{"title":"劳巴赫和威廉姆斯对自然利率估计的计量经济学问题","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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.
Econometric Issues with Laubach and Williams’ Estimates of the Natural Rate of Interest
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.