Upload
eesti-pank
View
53
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Kiss Me Deadly:From Finnish Great Depression to Great Recession
Adam Gulan Markus Haavio Juha KilponenBank of Finland1
April 10 2015
1The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the Bank of Finland
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Introduction
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Finnish Great Depression: Two stories
Real:
Collapse of Finnish-Soviet trade in 1991:and ToT reversalreinforced by labor market frictions“From Russia with Love”, Gorodnichenko et al., AER 2012(see also Tarkka, 1994)
Financial:
Finnish Great Depression was preceded by financialliberalization, asset price boom, credit boomasset price collapsesevere banking crisis and credit crunche.g. Vihriala, 1997, Honkapohja and Koskela, 1999
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Finnish Great Depression: Two stories
Real:
Collapse of Finnish-Soviet trade in 1991and ToT reversalreinforced by labor market frictions“From Russia with Love”, Gorodnichenko et al., AER 2012 (see also Tarkka, 1994)
Financial:
Finnish Great Depression was preceded by financialliberalization, asset price boom, credit boomasset price collapsesevere banking crisis and credit crunche.g. Vihriala, 1997, Honkapohja and Koskela, 1999
ECB-RESTRICTED
Exports to Russia / Finnish GDP
3.4.2014 Adam Gulan 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
%
ECB-RESTRICTED
Finnish GDP and exports to Russia,
change from a year earlier, million €2000
3.4.2014 Adam Gulan 2
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Exports to Russia GDP
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Finnish terms of trade, 1970-2010
Finnish real investments and real exports 1985-1996 (1985=100)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Investments Exports
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Finnish real exports 1980-2014 (1985=100)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
%
Finnish investments and exports 1985-2014, % change from a year earlierInvestments Exports
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
New bank loans issued, 1981-2000 (€2000, million)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Stock and house prices, 1985-1995 (1985=100)
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015-100
0
100%
New bank loans, change from a year earlier
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015-50
0
50
%
Real house prices, change from a year earlier
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015-100
0
100
%
Real stock prices, change from a year earlier
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Model specification
Estimate a partially identified SVAR(1) model of 9 variables
External block:- World trade (real total global imports)- Finnish ToT (price of exports over price of imports)- financial market stress indicator CISS (Hollo et al. 2012)New Keynesian block:- real GDP- inflation (GDP deflator)- interest rate spread (lending rate - 3m MM rate)Financial block:- asset prices (first PCA of stock and house prices)- new loan volumes (to nonfinancial private sector)- loan losses (total real losses of banks)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Model specification
Estimate a partially identified SVAR(1) model of 9 variables
External block:- World trade (real total global imports)- Finnish ToT (price of exports over price of imports)- financial market stress indicator CISS (Hollo et al. 2012)New Keynesian block:- real GDP- inflation (GDP deflator)- interest rate spread (lending rate - 3m MM rate)Financial block:- asset prices (first PCA of stock and house prices)- new loan volumes (to nonfinancial private sector)- loan losses (total real losses of banks)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Model specification
Estimate a partially identified SVAR(1) model of 9 variables
External block:- World trade (real total global imports)- Finnish ToT (price of exports over price of imports)- financial market stress indicator CISS (Hollo et al. 2012)New Keynesian block:- real GDP- inflation (GDP deflator)- interest rate spread (lending rate - 3m MM rate)Financial block:- asset prices (first PCA of stock and house prices)- new loan volumes (to nonfinancial private sector)- loan losses (total real losses of banks)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Model specification
Estimate a partially identified SVAR(1) model of 9 variables
External block:- World trade (real total global imports)- Finnish ToT (price of exports over price of imports)- financial market stress indicator CISS (Hollo et al. 2012)New Keynesian block:- real GDP- inflation (GDP deflator)- interest rate spread (lending rate - 3m MM rate)Financial block:- asset prices (first PCA of stock and house prices)- new loan volumes (to nonfinancial private sector)- loan losses (total real losses of banks)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Sign Restrictions - demand and supply
Shock type
Real Financial
Variable Demand Supply Asset price Loan supply
GDP + + + +
Inflation + – + ?
Stock prices + + + +
New loans + ? + +
Interest rate spread + ? – –
House prices + ? + +
Loan losses ? – – +
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Sign Restrictions - asset price shocks
Shock type
Real Financial
Variable Demand Supply Asset price Loan supply
GDP + + + +
Inflation + – + ?
Stock prices + + + +
New loans + ? + +
Interest rate spread + ? – –
House prices + ? + +
Loan losses ? – – +
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Sign Restrictions - domestic loan supply shocks
Shock type
Real Financial
Variable Demand Supply Asset price Loan supply
GDP + + + +
Inflation + – + ?
Stock prices + + + +
New loans + ? + +
Interest rate spread + ? – –
House prices + ? + +
Loan losses ? – – +
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Financial shocks
Asset price shock:
exuberance and bubbles (Bernanke and Gertler, 1999)
net worth shock (Bernanke and Gertler, 1989
risk shock (Christiano et al. 2014)
news about future TFP?(Christiano et al., 2010 vs Gilchrist and Leahy, 2002)
Loan supply shock:
changes in lending standards and regulatory environment
monitoring costs (De Fiore et al. 2011, Fuentes-Albero, 2014)
Which financial shocks matter?Bassett et al., 2010Helbling et al., 2011
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Partial identification
There are fewer identified domestic shocks (4) than domesticvariables (6)
Hence the model is partially identified: there are twounidentified shocks
Some shocks cannot be identified, given the set of variables,and the time range (e.g. monetary policy shocks)
More generally: the limitations of economic modelling
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - sign restrictions
Reduced-from VAR(1) model
yt = Ayt−1 + ut , ut ∼ N(0, Σ)
Structural shocks: linked to residuals through someidentification matrix W
ut = W εt , Σ = WW ′
Start with Cholesky decomposition on Σ
Σ = BB ′
where B is a lower triangular matrix
Draw some orthonormal matrix Q (such that QQ ′ = I )
Σ = BB ′ = BQQ ′B ′
so that W = BQ and ut = BQεt .
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - sign restrictions
Reduced-from VAR(1) model
yt = Ayt−1 + ut , ut ∼ N(0, Σ)
Structural shocks: linked to residuals through someidentification matrix W
ut = W εt , Σ = WW ′
Start with Cholesky decomposition on Σ
Σ = BB ′
where B is a lower triangular matrix
Draw some orthonormal matrix Q (such that QQ ′ = I )
Σ = BB ′ = BQQ ′B ′
so that W = BQ and ut = BQεt .
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - sign restrictions
Reduced-from VAR(1) model
yt = Ayt−1 + ut , ut ∼ N(0, Σ)
Structural shocks: linked to residuals through someidentification matrix W
ut = W εt , Σ = WW ′
Start with Cholesky decomposition on Σ
Σ = BB ′
where B is a lower triangular matrix
Draw some orthonormal matrix Q (such that QQ ′ = I )
Σ = BB ′ = BQQ ′B ′
so that W = BQ and ut = BQεt .
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - sign restrictions
Reduced-from VAR(1) model
yt = Ayt−1 + ut , ut ∼ N(0, Σ)
Structural shocks: linked to residuals through someidentification matrix W
ut = W εt , Σ = WW ′
Start with Cholesky decomposition on Σ
Σ = BB ′
where B is a lower triangular matrix
Draw some orthonormal matrix Q (such that QQ ′ = I )
Σ = BB ′ = BQQ ′B ′
so that W = BQ and ut = BQεt .
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks
et = B−1ut
where BB ′ = Σ and B is obtained by a the Choleskydecomposition
3 Draw an orthonormal rotation matrix Q, and produce analternative set of structural shocks
εt = Q ′et
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks
et = B−1ut
where BB′ = Σ and B is obtained by the Cholesky decomposition
3 Draw an orthonormal rotation matrix Q, and produce analternative set of structural shocks
εt = Q ′et
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks
et = B−1ut
where BB ′ = Σ and B is obtained by a the Choleskydecomposition
3 Draw an orthonormal rotation matrix Q, and produce analternative set of structural shocks
εt = Q ′et
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks et3 lternative set of structural shocks εt4 Let
W = BQ
The impulse responses to the structural shocks εt are given by
Φ0 = W (on impact, or period 0)
Φ1 = AW (period 1)...
Φj = AjW (period j)
5 If the impulse responses satisfy the sign restricitons, keep therotation matrix Q and the stuctural shocks εt . Otherwisediscard Q and the stuctural shocks εt .
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks et3 lternative set of structural shocks εt4 Let
W = BQ
The impulse responses to the structural shocks εt are given by
Φ0 = W (on impact, or period 0)
Φ1 = AW (period 1)...
Φj = AjW (period j)
5 If the impulse responses satisfy the sign restricitons, keep therotation matrix Q and the stuctural shocks εt . Otherwisediscard Q and the stuctural shocks εt .
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks et3 lternative set of structural shocks εt4 Let
W = BQ
The impulse responses to the structural shocks εt are given by
Φ0 = W (on impact, or period 0)
Φ1 = AW (period 1)...
Φj = AjW (period j)
5 If the impulse responses satisfy the sign restricitons, keep therotation matrix Q and the stuctural shocks εt . Otherwisediscard Q and the stuctural shocks εt .
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks et3 lternative set of structural shocks εt4 Let
W = BQ
The impulse responses to the structural shocks εt are given by
Φ0 = W (on impact, or period 0)
Φ1 = AW (period 1)...
Φj = AjW (period j)
5 If the impulse responses satisfy the sign restricitons, keep therotation matrix Q and the stuctural shocks εt . Otherwisediscard Q and the stuctural shocks εt .
The procedure step by step
1 Reduced form residuals ut2 Cholesky-based structural shocks et3 lternative set of structural shocks εt4 Let
W = BQ
The impulse responses to the structural shocks εt are given by
Φ0 = W (on impact, or period 0)
Φ1 = AW (period 1)...
Φj = AjW (period j)
5 If the impulse responses satisfy the sign restricitons, keep therotation matrix Q and the stuctural shocks εt . Otherwisediscard Q and the stuctural shocks εt .
The procedure step by step
We repeat the procedure N times
In our case, N = 8× 1010 (or 80 billion)
... and we get a certain number K of structural models (or Qmatrices) that satisfy all the sign restrictions (and theFry-Pagan filter)
In our case, K = 2700
Model selection
Which of the K structural models do we choose, when we tryto interprete Finnish business cycles, and economic crises?
We base model selection on the historical shock decomposition
Θt = ∑j
ΦjEt−j
where Et−j is matrix with εt−j on the diagonal (and zeroselsewhere)
The cumulative contribution of current and past structuralshocks to model variables
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - choosing the model
Each draw of Q gives rise to a different model and IRFs.
Keep only those draws of Q which satisfy sign restrictions.
Choosing the final model from all admissible candiates.Modification of Fry and Pagan, JEL, 2011Median historical decomposition:
x∗ = argminN
∑n=1
J
∑j=1
T
∑t=1+p
(θxn,j ,t − θn,j ,t)2
θxn,j ,t is normalized cummulative effect of shock j on variable nup to period t, obtained via vector MA representation,
θn,j ,t is the median over all model candidates.
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - choosing the model
Each draw of Q gives rise to a different model and IRFs.
Keep only those draws of Q which satisfy sign restrictions.
Choosing the final model from all admissible candiates.Modification of Fry and Pagan, JEL, 2011Median historical decomposition:
x∗ = argminN
∑n=1
J
∑j=1
T
∑t=1+p
(θxn,j ,t − θn,j ,t)2
θxn,j ,t is normalized cummulative effect of shock j on variable nup to period t, obtained via vector MA representation,
θn,j ,t is the median over all model candidates.
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - choosing the model
Each draw of Q gives rise to a different model and IRFs.
Keep only those draws of Q which satisfy sign restrictions.
Choosing the final model from all admissible candiates.Modification of Fry and Pagan, JEL, 2011Median historical decomposition:
x∗ = argminN
∑n=1
J
∑j=1
T
∑t=1+p
(θxn,j ,t − θn,j ,t)2
θxn,j ,t is normalized cummulative effect of shock j on variable nup to period t, obtained via vector MA representation,
θn,j ,t is the median over all model candidates.
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - choosing the model
Each draw of Q gives rise to a different model and IRFs.
Keep only those draws of Q which satisfy sign restrictions.
Choosing the final model from all admissible candiates.Modification of Fry and Pagan, JEL, 2011Median historical decomposition:
x∗ = argminN
∑n=1
J
∑j=1
T
∑t=1+p
(θxn,j ,t − θn,j ,t)2
θxn,j ,t is normalized cummulative effect of shock j on variable nup to period t, obtained via vector MA representation,
θn,j ,t is the median over all model candidates.
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Methodology - multiple shocks problem
To avoid contaminating identified shocks with unidentified ones,disregard all draws of Q for which unidentified shocks give rise tosame impulse response patterns as the identified ones.Then, all unidentifed shocks remain orthogonal to identified ones. + − ?
+ + ?+ + ?
W 1 ≡
+ − ++ + ++ + +
and W 2 ≡
+ − ++ + −+ + +
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Results
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
USSR vs financial crisis
USSR Finance
Peak (4Q 1989) - Trough (1Q 1993) 52.7% 41.7%Peak (4Q 1989) - Recovery (4Q 1996) 44.6% 40.6%
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Counterfactual - financial crisis was caused by the collapseof Soviet trade
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Historical decomposition of output growth
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
The role of external factors (World trade, ToT & Stress)
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
+ ...domestic real factors
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
+ ...domestic financial factors
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Counterfactual - domestic financial shocks andamplification
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Concluding remarks
“From Russia with Love” can explain at most half of FinnishGreat Depression.
Financial crisis started the depression and prolonged it Great recession was very different. Imported recession.No financial crisis in Finland. Initial financial conditions much more robust.
Large overall role of financial shocks, esp. related to loansupply and banking
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Impulse responses
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Positive asset price shock
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Positive loan supply shock
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Positive aggregate demand shock
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Positive aggregate supply shock
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Positive financial market stress shock
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Robustness
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Dropping the 2007-2008 financial crisis
Introduction Methodology Results Concluding remarks Impulse Responses Robustness
Dropping the Eurozone period