Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Content Type
      Content Type
      Clear All
      Content Type
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
459,972 result(s) for "INFLATION RATE"
Sort by:
Inflation Expectations, Real Rates, and Risk Premia: Evidence from Inflation Swaps
We develop a model of nominal and real bond yield curves that has four stochastic drivers but seven factors: three factors primarily determine the cross-section of yields, whereas four volatility factors solely determine risk premia. The model is estimated using nominal Treasury yields, survey inflation forecasts, and inflation swap rates and has attractive empirical properties. Time-varying volatility is particularly apparent in shortterm real rates and expected inflation. Also, we detail the different economic forces that drive short-and long-term real and inflation risk premia and provide evidence that Treasury inflation-protected securities were undervalued prior to 2004 and during the recent financial crisis.
The Model Confidence Set
This paper introduces the model confidence set (MCS) and applies it to the selection of models. A MCS is a set of models that is constructed such that it will contain the best model with a given level of confidence. The MCS is in this sense analogous to a confidence interval for a parameter. The MCS acknowledges the limitations of the data, such that uninformative data yield a MCS with many models, whereas informative data yield a MCS with only a few models. The MCS procedure does not assume that a particular model is the true model; in fact, the MCS procedure can be used to compare more general objects, beyond the comparison of models. We apply the MCS procedure to two empirical problems. First, we revisit the inflation forecasting problem posed by Stock and Watson (1999), and compute the MCS for their set of inflation forecasts. Second, we compare a number of Taylor rule regressions and determine the MCS of the best regression in terms of in-sample likelihood criteria.
Why Has U.S. Inflation Become Harder to Forecast?
We examine whether the U.S. rate of price inflation has become harder to forecast and, to the extent that it has, what changes in the inflation process have made it so. The main finding is that the univariate inflation process is well described by an unobserved component trend-cycle model with stochastic volatility or, equivalently, an integrated moving average process with time-varying parameters. This model explains a variety of recent univariate inflation forecasting puzzles and begins to explain some multivariate inflation forecasting puzzles as well.
Determinacy and Identification with Taylor Rules
The new-Keynesian, Taylor rule theory of inflation determination relies on explosive dynamics. By raising interest rates in response to inflation, the Fed induces ever-larger inflation, unless inflation jumps to one particular value on each date. However, economics does not rule out explosive inflation, so inflation remains indeterminate. Attempts to fix this problem assume that the government will choose to blow up the economy if alternative equilibria emerge, by following policies we usually consider impossible. The Taylor rule is not identified without unrealistic assumptions. Thus, Taylor rule regressions do not show that the Fed moved from “passive” to “active” policy in 1980.
MEASURING THE LEVEL AND UNCERTAINTY OF TREND INFLATION
Firmly anchored inflation expectations are widely viewed as playing a central role for the conduct of monetary policy. This paper presents estimates of trend inflation, based on information contained in monthly data on realized inflation, survey expectations, and the term structure of interest rates. In order to assess whether inflation expectations are anchored, a time-varying volatility of trend shocks is estimated as well. While there is some commonality in inflation- and survey-based estimates of trend inflation, yield-based trend estimates embed a highly persistent component orthogonal to trend inflation. Trimmed-mean inflation rates and survey forecasts are most indicative of trend inflation.
Real Wage Rigidities and the New Keynesian Model
Most central banks perceive a trade-off between stabilizing inflation and stabilizing the gap between output and desired output. However, the standard new Keynesian framework implies no such trade-off. In that framework, stabilizing inflation is equivalent to stabilizing the welfare-relevant output gap. In this paper, we argue that this property of the new Keynesian framework, which we call the divine coincidence, is due to a special feature of the model: the absence of nontrivial real imperfections. We focus on one such real imperfection, namely, real wage rigidities. When the baseline new Keynesian model is extended to allow for real wage rigidities, the divine coincidence disappears, and central banks indeed face a trade-off between stabilizing inflation and stabilizing the welfare-relevant output gap. We show that not only does the extended model have more realistic normative implications, but it also has appealing positive properties. In particular, it provides a natural interpretation for the dynamic inflation-unemployment relation found in the data.
Monetary Policy, Inflation Expectations and The Price Puzzle
This article re‐examines the VAR evidence on the price puzzle and proposes a new theoretical interpretation. Using actual data and two identification strategies based on zero restrictions and model‐consistent sign restrictions, we find that the positive response of prices to a monetary policy shock is historically limited to the sub‐samples that are typically associated with a weak interest rate response to inflation. Using pseudo data generated by a sticky price model of the US economy, we then show that the structural VARs are capable of reproducing the price puzzle only when monetary policy is passive. The omission in the VARs of a variable capturing expected inflation is found to account for the price puzzle observed in simulated and actual data.
How the World Achieved Consensus on Monetary Policy
The worldwide progress in monetary policy is a great achievement and, especially considering the situation 30 years ago, a remarkable success story. I describe how the world achieved a working consensus on the core principles of monetary policy by the late 1990s. I survey the muddled state of affairs in the 1970s, and then ask: What happened in Federal Reserve policy to produce an understanding of the practical principles of monetary policy? How did formal institutional support for targeting low inflation abroad follow from an international acceptance of these ideas? And how did a consensus theoretical model develop in academia? I explain how the modern theoretical consensus—known alternatively as the New Neoclassical Synthesis or the New Keynesian model of monetary policy—reinforces key advances: the priority for price stability; the targeting of core rather than headline inflation; the importance of credibility for low inflation; and preemptive interest rate policy supported by transparent objectives and procedures. Of course, a working consensus does not constitute complete agreement. Accordingly, the conclusion identifies important monetary policy issues that remain to be explored.
Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect
Most empirical evidence suggests that the Fisher effect, stating that inflation and nominal interest rates should cointegrate with a unit slope on inflation, does not hold, a finding at odds with many theoretical models. This paper argues that these results can be attributed in part to the low power of univariate tests, and that the use of panel data can generate more powerful tests. For this purpose, we propose two new panel cointegration tests that can be applied under very general conditions, and that are shown by simulation to be more powerful than other existing tests. These tests are applied to a panel of quarterly data covering 20 OECD countries between 1980 and 2004. The evidence suggest that the Fisher effect cannot be rejected once the panel evidence on cointegration has been taken into account.