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.
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信