Menu Expand

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style

Menkhoff, L. Zur deutschen Position im internationalen Devisenhandel: Starke Währung, schwacher Standort. Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, 28(3), 431-454. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.28.3.431
Menkhoff, Lukas "Zur deutschen Position im internationalen Devisenhandel: Starke Währung, schwacher Standort" Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital 28.3, 1995, 431-454. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.28.3.431
Menkhoff, Lukas (1995): Zur deutschen Position im internationalen Devisenhandel: Starke Währung, schwacher Standort, in: Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, vol. 28, iss. 3, 431-454, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.28.3.431

Format

Zur deutschen Position im internationalen Devisenhandel: Starke Währung, schwacher Standort

Menkhoff, Lukas

Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, Vol. 28 (1995), Iss. 3 : pp. 431–454

Additional Information

Article Details

Author Details

Lukas Menkhoff, Freiburg und Bangkok

References

  1. Balzer, Arno (1994): Spiel ohne Grenzen, in: Manager Magazin, H. 5, S. 120 -133.  Google Scholar
  2. BIS (Bank for International Settlements) (1993): Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange Market Activity in April 1992, Basle.  Google Scholar
  3. Blattner, Niklaus (1992): Competitiveness in Banking: Selected Recent Contributions and Research Priorities, in: Blattner, Niklaus et al. (1992), S. 9 - 39.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Germany's Position in International Foreign Exchange Dealings: Strong Currency, Weak Business Location

Since the current stock-taking of foreign-exchange market operations by the Bank for International Settlements includes also those of the Deutsche Bundesbank for the first time, it allows a more accurate classification of the German position. Whilst disaggregated analyses testify to the strength of the D-mark as the second most important currency in foreign-exchange dealings, Germany’s rank as a business location rather is a more intermediate one among the countries competing as locations for doing business; this represents a conspicuous disparity. This contribution discusses four hypotheses in an attempt to find explanations for this weakness; the one suggesting deliberate reluctance in doing business is the least convincing among these hypotheses. Insufficient demand, regulatory impediments and weaknesses in bidders’ competitiveness, by contrast, represent more plausible explanations.