Three times.
Figure 1: Ten year minus three month Treasury spread (blue), and ten year minus three month Treasury spread (blue). December observations pertain to 12/6 daily observation. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: Federal Reserve via FRED, NBER and author’s calculations.
That’s the title of an excellent review authored by two leading experts, Stijn Claessens and Ayhan Kose, that is required reading for anyone who wants to glean the implications of asset price movements for what’s going to happen in the real economy. From the conclusion:
Challenges to theoretical and empirical findings. The links between asset prices and activity differ from the predictions of standard models in a number of ways. First, asset prices are much more volatile than fundamentals would imply and can at times deviate, or at least appear to do so, from their predicted fundamental values. The term structure of interest rates is not fully consistent with the simple expectation hypothesis. Although exchange rates can be modelled as the present value of expected fundamentals, they appear to be overly volatile,
as is the case between equity prices and their underlying dividend streams (the puzzle of “excess volatility”). Moreover, macroeconomic and financial news seem to have an exaggerated effect on asset prices: equities, bonds and currencies overreact to news about cash flows and other fundamentals.
Taking place today, this is the fifth in the series, with topics this year on exchange rates and monetary policy, macroprudential policy, credit and business cycles (sponsored by UC Santa Cruz Economics, Santa Clara Economics, and Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, organization chaired by Helen Popper at SCU and Grace Weishi Gu at UCSC).
The website is here with links to papers, conference agenda here.
Not that I’m complaining. But seriously, it’s far past the “day one” of the new Administration when Donald Trump promised China would be declared a currency manipulator.
Today we are fortunate to present a guest contribution written by Alessandro Rebucci, Associate Professor, and Jiatao Liu, at the Carey School of Business at Johns Hopkins University.
Continue reading
Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A shorter version appeared in Project Syndicate on September 25th.
One of the ways economists have tried to estimate the effects of the Fed’s program of large-scale asset purchases (LSAP) is using event studies of how the market responds in the thirty minutes following Fed statements of changes in the program. Yesterday’s announcement from the Federal Reserve that it is starting a gradual process of reducing its balance sheet gives us one new data point for such efforts.
Continue reading
The market has apparently taken a dim view of the Administration’s ability to manage the debt ceiling issue. From Deutsche Bank (not online):
Truth be told, I am unsurprised.
The economy plugs along much as it did before the election, while the stock market hits new highs. What about other variables?
In a forthcoming paper (“The New Fama Puzzle”), coauthored with Matthieu Bussière (Banque de France), Laurent Ferrara (Banque de France), Jonas Heipertz (Paris School of Economics), we re-examine uncovered interest parity – the proposition that anticipated exchange rate changes should offset interest rate differentials. This is one of the most central concepts in international finance. At the same time, empirical validation of this concept has proven elusive. In fact, the failure of the joint hypothesis of uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) and rational expectations – sometimes termed the unbiasedness hypothesis – is one of the most robust empirical regularities in the literature. The most commonplace explanations – such as the existence of an exchange risk premium, which drives a wedge between forward rates and expected future spot rates – have little empirical verification.