Central bank losses and monetary policy rules: a DSGE investigation

Similar documents
Central bank losses and monetary policy rules: a DSGE investigation

Monetary Rule, Central Bank Loss and Household s Welfare: an Empirical Investigation *

NOMINAL INCOME VERSUS TAYLOR- TYPE RULES IN PRACTICE RESEARCH CENTER JONATHAN BENCHIMOL, ANDRÉ FOURÇANS ESSEC WORKING PAPER 1610

Money and monetary policy in the Eurozone: an empirical analysis during crises

Money and monetary policy in Israel during the last decade

Taylor Rule and Macroeconomic Performance: The Case of Pakistan

Lecture 23 The New Keynesian Model Labor Flows and Unemployment. Noah Williams

Oil and macroeconomic (in)stability

MA Advanced Macroeconomics: 11. The Smets-Wouters Model

Optimality of Inflation and Nominal Output Targeting

Comment. The New Keynesian Model and Excess Inflation Volatility

Inflation in the Great Recession and New Keynesian Models

Formulation, Estimation and Policy Analysis in DSGE Models with Financial Frictions. Lawrence Christiano

Discussion of DSGE Models for Monetary Policy. Discussion of

CPI Inflation Targeting and the UIP Puzzle: An Appraisal of Instrument and Target Rules

Teaching Inflation Targeting: An Analysis for Intermediate Macro. Carl E. Walsh * First draft: September 2000 This draft: July 2001

Phillips Curve Instability and Optimal Monetary Policy

Commentary: Challenges for Monetary Policy: New and Old

Monetary policy and the asset risk-taking channel

Cheers to the Good Health of the US Short-Run Phillips Curve

TFP Persistence and Monetary Policy. NBS, April 27, / 44

On the new Keynesian model

Multistep prediction error decomposition in DSGE models: estimation and forecast performance

The Welfare Consequences of Nominal GDP Targeting

Real Business Cycle Model

EE 631: MONETARY ECONOMICS 2 nd Semester 2013

Real-Time DSGE Model Density Forecasts During the Great Recession - A Post Mortem

Outline. 1. Overall Impression. 2. Summary. Discussion of. Volker Wieland. Congratulations!

Learning and Time-Varying Macroeconomic Volatility

The bank lending channel in monetary transmission in the euro area:

Modern DSGE models: Theory and evidence DISCUSSION OF H. UHLIG S AND M. EICHENBAUM S PRESENTATIONS

Liquidity Matters: Money Non-Redundancy in the Euro Area Business Cycle

Evaluating Policy Feedback Rules using the Joint Density Function of a Stochastic Model

Output Gaps and Robust Monetary Policy Rules

Global Monetary and Financial Stability Policy. Fall 2012 Professor Zvi Eckstein FNCE 893/393

Unemployment Fluctuations and Nominal GDP Targeting

Economic stability through narrow measures of inflation

Macroeconomics for Finance

Commentary: Using models for monetary policy. analysis

Monetary and Fiscal Policy

Dual Wage Rigidities: Theory and Some Evidence

Exercises on the New-Keynesian Model

Interest Rate Smoothing and Calvo-Type Interest Rate Rules: A Comment on Levine, McAdam, and Pearlman (2007)

Macroeconomic Effects of Financial Shocks: Comment

Comment on: The zero-interest-rate bound and the role of the exchange rate for. monetary policy in Japan. Carl E. Walsh *

Choice of Monetary Policy Instrument under Targeting Regimes in a Simple Stochastic Macro Model. Mr. Haider Ali Dr. Eatzaz Ahmad

Macroprudential Policies in a Low Interest-Rate Environment

Discussion of Monetary Policy, the Financial Cycle, and Ultra-Low Interest Rates

Technology shocks and Monetary Policy: Assessing the Fed s performance

Data Dependence and U.S. Monetary Policy. Remarks by. Richard H. Clarida. Vice Chairman. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

The New Keynesian Approach to Monetary Policy Analysis: Lessons and New Directions

Using Monetary Policy Rules in Emerging Market Economies * John B. Taylor. Stanford University. December (Revised)

Semester 2013/2014 Monetary Policy under Uncertainty Alfred V Guender

State-Dependent Pricing and the Paradox of Flexibility

TOPICS IN MACROECONOMICS: MODELLING INFORMATION, LEARNING AND EXPECTATIONS LECTURE NOTES. Lucas Island Model

AN2018/11. Punnoose Jacob and Amber Wadsworth. November Reserve Bank of New Zealand Analytical Note Series ISSN

Shocks, frictions and monetary policy Frank Smets

The Bank of England s forecasting platform

Analysis of DSGE Models. Lawrence Christiano

Output Gap, Monetary Policy Trade-Offs and Financial Frictions

Monetary and Fiscal Policy Switching with Time-Varying Volatilities

Monetary policy regime formalization: instrumental rules

The science of monetary policy

Chapter 22. Modern Business Cycle Theory

Monetary Policy Trade-offs in the Open Economy

Can a Time-Varying Equilibrium Real Interest Rate Explain the Excess Sensitivity Puzzle?

An Empirical Analysis of the Monetary Policy Reaction Function

Not-for-Publication Appendix to:

Optimal Monetary Policy Instrument in Setting Monetary Policy Reaction Function in Nigeria

1 Explaining Labor Market Volatility

Monetary Policy and Stock Market Boom-Bust Cycles by L. Christiano, C. Ilut, R. Motto, and M. Rostagno

ECON MACROECONOMIC THEORY Instructor: Dr. Juergen Jung Towson University

Self-fulfilling Recessions at the ZLB

Conditional versus Unconditional Utility as Welfare Criterion: Two Examples

Examining the Bond Premium Puzzle in a DSGE Model

Equilibrium Yield Curve, Phillips Correlation, and Monetary Policy

Endogenous Money or Sticky Wages: A Bayesian Approach

Teaching Inflation Targeting: An Analysis for Intermediate Macro. Carl E. Walsh * September 2000

Principles of Banking (III): Macroeconomics of Banking (1) Introduction

The Natural Rate. R- Star: The Natural Rate and Its Role in Monetary Policy CHAPTER TWO WHAT IS R- STAR AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Discussion of. An Estimated Two-Country DSGE Model for the Euro Area and the US Economy. by Gregory de Walque, Frank Smets and Raf Wouters

The Implications for Fiscal Policy Considering Rule-of-Thumb Consumers in the New Keynesian Model for Romania

Effects of Optimal Monetary Policy Rules on Welfare in a Small Open Economy: A Simulation Analysis

Misspecification, Identification or Measurement? Another Look at the Price Puzzle

COMMENTS ON MONETARY POLICY UNDER UNCERTAINTY IN MICRO-FOUNDED MACROECONOMETRIC MODELS, BY A. LEVIN, A. ONATSKI, J. WILLIAMS AND N.

Estimating Output Gap in the Czech Republic: DSGE Approach

Output gap uncertainty: Does it matter for the Taylor rule? *

Chapter 9, section 3 from the 3rd edition: Policy Coordination

THE POLICY RULE MIX: A MACROECONOMIC POLICY EVALUATION. John B. Taylor Stanford University

The Reset Inflation Puzzle and the Heterogeneity in Price Stickiness

Optimal Monetary Policy Rules and House Prices: The Role of Financial Frictions

Monetary Policy Analysis. Bennett T. McCallum* Carnegie Mellon University. and. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Microfoundation of Inflation Persistence of a New Keynesian Phillips Curve

The new Kenesian model

Reforms in a Debt Overhang

Capital Controls and Optimal Chinese Monetary Policy 1

Global Monetary and Financial Stability Policy

Surprising Comparative Properties of Monetary Models: Results from a New Monetary Model Database

Escaping the Great Recession 1

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES MONETARY POLICY TRADE-OFFS IN AN ESTIMATED OPEN-ECONOMY DSGE MODEL

Transcription:

Central bank losses and monetary policy rules: a DSGE investigation Western Economic Association International Keio University, Tokyo, 21-24 March 219. Jonathan Benchimol 1 and André Fourçans 2 This presentation does not necessarily reflect the views of the Bank of Israel March 21, 219 1 Bank of Israel 2 ESSEC Business School and THEMA Jonathan Benchimol ESSEC Business School and THEMA

Questions Literature Findings The issues Rules vs discretion in monetary policy. Rules for academics, uncertain for policy makers. Debates held during the 7s-8s put forward more or less nominal income targeting concepts, even if they were not presented as such. 3 The consensus with respect to Taylor (1993) rules increased during the last two decades. 4 Criticism towards such Taylor-type rules also increased, 5 especially over the GFC. 6 Could nominal income targeting be a better way to achieve the central banks objectives? 3 Friedman, 1971; Meade, 1978; McCallum, 1973, 1987. 4 Bernanke & Mishkin, 1997; Svensson, 1999; Taylor, 1999. 5 Hall & Mankiw, 1994; Frankel & Chinn, 1995; McCallum and Nelson, 1999. 6 Hendrickson, 212; Woodford, 212; Frankel, 214; Sumner, 214, 215; McCallum, 215. 2 / 27

Questions Literature Findings Research Issues In it s post "MacroMania on Nominal GDP Targeting and the Taylor Rule", John Taylor suggested that: 7 different monetary proposals and rules "should be compared and evaluated". to simulate them in macro models "hopefully dynamic stochastic models" is "a good way to compare and evaluate different monetary proposals and rules". "the dynamics are so important and so hard to work through intuitively, empirical models can help a lot". "more policy evaluation research on the new and different proposals is needed to inform the policy discussion, and it is certainly welcome in my view". 7 EconomicsOne.com, Sept. 8, 213. 3 / 27

Questions Literature Findings Literature review Meade, 1978. The meaning of internal balance. Economic Journal. Taylor, 1993. Discretion versus policy rules in practice. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy. Frankel and Chinn, 1995. The stabilizing properties of a nominal GNP rule. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. Rudebusch, 22. Assessing nominal income rules for monetary policy with model and data uncertainty. Economic Journal. Smets and Wouters, 27. Shocks and frictions in US business cycles: a Bayesian DSGE approach. American Economic Review. Galí, 215. Monetary policy, inflation and the business cycle: an introduction to the New Keynesian framework. Princeton University Press. 4 / 27

Questions Literature Findings What do we do? Evaluate various monetary rules and their consequences in terms of CBs objectives. Use of canonical SW27 New-Keynesian DSGE model fitted to the US. Empirical analysis of 12 rules (4 Taylor type, 4 NGDP growth type, 4 NGDP level type). Bayesian estimations over 1955-217 and various subsamples. 3 subsamples with different environments and monetary policy styles: 1955-1985; 1985-27; 27-217. Estimations and analysis of models leading to: monetary rules parameters; in-sample fits; CB s loss function (current and forecasted). 5 / 27

Questions Literature Findings Research questions Which monetary policy rule best: fits US historical data? in terms of Fed s loss function? in terms of forecasted Fed s loss function? May one single rule fit all these requirements? And when? 6 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations Smets and Wouters (27) in a nutshell Sticky and flexible-price economy. Households, firms, and central bank blocks. sticky-prices and wages. Capital and investment features. Rich stochastic structure: technology, monetary policy, markups (wages and prices), risk premium, investment, and government spending. One ad-hoc monetary policy rule. 7 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations Sources 1 Smets and Wouters (27) 2 Taylor (1993) 3 Gali (215) 4 Garin,Lester, and Sims (216) 5 Adapted NGDP Growth Targeting 6 NGDP Growth + FPC Targeting 7 NGDP Growth + NIR Targeting 8 NGDP Growth Targeting 9 Adapted NGDP Level Targeting 1 NGDP Level + FPC Targeting 11 NGDP Level + NIR Targeting 12 NGDP Level Targeting 8 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations 1: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r π π t + r y (y t y p t )] + r y ( y t y p t ) + ε r t 2: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r π π t + r y (y t y p t )] + ε r t 3: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r t + r π π t + r y (y t y p t )] + ε r t 4: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r π π t + r y y t ] + ε r t 5: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (π t + y t y p t )] + r y ( y t y p t ) + ε r t 6: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (π t + y t y p t )] + ε r t 7: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r t + r n (π t + y t y p t )] + ε r t 8: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (π t + y t )] + ε r t 9: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (p t + y t y p t )] + r y ( y t y p t ) + ε r t 1: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (p t + y t y p t )] + ε r t 11: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r t + r n (p t + y t y p t )] + ε r t 12: r t = ρr t 1 + (1 ρ) [r n (p t + y t )] + ε r t 9 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations Why these rules? Our Taylor-type rules are based on: Rule ( 1: Rule 2 + output-gap growth component yt yt p ). Rule ( 2: Taylor (1993) with a microfounded output gap yt yt p ). Rule 3: Rule 2 with a natural interest rate component (rt ). Rule 4: a GDP growth targeting without flexible-price economy unknowns (NIR and FPC). Our NGDP Growth rules replace the core functions of the previous rules with a NGDP growth targeting function (rules 5 to 8). Our NGDP Level rules replace the core functions of the previous rules with a NGDP level targeting function (rules 9 to 12). 1 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations Data As in Smets-Wouters (27), we use the following time series extracted from FRED R : Real Gross Domestic Product. Implicit Price Deflator. Personal Consumption Expenditures. Fixed Private Investment. Civilian Employment. Civilian Non institutional Population. Average Weekly Hours from Nonfarm Business Sector. Compensation Per Hour from Nonfarm Business Sector. Effective Federal Funds Rate. Wu-Xia (216) shadow rate from 29Q2 to 215Q4; Fed funds otherwise. For each sample, we use the same data-transformations as in Smets-Wouters (27). 11 / 27

Smets and Wouters (27) Monetary policy rules Explanations Samples For each model, estimations are done over 4 different periods: Full sample: 1955 217. GFC/ZLB era: 27 217. Discretionary era: 1955 1985. GM era: 1985 27. Our estimation procedures are in line with the DSGE-Bayesian estimation literature (Smets and Wouters, 27; An and Schorfheide, 27). 12 / 27

1 1955 217 1 27 217 1 1985 27 1 1955 1985.5.5.5.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 Monetary policy rule parameter values for each model (1 to 12).

Parameters and fitting Assessment Rules parameter values In line with literature when exists. Values vary through time and rules. Comparison GFC/ZLB with GM: less emphasis on inflation, a bit more emphasis on output. But not clear. 14 / 27

Parameters and fitting Assessment In-sample fit Sample Rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 1955-217 -1491-1515 -1512-151 -1464* -1481-1488 -1514-1563 -162-1556 -1548 27-217 -269-27 -285-285 -37-38 -283-32 -258-262 -278-254* 1985-27 -386-428 -48-46 -46-44 -396-41 -393-395 -45-383* 1955-1985 -817* -824-835 -84-84 -855-837 -842-844 -846-863 -853 Table: Log marginal data densities for each model and each period (Laplace approximation). * indicates the best value for each period. For each period a different rule, but rule 12 twice. Suggests that the Fed may have changed strategy during the GM compared to before 1985, from Taylor type to NGDP level targeting. 15 / 27

Parameters and fitting Assessment Central bank s loss Our general central bank loss function is defined such as L t = var (π t ) + λ y var (y t y p t ) + λ r var ( r t ) + λ w var (w t ) where var (.) is the variance operator, and k = {y, r, w}, λ k represents the weight on the respective variance. π t is price-inflation, y t yt p the output-gap, r t nominal interest rate differential, and w t wage-inflation. 16 / 27

1955 217 27 217 1985 27 1955 1985.4.4.4.4.3.3.3.3.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112.4.4.4.4.2.2.2.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112.15.15.15.15.1.1.1.1.5.5.5.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112.6.6.6.6.4.4.4.4.2.2.2.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11112 Estimated variances for each period and each rule.

Parameters and fitting Assessment Specific variances All variances smaller during GM and GFC/ZLB. Note: low level of output gap volatility during GCF/ZLB and GM. 18 / 27

25.1 34.1 43. 27.8 36.7 45.6 3.5 39.4 48.3 37.1 46. 54.9 39.8 48.7 57.6 42.5 51.4 6.3 49.1 58. 66.9 51.7 6.6 69.5 54.4 63.3 72.2 24.1 28.4 32.7 27.4 31.7 36. 3.7 35. 39.3 56.6 6.9 65.2 59.9 64.2 68.5 63.2 67.5 71.8 89. 93.3 97.6 92.3 96.6 1.9 95.6 99.9 14.2 36.4 49.4 62.4 4.4 53.4 66.4 44.4 57.4 7.4 52.3 65.3 78.3 56.3 69.3 82.3 6.3 73.3 86.3 68.2 81.2 94.2 72.3 85.2 98.2 76.3 89.3 12.3 26.7 34.8 43. 3.1 38.3 46.4 33.5 41.7 49.9 54.8 62.9 71.1 58.2 66.4 74.5 61.6 69.8 78. 82.8 91. 99.2 86.3 94.4 12.6 89.7 97.9 16. 28.3 43.5 58.6 31.3 46.4 61.5 34.2 49.4 64.5 44.6 59.7 74.8 47.5 62.7 77.8 5.5 65.6 8.7 6.8 76. 91.1 63.8 78.9 94. 66.7 81.9 97. 28.6 43.6 58.5 31.5 46.5 61.5 34.4 49.4 64.4 44.6 59.6 74.6 47.6 62.5 77.5 5.5 65.5 8.5 6.7 75.7 9.7 63.6 78.6 93.6 66.6 81.5 96.5 28.1 47.9 67.8 31.1 5.9 7.8 34.1 54. 73.8 48.6 68.5 88.4 51.7 71.5 91.4 54.7 74.6 94.4 69.2 89.1 18.9 72.3 92.1 112. 75.3 95.1 115. 31. 57.2 83.4 34.5 6.7 86.9 38.1 64.3 9.5 51.6 77.7 13.9 55.1 81.3 17.5 58.7 84.8 111. 72.1 98.3 124.5 75.7 11.9 128.1 79.2 15.4 131.6 15.6 22.1 28.5 19. 25.4 31.8 22.3 28.7 35.2 38.2 44.6 51.1 41.5 48. 54.4 44.8 51.3 57.7 6.7 67.2 73.6 64.1 7.5 77. 67.4 73.8 8.3 25.3 31.3 37.3 29.4 35.4 41.4 33.4 39.5 45.5 42.8 48.9 54.9 46.9 53. 59. 51. 57. 63.1 6.4 66.4 72.5 64.5 7.5 76.5 68.6 74.6 8.6 16.6 26.1 35.5 2.8 3.2 39.6 24.9 34.3 43.7 31.1 4.5 49.9 35.2 44.6 54. 39.3 48.7 58.1 45.5 54.9 64.3 49.6 59. 68.5 53.7 63.2 72.6 16.5 35.4 54.3 2.7 39.6 58.5 24.9 43.8 62.7 35.6 54.5 73.4 39.8 58.7 77.6 44. 62.9 81.8 54.7 73.6 92.5 58.9 77.8 96.7 63.1 82. 1.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 CB losses, for each rule, between 1955 and 217. The shading scheme is defined separately in relation to each line. The lighter the shading is, the smaller the loss.

3.9 6.1 8.2 4.7 6.8 9. 5.5 7.6 9.8 4.9 7.1 9.2 5.7 7.9 1. 6.5 8.6 1.8 5.9 8.1 1.2 6.7 8.9 11. 7.5 9.7 11.8 3.9 5.9 7.9 4.8 6.8 8.8 5.7 7.7 9.7 4.8 6.8 8.9 5.7 7.7 9.7 6.6 8.6 1.6 5.7 7.7 9.8 6.6 8.6 1.7 7.5 9.5 11.5 4.1 7.6 11.1 5.1 8.6 12.1 6.2 9.7 13.2 6.4 9.9 13.4 7.5 11. 14.5 8.5 12. 15.5 8.8 12.3 15.8 9.8 13.3 16.8 1.8 14.3 17.8 4.5 7.5 1.5 5.4 8.4 11.4 6.3 9.3 12.3 5.6 8.6 11.6 6.6 9.6 12.5 7.5 1.5 13.5 6.8 9.8 12.8 7.7 1.7 13.7 8.6 11.6 14.6 5.1 5.7 9.5 1. 13.8 14.3 6. 6.6 1.4 1.9 14.8 15.2 6.9 7.5 11.3 11.8 15.7 16.1 7.2 7.7 11.5 12. 15.9 8.1 16.3 8.6 12.4 12.9 16.8 9. 17.2 9.5 13.3 17.7 9.2 13.8 18.1 9.7 13.6 17.9 1.1 14. 18.3 1.6 14.5 18.8 11. 14.9 19.2 11.5 15.4 19.7 15.8 2.1 5.5 9. 12.5 6.1 9.6 13.1 6.8 1.3 13.8 7.8 11.3 14.8 8.5 11.9 15.4 9.1 12.6 16.1 1.1 13.6 17.1 1.8 14.3 17.8 11.4 14.9 18.4 5.3 12.5 19.7 6.4 13.6 2.8 7.5 14.7 22. 9.1 16.4 23.6 1.3 17.5 24.7 11.4 18.6 25.8 13. 2.2 27.4 14.1 21.3 28.5 15.2 22.4 29.6 3.9 5.8 7.6 4.7 6.5 8.4 5.5 7.3 9.2 4.7 6.6 8.5 5.5 7.4 9.3 6.3 8.2 1. 5.6 7.5 9.3 6.4 8.2 1.1 7.1 9. 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.5 4.6 6.5 8.3 5.5 7.3 9.1 4.7 6.5 8.4 5.5 7.3 9.2 6.3 8.1 1. 5.5 7.3 9.2 6.3 8.2 1. 7.1 9. 1.8 4.4 7.6 1.7 5.4 8.6 11.8 6.4 9.6 12.8 6.1 9.3 12.5 7.1 1.3 13.5 8.1 11.3 14.5 7.9 11. 14.2 8.9 12. 15.2 9.9 13.1 16.2 3.8 6.4 9. 4.5 7.1 9.7 5.3 7.9 1.5 4.4 7. 9.6 5.2 7.8 1.4 6. 8.6 11.2 5.1 7.7 1.3 5.9 8.5 11.1 6.7 9.3 11.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 CB losses, for each rule, between 27 and 217. The shading scheme is defined separately in relation to each line. The lighter the shading is, the smaller the loss.

4.2 6.2 8.2 4.8 6.8 8.8 5.4 7.4 9.5 8.8 1.8 12.8 9.4 11.4 13.5 1. 12. 14.1 13.4 15.4 17.4 14. 16. 18.1 14.6 16.7 18.7 5.2 6.6 8. 5.9 7.3 8.7 6.6 8. 9.4 8.5 9.9 11.3 9.3 1.7 12.1 1. 11.4 12.8 11.9 13.3 14.7 12.6 14. 15.4 13.3 14.7 16.1 5.5 7.3 9.2 6.3 8.2 1. 7.2 9. 1.8 9.4 11.2 13. 1.2 12.1 13.9 11.1 12.9 14.7 13.3 15.1 16.9 14.1 15.9 17.8 15. 16.8 18.6 6.6 1.1 13.6 7.3 1.8 14.3 8.1 11.6 15.1 1.5 14. 17.5 11.2 14.7 18.2 12. 15.5 19. 14.4 17.9 21.4 15.1 18.6 22.1 15.9 19.4 22.9 5.8 9.1 12.5 6.5 9.8 13.2 7.1 1.5 13.8 12.1 15.5 18.8 12.8 16.1 19.5 13.4 16.8 2.2 18.4 21.8 25.1 19.1 22.4 25.8 19.8 23.1 26.5 6. 9.5 13.1 6.7 1.2 13.7 7.3 1.9 14.4 13.9 17.4 21. 14.6 18.1 21.6 15.2 18.8 22.3 21.8 25.3 28.9 22.5 26. 29.5 23.2 26.7 3.2 6.5 9.4 12.3 7.1 1. 12.9 7.7 1.6 13.5 14.2 17.1 19.9 14.7 17.6 2.5 15.3 18.2 21.1 21.8 24.7 27.6 22.4 25.3 28.1 22.9 25.8 28.7 5.5 11. 16.5 6.5 12. 17.5 7.5 13. 18.5 14.1 19.5 25. 15. 2.5 26. 16. 21.5 27. 22.6 28.1 33.5 23.6 29. 34.5 24.6 3. 35.5 5. 6.4 7.8 5.7 7.1 8.5 6.4 7.8 9.2 9.7 11.1 12.4 1.4 11.8 13.2 11.1 12.5 13.9 14.3 15.7 17.1 15.1 16.4 17.8 15.8 17.2 18.5 4.7 6.1 7.4 5.5 6.8 8.2 6.2 7.5 8.9 9.5 1.9 12.2 1.2 11.6 13. 11. 12.3 13.7 14.3 15.7 17. 15. 16.4 17.8 15.8 17.1 18.5 5. 6.6 8.1 5.8 7.4 9. 6.6 8.2 9.8 9.7 11.3 12.9 1.6 12.1 13.7 11.4 12.9 14.5 14.5 16.1 17.6 15.3 16.9 18.4 16.1 17.7 19.2 4.3 8.2 12. 5.1 8.9 12.7 5.8 9.6 13.4 1.4 14.2 18.1 11.1 14.9 18.8 11.8 15.7 19.5 16.5 2.3 24.1 17.2 21. 24.8 17.9 21.7 25.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 CB losses, for each rule, between 1985 and 27. The shading scheme is defined separately in relation to each line. The lighter the shading is, the smaller the loss.

34.2 38. 41.9 39.4 43.3 47.1 44.7 48.6 52.4 47.5 51.3 55.2 52.8 56.6 6.5 58. 61.9 65.7 6.8 64.7 68.5 66.1 69.9 73.8 71.4 75.2 79. 37.9 41.4 44.8 43.9 47.3 5.8 49.8 53.3 56.7 52.2 55.6 59.1 58.1 61.6 65. 64.1 67.5 7.9 66.4 69.9 73.3 72.4 75.8 79.2 78.3 81.7 85.2 43.2 48.1 53. 51.1 56. 6.9 59.1 64. 68.9 49.7 54.6 59.5 57.6 62.5 67.4 65.6 7.5 75.4 56.2 61.1 66. 64.1 69. 73.9 72.1 77. 81.9 38.9 44.5 5.1 45.2 5.8 56.4 51.5 57.1 62.7 57.5 63.1 68.7 63.7 69.3 74.9 7. 75.6 81.2 76. 81.6 87.2 82.3 87.9 93.5 88.6 94.2 99.8 42.6 42.2 41.2 39.6 51.8 51.7 53.2 51.2 61.1 61.2 65.1 62.8 48.7 48.2 46.9 47.2 57.9 57.7 58.9 58.9 67.1 67.2 7.8 7.5 54.7 54.2 52.6 54.9 63.9 63.7 64.6 66.5 73.1 73.2 76.5 78.1 51.4 6.6 51.2 6.7 49.7 61.7 45.3 56.9 69.8 7.2 73.6 68.5 57.4 66.6 57.2 66.7 55.5 67.4 52.9 64.6 75.8 76.2 79.3 76.2 63.4 63.3 61.2 6.6 72.7 72.8 73.1 72.2 81.9 82.3 85.1 83.8 6.1 69.3 78.5 6.3 69.8 79.3 58.3 7.2 82.2 51. 62.6 74.2 66.1 75.4 84.6 66.3 75.8 85.3 64. 75.9 87.9 58.6 7.3 81.9 72.2 81.4 72.3 81.8 69.7 81.7 66.3 77.9 9.6 91.3 93.6 89.5 45.3 47.8 5.2 52.1 54.6 57.1 59. 61.4 63.9 56.5 59. 61.5 63.4 65.8 68.3 7.2 72.7 75.1 67.7 7.2 72.7 74.6 77.1 79.5 81.4 83.9 86.4 25.8 28.1 3.4 32.4 34.7 37. 38.9 41.3 43.6 36.1 38.4 4.7 42.6 45. 47.3 49.2 51.5 53.8 46.3 48.7 51. 52.9 55.2 57.5 59.5 61.8 64.1 39.9 44.4 43.6 56.2 47.3 68. 46.1 51.1 49.8 62.9 53.5 74.7 52.2 57.7 55.9 69.5 59.6 81.3 5.7 46.4 54.4 58.2 58.1 7. 56.8 53. 6.5 64.8 64.2 76.6 63. 59.7 66.7 71.5 7.4 83.3 61.4 48.3 65.1 6.1 68.8 71.9 67.6 55. 71.3 66.8 75. 78.6 73.7 61.7 77.4 73.5 81.1 85.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 CB losses, for each rule, between 1955 and 1985. The shading scheme is defined separately in relation to each line. The lighter the shading is, the smaller the loss.

Parameters and fitting Assessment Current loss functions Ranking of rules: Follows values of L function given by each line. Changes with weighting scheme (from CB s preferences). During GFC/ZLB Fed would have minimized losses via NGDP rules in level but difference of loss minimal with some Taylor type rules. 23 / 27

Parameters and fitting Assessment Forecasted loss functions (not presented) Out out of sample forecasted losses over 3-year out of sample period. To be noted: whatever the period, NGDP in level rules dominate (rule 1 closely followed by 9 and 12) 24 / 27

Summary 1955-217 27-217 1985-27 1955-1985 Fitting Marginal density 5 12 12 1 Central bank loss Current 9,11 9,1 (1,2,12) 2,1 (1,9) 1 Forecasted 9,12 9,12 (1) 1 (11) 1 (12) Table: Summary of the best rule(s) for each criterion. Rules close to the best one(s) are in parentheses. Fitting: a different rule for each period, but 12 twice. Fed may have changed strategy during GM. Losses: some NGDP in level rules best most of the time (some Taylor type close) but not one that dominates whatever the period. 25 / 27

Policy implications Irrespective of the period in question, central bank s objectives are not achieved by one single rule. For each type of period (more or less stable, crisis, recovery), a given central bank reaction function performs better than others. Parameter estimates change with period for any monetary rule. Yet current and forecasted losses indicate superiority of NGDP rules in level except during the GM where the Taylor rule is better with current losses (but NGDP in level is close). In fine: NGDP in level rules most frequently indicated, especially during crisis. But some Taylor type rules also perform well, especially during more stable periods. Necessary to regularly re-estimate the models, thus the parameters, to better fit the dynamics of the economy. 26 / 27

CBs objectives not achieved by one single empirical rule with same weight to each variable entering the rule. For each type of period (more or less stable, crisis, recovery) a specific reaction function performs better than others. CBs which base their forecast and policy on such models and rules should refresh their estimates regularly. Policy makers should estimate CB losses (current or forecasted) via several empirical monetary rules and models to better assess their interest rate decisions. 27 / 27