The news article discusses a verbal intervention attempt from Suzuki regarding foreign exchange (FX) moves. Suzuki states that traders should not have a ‘defence line’ in dealing with these moves and that he won’t rule out any steps to respond to disorderly FX moves. He also mentions that he is closely watching FX moves with a high sense of urgency. However, Suzuki cannot specify a firm level for intervention as traders would test his resolve by taking the rate there. If Suzuki intervenes, the dip will be bought for another try, but if he doesn’t intervene, his threats will be seen as hollow.
Suzuki’s comments indicate that there is not much to be concerned about for traders. He emphasizes that having a fixed ‘defence line’ for dealing with FX moves is not productive. This suggests that traders should be flexible and adaptable in responding to such fluctuations. Suzuki also reassures that he is prepared to take steps to address disorderly FX moves if necessary. This implies that he is actively monitoring the situation and will not hesitate to intervene if the need arises. However, the article highlights the dilemma Suzuki faces in specifying a firm intervention level as traders may exploit this information.
In the world of foreign exchange, it appears to be a one-way street, where traders constantly test the resolve of policymakers. This reinforces the idea that Suzuki’s threats may be empty if he does not intervene. Traders are likely to continue pushing the rate towards the level at which Suzuki may intervene, creating a challenging situation for him. Overall, the article portrays Suzuki’s attempt to address FX moves verbally while highlighting the complexities and uncertainties surrounding actual intervention.