Time-Varying Uncertainty of the Federal Reserve's Output Gap Estimate

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Travis J. Berge

Abstract A factor stochastic volatility model estimates the common component to output gap estimates produced by the staff of the Federal Reserve, its time-varying volatility, and time-varying, horizon-specific forecast uncertainty. The output gap estimates are uncertain even well after the fact. Nevertheless, the common component is clearly procyclical, and positive innovations to the common component produce movements in macroeconomic variables consistent with an increase in aggregate demand. Heightened macroeconomic uncertainty, as measured by the common component's volatility, leads to persistently negative economic responses.

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (025) ◽  
pp. 1-58
Author(s):  
Travis J. Berge ◽  

A factor stochastic volatility model estimates the common component to estimates of the output gap produced by the staff of the Federal Reserve, its time-varying volatility, and time-varying, horizon-specific forecast uncertainty. Output gap estimates are very uncertain, even well after the fact, especially at business cycle turning points. However, the common component of the output gap estimates is clearly procyclical, and innovations to the common factor produce persistent positive effects on economic activity. Output gaps estimated by the Congressional Budget Office have very similar properties. Increased macroeconomic uncertainty, as measured by the common factor's volatility, leads to persistent negative responses in economic variables.


2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd E. Clark ◽  
Michael W. McCracken ◽  
Elmar Mertens

We estimate uncertainty measures for point forecasts obtained from survey data, pooling information embedded in observed forecast errors for different forecast horizons. To track time-varying uncertainty in the associated forecast errors, we derive a multiple-horizon specification of stochastic volatility. We apply our method to forecasts for various macroeconomic variables from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. Compared to simple variance approaches, our stochastic volatility model improves the accuracy of uncertainty measures for survey forecasts.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Dimpfl ◽  
Dalia Elshiaty

PurposeCryptocurrency markets are notoriously noisy, but not all markets might behave in the exact same way. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate which one of the cryptocurrency markets contributes the most to the common volatility component inherent in the market.Design/methodology/approachThe paper extracts each of the cryptocurrency's markets' latent volatility using a stochastic volatility model and, subsequently, models their dynamics in a fractionally cointegrated vector autoregressive model. The authors use the refinement of Lien and Shrestha (2009, J. Futures Mark) to come up with unique Hasbrouck (1995, J. Finance) information shares.FindingsThe authors’ findings indicate that Bitfinex is the leading market for Bitcoin and Ripple, while Bitstamp dominates for Ethereum and Litecoin. Based on the dominant market for each cryptocurrency, the authors find that the volatility of Bitcoin explains most of the volatility among the different cryptocurrencies.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ findings are limited by the availability of the cryptocurrency data. Apart from Bitcoin, the data series for the other cryptocurrencies are not long enough to ensure the precision of the authors’ estimates.Originality/valueTo date, only price discovery in cryptocurrencies has been studied and identified. This paper extends the current literature into the realm of volatility discovery. In addition, the authors propose a discrete version for the evolution of a markets fundamental volatility, extending the work of Dias et al. (2018).


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 281-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilios Babalos ◽  
Stavros Stavroyiannis ◽  
Rangan Gupta

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document