Upload
nathaniel-rich
View
20
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Discussion of „The Bond Premium in a DSGE Model with Long-Run Real and Nominal Risks”. David Vestin* Monetary and Economic Department * Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the BIS. 1. What does the paper do?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Discussion of „The Bond Premium in a DSGE Model with
Long-Run Real and Nominal Risks”
1
David Vestin*Monetary and Economic Department
* Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the BIS.
2
What does the paper do?
Examine the average size and time-varying properties of the term-premium in a DSGE model
3
How does the paper do it?
Extends the standard NK model with EZ preferences
Introduces two sources of long-run risk- inflation target- very persistent technology
4
What does the paper find?
EZ breaks the link between inter-temporal elasticity of consumption and risk aversion.
Can explain the size of the average term premium without sacrifice to fit of macro variables
Long-run risk allows reducing risk-aversion Model falls a bit short on explaining time variation in premia
5
Deserved Praise
This is a very good and important paper Bridges finance (endowment) approach and DSGE
successfully The minimum modification of the standard
framework is sure to be well received among large-scale modellers
6
Background: equity premium
Equity premium puzzle The high risk-aversion needed to fit the equity
premium generates a huge short term interest rate in the standard CRRA model
Reason: elasticity of substitution inverse of risk-aversion
Solution in that literature: EZ preferences
7
Background: finance approach
Assume a process for consumption that fits historical patterns
Assume a utility function that implies a ratio of marginal utilities over time, eg.E [(Ct+1/Ct)
-g(Mt+1-Rt+1)]=0
Use data on M and the assumed process to find g
8
DSGE: Lucas critique?
When we vary utility function parameters, the implied behaviour for consumption should also change!
Indeed, an early DSGE result was that if you increase risk-aversion and reduce el. of substitution then consumption became „too smooth“.
Well, depends on what we want to do. If we only want to recover preferences, we should be fine since history is given...
9
Some issues
What kind of time variation do we want? Hard to assess if implied risk-aversion is “plausible” Where to go from here?
10
The three facts
The term-structure is upward-sloping on average Long-term bond yields are about as volatile as
short ones There seems to be time-variation in the way the
expectations hypothesis fails
11
Long-term bond yields
Long yield = E(average short yield) + “premia” A model explaining changes in long-rates could
can rely on1. changing expectations about the future short2. change premia
Need very persistent “factors” to affect long-end CS regressions tells us that the expectations
hypothesis does not hold – hence 1 must be supplemented by 2
12
10Y Risk-premia (Kim and Wright)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Kolumn A
13
Forward rates: 10Y and 1Y (Kim and Wright)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
Changes in interest rates and premia
-0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
15
Suggestions
Decompose your forward-yields and show how much of the movement at various maturities are explained by changes in expectations vs. changes in premia
Relate this to Kim and Wright Decompose real and nominal term-premia:
important because the long-run inflation premia is substantial (will affect BEIRs...)
16
Issues: plausibility of risk-aversion
In the standard model, risk-aversion equals the inverse of the elasticity substitution. Hence, high risk-aversion means low willingness to substitute over time.
One take is to view plausibility on the basis of counterfactual implications: in old model, high gamma meant too low substitution – hence implausible
New model circumvents this by breaking the link - but maintains the high risk aversion
17
Implications of EZ
First-order approximation is unaffected Higher order have (possibly) implications for
1. dynamics2. risk premia
If effect on 1 is negligable, then risk-aversion can be selected to fit one risk-premium (authors focus on the 10Y term premium)
Would be interesting to see several yields, to see if all premia are fitted as well with that value. Would also be interesting to see how the reported value fares with equity returns (using the reduced form of the model, the pricing kernel and returns data – rather than computing endogenous stock returns!)
18
Implications Modelling macrodynamics: this is perfect! We fit bond yields and can hence discuss and
relate market expectations to economic fundamentals
Zero cost in terms of loss of performance of the macro part of the model
Does the latter mean that there are no macro-implications? No: once we consider counter-factual (in particular optimal) monetary policy...
Also: steady state effects... in particular if there is capital
19
Assessing the high risk-aversion Consumption gamble: 1% rise or fall with 50-50 chance What certain level of consumption is equivalent in terms of u?
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 00 .6 5
0 .7
0 .7 5
0 .8
0 .8 5
0 .9
0 .9 5
1
R elative risk -avers ion
Con
sum
ptio
n eq
uiva
lent
20
Assessing the high risk-aversion
Suggestion: Calculate a measure of how much the consumer is willing to give up to eliminate the uncertainty more generally
For example, a „Lucas calculation“ of the cost of business cycle fluctuations.
Tallerini, 2000, finds very large costs in his model when risk is high.
21
Assessing the high risk-aversion
This points out that if our models are unable to price risky assets, they may be inappropriate for welfare analysis
Negative: people with very strong priors on these costs (based on good or bad evidence) will not find explanations based on “too-high” risk-aversion acceptable.
But then again, it takes a model to beat a model...
22
Where to go from here?
Think about the role of bonds and different maturities. Think about implications for optimal monetary policy Size of the commitment problem Etc...
23
No debt Complete markets ensures that the type of assets
does not matter Once model is solved, anything can be priced, but
there is no intrinsic role for difference in maturity Could be especially special here: If long-rates
matters directly, risk-premia would affect dynamics... and hence possibly break the convenient independence of dynamics from risk aversion.
Would introduce the maturity-transforming role of banks/FIs that are at the hart of the current crisis
24
Wrapping up Again: Very nice paper Opens a host of interesting issues that will keep us
occupied