Lustig and Verdelhan (2007) argue that the excess returns to borrowing US dollars and lending in foreign currency “compensate US investors for taking on more US consumption growth risk,” yet the stochastic discount factor corresponding to their benchmark model is approximately uncorrelated with the returns they study. Hence, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that their model explains none of the cross sectional variation of the expected returns. Given this finding, and other evidence, I argue that the forward premium puzzle remains a puzzle. JEL: C58, E21, F31, G11, G12

[We study the properties of the carry trade, a currency speculation strategy in which an investor borrows low-interest-rate currencies and lends high-interest-rate currencies. This strategy generates payoffs that are on average large and uncorrelated with traditional risk factors. We argue that these payoffs reflect a peso problem. The underlying peso event features high values of the stochastic discount factor rather than very large negative payoffs.]

We study the properties of the carry trade, a currency speculation strategy in which an investor borrows low-interest-rate currencies and lends high-interest-rate currencies. This strategy generates payoffs that are on average large and uncorrelated with traditional risk factors. We argue that these payoffs reflect a peso problem. The underlying peso event features high values of the stochastic discount factor rather than very large negative payoffs.