Econ 240C
Post on 24-Jan-2016
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Econ 240C
Lecture 16
2
Part I. VAR
• Does the Federal Funds Rate Affect Capacity Utilization?
3
• The Federal Funds Rate is one of the principal monetary instruments of the Federal Reserve
• Does it affect the economy in “real terms”, as measured by capacity utilization
4
Preliminary Analysis
5The Time Series, Monthly, January 1967through May 2003
6Federal Funds Rate: July 1954-April 2007
7Capacity Utilization Manufacturing:
Jan. 1972- April 2007
8
65
70
75
80
85
90
75 80 85 90 95 00 05
CAPUMFG
0
5
10
15
20
75 80 85 90 95 00 05
FFR
January 1972 - April 2007
9Changes in FFR & Capacity Utilization
10Contemporaneous Correlation
11Dynamics: Cross-correlation
12In Levels
13In differences
14Granger Causality
15Granger Causality
16Granger Causality
17Granger Causality
18
Estimation of VAR
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Estimation Results
• OLS Estimation
• each series is positively autocorrelated– lags 1 and 24 for dcapu– lags 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, 16
• each series depends on the other– dcapu on dffr: negatively at lags 10, 12, 17, 21– dffr on dcapu: positively at lags 1, 2, 9, 10 and
negatively at lag 12
28Correlogram of DFFR
29Correlogram of DCAPU
30We Have Mutual Causality, But
We Already Knew That
DCAPU
DFFR
31
Interpretation
• We need help
• Rely on assumptions
32
What If
• What if there were a pure shock to dcapu– as in the primitive VAR, a shock that only
affects dcapu immediately
Primitive VAR
(1)dcapu(t) = dffr(t) +
dcapu(t-1) + dffr(t-1) + x(t)
+ edcapu(t)
(2) dffr(t) = dcapu(t) +
dcapu(t-1) + dffr(t-1) + x(t)
+ edffr(t)
34The Logic of What If• A shock, edffr , to dffr affects dffr immediately,
but if dcapu depends contemporaneously on dffr, then this shock will affect it immediately too
• so assume is zero, then dcapu depends only on its own shock, edcapu , first period
• But we are not dealing with the primitive, but have substituted out for the contemporaneous terms
• Consequently, the errors are no longer pure but have to be assumed pure
35
DCAPU
DFFR
shock
36Standard VAR
• dcapu(t) = (/(1- ) +[ (+ )/(1- )] dcapu(t-1) + [ (+ )/(1- )] dffr(t-1) + [(+ (1- )] x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))/(1- )
• But if we assume
• thendcapu(t) = + dcapu(t-1) + dffr(t-1) + x(t) + edcapu(t) +
37
• Note that dffr still depends on both shocks
• dffr(t) = (/(1- ) +[(+ )/(1- )] dcapu(t-1) + [ (+ )/(1- )] dffr(t-1) + [(+ (1- )] x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))/(1- )
• dffr(t) = (+[(+ ) dcapu(t-1) + (+ ) dffr(t-1) + (+ x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))
38
DCAPU
DFFR
shock
edcapu(t)
edffr(t)
Reality
39
DCAPU
DFFR
shock
edcapu(t)
edffr(t)
What If
40EVIEWS
41
42Interpretations• Response of dcapu to a shock in dcapu
– immediate and positive: autoregressive nature
• Response of dffr to a shock in dffr– immediate and positive: autoregressive nature
• Response of dcapu to a shock in dffr– starts at zero by assumption that – interpret as Fed having no impact on CAPU
• Response of dffr to a shock in dcapu– positive and then damps out– interpret as Fed raising FFR if CAPU rises
43
Change the Assumption Around
44
DCAPU
DFFR
shock
edcapu(t)
edffr(t)
What If
45Standard VAR• dffr(t) = (/(1- ) +[(+ )/(1-
)] dcapu(t-1) + [ (+ )/(1- )] dffr(t-1) + [(+ (1- )] x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))/(1- )
• if
• then, dffr(t) = dcapu(t-1) + dffr(t-1) + x(t) + edffr(t))
• but, dcapu(t) = ( + (+ ) dcapu(t-1) + [ (+ ) dffr(t-1) + [(+ x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))
46
47Interpretations• Response of dcapu to a shock in dcapu
– immediate and positive: autoregressive nature
• Response of dffr to a shock in dffr– immediate and positive: autoregressive nature
• Response of dcapu to a shock in dffr– is positive (not - ) initially but then damps to zero– interpret as Fed having no or little control of CAPU
• Response of dffr to a shock in dcapu– starts at zero by assumption that – interpret as Fed raising FFR if CAPU rises
48Conclusions• We come to the same model interpretation
and policy conclusions no matter what the ordering, i.e. no matter which assumption we use, or
• So, accept the analysis
49Understanding through Simulation
• We can not get back to the primitive fron the standard VAR, so we might as well simplify notation
• y(t) = (/(1- ) +[ (+ )/(1- )] y(t-1) + [ (+ )/(1- )] w(t-1) + [(+ (1- )] x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))/(1- )
• becomes y(t) = a1 + b11 y(t-1) + c11 w(t-1) + d1 x(t) + e1(t)
50
• And w(t) = (/(1- ) +[(+ )/(1- )] y(t-1) + [ (+ )/(1- )] w(t-1) + [(+ (1- )] x(t) + (edcapu(t) + edffr(t))/(1- )
• becomes w(t) = a2 + b21 y(t-1) + c21 w(t-1) + d2 x(t) + e2(t)
•
51
Numerical Example
y(t) = 0.7 y(t-1) + 0.2 w(t-1)+ e1(t)w(t) = 0.2 y(t-1) + 0.7 w(t-1) + e2(t)
where e1(t) = ey(t) + 0.8 ew(t)
e2(t) = ew(t)
52
• Generate ey(t) and ew(t) as white noise processes using nrnd and where ey(t) and ew(t) are independent. Scale ey(t) so that the variances of e1(t) and e2(t) are equal
– ey(t) = 0.6 *nrnd and
– ew(t) = nrnd (different nrnd)
• Note the correlation of e1(t) and e2(t) is 0.8
53
Analytical Solution Is Possible
• These numerical equations for y(t) and w(t) could be solved for y(t) as a distributed lag of e1(t) and a distributed lag of e2(t), or, equivalently, as a distributed lag of ey(t) and a distributed lag of ew(t)
• However, this is an example where simulation is easier
54Simulated Errors e1(t) and e2(t)
55Simulated Errors e1(t) and e2(t)
56Estimated Model
57
58
59
60
61
62
Y to shock in w
Calculated
0.8
0.76
0.70
Impact of a Shock in w on the Variable y: Impulse Response Function
Period
Imp
act
Mult
iplier
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Calculated
Simulated
Impact of shock in w on variable y
Impact of a Shock in y on the Variable y: Impulse Response Function
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period
Impac
t M
ultip
lier
Calculated
Simulated
top related