Volatility Risk Pass-Through

We develop a novel measure of volatility pass-through to assess international propagation of output volatility shocks to macroeconomic aggregates, equity prices, and currencies. An increase in country’s output volatility is associated with a decrease in its output, consumption, and net exports. The average consumption pass-through is 50% (a 1% increase in output volatility increases consumption volatility by 0.5%) and it increases to 70% for shocks originating in smaller countries. The equity volatility pass-through is larger and in the order of 90%. A novel channel of risk sharing of volatility risks can explain our empirical findings.

PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND PRICE (IMPORTS, PRODUCERS AND CONSUMER) VOLATILITY OF SHALLOT IN PROBOLINGGO REGENCY

Changes in production, consumption, and import variables cause the price of shallots to fluctuate. A high and unpredictable price fluctuation increasing the volatility problem. This phenomenon gives results in risk, uncertainty and leading to a decline in the welfare of producers and consumers. Based on the description of the problems above, it is important to analyze price, production, import, and consumption volatility to determined the level of risk and uncertainty faced by producers and consumers. This study uses monthly secondary data (time series) on production, price, imports, and consumption of shallots in Probolinggo Regency, for seven years (2013-2019). The ARCH/GARCH method is used to analyze the volatility of prices, production and consumption. The results from the analysis are the production variable has a low level of volatility, the consumption and import prices have high-level volatility, producer price has low-level volatility, while consumer prices has-high level volatility. From the results means that the risks and uncertainties faced by producers in conducting shallot cultivation are low. While for the consumer means the risks and uncertainties in consuming shallots are high.

Lending Standards and Borrowing Premia in Unsecured Credit Markets

Using administrative data from Y-14M and Equifax, we find evidence for large spreads in excess of those implied by default risk in the U.S. unsecured credit market. These borrowing premia vary widely by borrower risk and imply a nearly flat relationship between loan prices and repayment probabilities, at odds with existing theories. To close this gap, we incorporate supply frictions – a tractably specified form of lending standards – into a model of unsecured credit with aggregate shocks. Our model matches the empirical incidence of both risk and borrowing premia. Both the level and incidence of borrowing premia shape individual and aggregate outcomes. Our baseline model with empirically consistent borrowing premia features 45% less total credit balances and 30% more default than a model with no such premia. In terms of dynamics, we estimate that lending standards were unchanged for low risk borrowers but tightened for high risk borrowers at the outset of Covid-19. Borrowing premia imply a smaller increase in credit usage in response to a negative shock, which this tightening reduced further. Since spreads on loans of all risk levels are countercyclical, all consumers use less unsecured credit for insurance over the cycle, leading to 60% higher relative consumption volatility than in a model with no borrowing premia.

The role of inventories for the propagation of aggregate fluctuations: lessons for Bulgaria (1999–2019)

PurposeIn this study, inventories are introduced as a productive input into a real-business-cycle (RBC) setup augmented with the government.Design/methodology/approachThe model is calibrated to Bulgarian data for the period 1999–2019. The quantitative importance of the presence of inventories is investigated.FindingsThe quantitative effect of inventories is found to be important: decreasing consumption volatility and increasing employment variability. Those results, however, are at the expense of decreasing wage volatility and increasing investment volatility, and generally worsening the contemporaneous correlations of the main variables with output.Originality/valueFluctuations in inventory levels matter for business cycle fluctuations in Bulgaria, which is a novel result. Still, there is a need for more research on the incorporation of inventories into RBC models to better fit the Bulgarian experience.

Reopening the debate on the relationship among remittances, household consumption stability and economic growth in emerging markets

PurposeThe impact of remittances on household consumption stability and economic growth is not quite clear. This paper attempts to reopen the debate on the relationship among these three variables. The current remittance literature suggests that a decrease in household consumption volatility, induced by remittances, automatically leads to economic growth. This paper challenges these arguments by stating that, under certain circumstances, there is no automatic relationship among remittances, household consumption stability and growth.Design/methodology/approachThe authors approach the question from the perspective of emerging Central, Eastern and Southeastern European (CESEE) countries. The authors use the two-step system generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator with the Windmeijer (2005) finite-sample correction. To test the existence of the possible non-linear effects of remittances on household consumption stability and economic growth, the authors use threshold regressions.FindingsThe authors find that remittances significantly reduce household consumption volatility. They exhibit a consumption-smoothing effect on recipient households. This stabilizing effect happens not through the preventive role of remittances, but rather through their compensatory role. Remittances produce a weaker stabilizing effect on household consumption when the remittance to GDP ratio of the recipient country is above the estimated threshold level of 4.5%. The authors also find that there is a negatively significant and linear impact of remittances on growth. There is no evidence to suggest that remittances can foster productive investment and therefore promote economic growth in CESEE countries, which means that: (1) the remittances cannot be treated as a source of funds to invest in human and physical capital and (2) the remittances are compensatory rather than profit-oriented.Originality/valueAs far as the authors are aware, this is the first study that investigates the impact of remittances on both household consumption stability and economic growth simultaneously.