oxan.com/insights/fed-cannot-match-ecb-rate-cuts-until-tariffs-settle/
  249. https://www.ainvest.com/news/navigating-inflation-central-bank-divergence-risks-opportunities-investors-2025-2509/
  250. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/November-2024-FX-Report.pdf
  251. https://www.litefinance.org/blog/analysts-opinions/eurusd-forecast-and-price-prediction/
  252. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1703494922000263
  253. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
  254. https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/
  255. https://defillama.com/stablecoins
  256. https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/web3-forex-trading-vs-traditional-forex-a-practical-comparison
  257. https://www.fx-markets.com/trading/7949657/do-bis-volumes-soar-past-the-trend
  258. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/
  259. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/07/15/a-2024-overview-of-the-e-cny-chinas-digital-yuan/
  260. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2025-crypto-crime-report-introduction/
  261. https://therecord.media/chainalysis-crypto-stolen-billions
  262. https://coinlaw.io/cryptocurrency-mining-energy-consumption-statistics/
  263. https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/currency/7973881/do-bis-volumes-soar-past-the-trend
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.