Econometric Issues with Laubach and Williams’ Estimates of the Natural Rate of Interest

Daniel Bunčić
{"title":"Econometric Issues with Laubach and Williams’ Estimates of the Natural Rate of Interest","authors":"Daniel Bunčić","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3541959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Holston, Laubach and Williams' (2017) estimates of the natural rate of interest are driven by the downward trending behaviour of `other factor' $z_{t}$. I show that their implementation of Stock and Watson's (1998) Median Unbiased Estimation (MUE) to determine the size of $\\lambda_{z}$ is unsound. It cannot recover the ratio of interest $\\lambda _{z}=a_{r}\\sigma _{z}/\\sigma _{\\tilde{y}}$ from MUE required for the estimation of the full structural model. This failure is due to their Stage 2 model being incorrectly specified. More importantly, the MUE procedure that they implement spuriously amplifies the estimate of $\\lambda _{z}$. Using a simulation experiment, I show that their MUE procedure generates excessively large estimates of $\\lambda _{z}$ when applied to data simulated from a model where the true $\\lambda _{z}$ is equal to zero. Correcting their Stage 2 MUE procedure leads to a substantially smaller estimate of $\\lambda _{z}$, and a more subdued downward trending influence of `other factor' $z_{t}$ on the natural rate. This correction is quantitatively important. With everything else remaining the same in the model, the natural rate of interest is estimated to be 1.5% at the end of 2019:Q2; that is, three times the 0.5% estimate obtained from Holston et al.'s (2017) original Stage 2 MUE implementation. I also discuss various other issues that arise in their model of the natural rate that make it unsuitable for policy analysis.","PeriodicalId":11036,"journal":{"name":"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demand & Supply in Health Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3541959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Holston, Laubach and Williams' (2017) estimates of the natural rate of interest are driven by the downward trending behaviour of `other factor' $z_{t}$. I show that their implementation of Stock and Watson's (1998) Median Unbiased Estimation (MUE) to determine the size of $\lambda_{z}$ is unsound. It cannot recover the ratio of interest $\lambda _{z}=a_{r}\sigma _{z}/\sigma _{\tilde{y}}$ from MUE required for the estimation of the full structural model. This failure is due to their Stage 2 model being incorrectly specified. More importantly, the MUE procedure that they implement spuriously amplifies the estimate of $\lambda _{z}$. Using a simulation experiment, I show that their MUE procedure generates excessively large estimates of $\lambda _{z}$ when applied to data simulated from a model where the true $\lambda _{z}$ is equal to zero. Correcting their Stage 2 MUE procedure leads to a substantially smaller estimate of $\lambda _{z}$, and a more subdued downward trending influence of `other factor' $z_{t}$ on the natural rate. This correction is quantitatively important. With everything else remaining the same in the model, the natural rate of interest is estimated to be 1.5% at the end of 2019:Q2; that is, three times the 0.5% estimate obtained from Holston et al.'s (2017) original Stage 2 MUE implementation. I also discuss various other issues that arise in their model of the natural rate that make it unsuitable for policy analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
劳巴赫和威廉姆斯对自然利率估计的计量经济学问题
Holston, Laubach和Williams(2017)对自然利率的估计是由“其他因素”$z_{t}$的下降趋势行为驱动的。我表明,他们的实现股票和沃森(1998)的中位数无偏估计(MUE),以确定$\lambda_{z}$的大小是不健全的。它不能从估计全结构模型所需的MUE中恢复利息比$\lambda _{z}=a_{r}\sigma _{z}/\sigma _{\tilde{y}}$。这种失败是由于他们的阶段2模型被错误地指定。更重要的是,它们所执行的最大利用效率程序虚假地放大了$\lambda _{z}$的估计值。通过模拟实验,我表明,当应用于从真实的$\lambda _{z}$等于零的模型模拟的数据时,他们的MUE过程产生了过大的$\lambda _{z}$估计值。修正他们的第2阶段最大利用效率程序导致对$\lambda _{z}$的估计值大大减小,并且“其他因素”$z_{t}$对自然率的下降趋势影响更加减弱。这种修正在数量上很重要。在模型中其他因素保持不变的情况下,自然利率估计为1.5% at the end of 2019:Q2; that is, three times the 0.5% estimate obtained from Holston et al.'s (2017) original Stage 2 MUE implementation. I also discuss various other issues that arise in their model of the natural rate that make it unsuitable for policy analysis.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Procurement Institutions and Essential Drug Supply in Low and Middle-Income Countries Watching the Grass Grow: Does Recreational Cannabis Legalization Affect Labor Outcomes? Decomposition of Clinical Disparities with Machine Learning Economic Consequences of Hospital Closures The Price-Leverage Covariation as a Measure of the Response of the Leverage Effect To Price and Volatility Changes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1