The Unassuming Economist

From a new ECB working paper:

“The international finance literature has documented two important regularities in foreign exchange markets. First, there is ample evidence that, for developed countries, real exchange rates are reverting to the level implied by the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) theory. Second, for flexible currency regimes the adjustment process is mainly driven by the nominal exchange rate. At the same time most of the recent articles remain skeptical that one can outperform the random walk (RW) in nominal exchange rate forecasting.

In this paper we claim that the two above in-sample regularities of foreign exchange markets can be exploited to infer out-of-sample movements of major currency pairs. To prove this thesis we proceed as follows:

1. We begin by presenting robust (in-sample) evidence that, for major currency pairs, long-run PPP holds and that the nominal exchange rate is the main driver of this adjustment process.
2. We then evaluate a battery of models that aim to exploit these in-sample regularities for forecasting purposes. The winner of the forecasting race is a calibrated PPP model, which just assumes that the real exchange rate gradually returns to its sample mean, completing half of the adjustment in 3 years, and that the adjustment is only driven by the nominal exchange rate. This approach is so simple that it can be implemented even on the back of a napkin in two steps. Step 1 consists in calculating the initial real exchange rate misalignment with an eyeball estimate of what is the distance from the sample mean. Step 2 consists in recalling that, according to this model, one tenth of the required adjustment is achieved by the nominal exchange rate in the first 6 months, one fifth in one year, just over a third in two years and exactly half after 3 years.
3. We highlight that severe problems arise when attempting to carry out more sophisticated approaches, such as estimating the pace of mean reversion of the real exchange rate or forecasting relative inflation. Among the estimated approaches, we find that it is strongly preferable to rely on direct rather than multi-step iterative forecasting methods. We also find that models estimated with panel data techniques perform only marginally better than those based on individual currency pairs. This finding has bittersweet implications. On the negative side, estimated models encounter a second formidable competitor that, like the RW, bypasses the estimation error problem. On the positive side, the HL model is more acceptable than the RW from the perspective of economic theory.
4. This analysis highlights also that equilibrium exchange rate analysis matters. Simple measures of exchange rate disequilibria, not only signal economic imbalances, but also provide hints in which direction the exchange rate will go.

Our paper has an important message for policymakers. For advanced countries, it is better to rely on the concept of long-run PPP rather than on the RW.”

My new paper with Zidong An,  Joao Jalles, and Ricardo M. Sousa was just published in Journal of Forecasting:

“We used a panel of 29 advanced and emerging market countries to investigate whether the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO) fiscal forecasts add value in terms of forecast accuracy and information content, relative to private sector forecasts (from Consensus Economics). We find that: (i) WEO forecasts are not significantly less accurate than Consensus forecasts; (ii) WEO and Consensus forecasts tend to mutually encompass one another; and (iii) each source of forecasts appears to contain some information that is not embedded in the other source.”

A new paper finds that “policymakers’ value-added is greater when economic conditions are unfavorable or uncertain.” “[…] in certain circumstances, the value of the FOMC’s informational advantage and judgement-based adjustments to the staff forecasts is greater. The use of explicit formal models for quantitative macroeconomic forecasting proliferated in the 1960s, but forecasters typically adjust the model-based forecasts using their own judgment (Wallis, 1989). There is mixed evidence on the value of “judgmental adjustments,” which can introduce psychological biases but can also compensate for model limitations, and
may be especially valuable when economic events lack close historical precedents (McNees, 1990).”

A new Bloomberg post by Anchalee Worrachate and David Goodman says that: “While policy makers insist the global economy’s low-inflation expansion looks intact despite a first quarter slowdown, investors are presenting challenges. Rising bond yields, a jump in the price of oil beyond $70 a barrel, skittish stocks and cracks in credit could all end up undermining growth.” “The worry is that unless markets start buying into the more optimistic outlook, their pessimism will become self-fulfilling by causing consumers and companies to lose confidence and slow spending. The Bank for International Settlements warned last year that the next recession will perhaps be triggered by a financial cycle bust, mirroring the events of 2001 and 2008.”

This post also notes my research that “the optimism of analysts may be cold comfort to some investors. A 2014 study by Prakash Loungani of the International Monetary Fund found that not one of 49 recessions suffered around the world in 2009 had been predicted by the consensus of economists a year earlier.”

Continue reading here. My Vox post is available here. My new paper on forecasting recessions is available here.

From new Documentos CEDE by Erich Pinzón-Fuchs:

“Lawrence R. Klein was the father of macro-econometric modeling, the scientific practice that dominated macroeconomics throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Therefore, understanding how Klein developed his identity as a macro-econometrician and how he conceived and forged macro-econometric modeling at the same time, is essential to draw a clear picture of the origins and subsequent development of this scientific practice in the United States. To this aim, I focus on Klein’s early trajectory as a student of economics and as an economist (from 1938-1955), and I particularly examine the extent to which the people and institutions Klein encountered helped him shape his professional identity. Klein’s experience at places like Berkeley, MIT, Cowles, and the University of Michigan, as well as his early acquaintance with people such as Griffith Evans, Paul Samuelson, and Trygve Haavelmo were decisive in the formation of his idea on how econometrics, expert knowledge, mathematical rigor, and a specific institutional configuration should enter macro-econometric modeling. Although Klein’s identity defined some of the most important characteristics of this practice, by the end of the 1950s, macro-econometric modeling became a scientific practice independent of Klein’s enthusiasm and with a “life of its own,” ready to be further developed and adapted to specific contexts by the community of macroeconomists.”Picture from Nobelprize.org.