Search results

I review the burgeoning literature on applications of Markov regime switching models in empirical finance. In particular, distinct attention is devoted to the ability of Markov Switching models to fit the data, filter unknown regimes and states on the basis of the data, to allow a powerful tool to test hypotheses formulated in light of financial theories, and to their forecasting performance with reference to both point and density predictions. The review covers papers concerning a multiplicity of sub-fields in financial economics, ranging from empirical analyses of stock returns, the term structure of default-free interest rates, the dynamics of exchange rates, as well as the joint process of stock and bond returns.

One crucial but sometimes overlooked fact regarding the difference between observation in the cross-section and observation over time must be stated before proceeding further. Tempting though it is to draw conclusions about the dynamics of a process from cross-sectional observations taken as a snapshot of that process, it is a fallacious practice except under a very precise condition that is highly unlikely to obtain in processes of interest to the social scientist. That condition is known as ergodicity.

I survey applications of Markov switching models to the asset pricing and portfolio choice literatures. In particular, I discuss the potential that Markov switching models have to fit financial time series and at the same time provide powerful tools to test hypotheses formulated in the light of financial theories, and to generate positive economic value, as measured by risk-adjusted performances, in dynamic asset allocation applications. The chapter also reviews the role of Markov switching dynamics in modern asset pricing models in which the no-arbitrage principle is used to characterize the properties of the fundamental pricing measure in the presence of regimes.

Measurement of diminishing or divergent cross section dispersion in a panel plays an important role in the assessment of convergence or divergence over time in key economic indicators. Econometric methods, known as weak σ-convergence tests, have recently been developed (Kong, Phillips, & Sul, 2019) to evaluate such trends in dispersion in panel data using simple linear trend regressions. To achieve generality in applications, these tests rely on heteroskedastic and autocorrelation consistent (HAC) variance estimates. The present chapter examines the behavior of these convergence tests when heteroskedastic and autocorrelation robust (HAR) variance estimates using fixed-b methods are employed instead of HAC estimates. Asymptotic theory for both HAC and HAR convergence tests is derived and numerical simulations are used to assess performance in null (no convergence) and alternative (convergence) cases. While the use of HAR statistics tends to reduce size distortion, as has been found in earlier analytic and numerical research, use of HAR estimates in nonparametric standardization leads to significant power differences asymptotically, which are reflected in finite sample performance in numerical exercises. The explanation is that weak σ-convergence tests rely on intentionally misspecified linear trend regression formulations of unknown trend decay functions that model convergence behavior rather than regressions with correctly specified trend decay functions. Some new results on the use of HAR inference with trending regressors are derived and an empirical application to assess diminishing variation in US State unemployment rates is included.

For this discussion, assume there are n sample observations of the dependent variable y at unique locations. In spatial samples, often each observation is uniquely associated with a particular location or region, so that observations and regions are equivalent. Spatial dependence arises when an observation at one location, say y i is dependent on “neighboring” observations y j, y j∈ϒi. We use ϒi to denote the set of observations that are “neighboring” to observation i, where some metric is used to define the set of observations that are spatially connected to observation i. For general definitions of the sets ϒi,i=1,…,n, typically at least one observation exhibits simultaneous dependence, so that an observation y j, also depends on y i. That is, the set ϒj contains the observation y i, creating simultaneous dependence among observations. This situation constitutes a difference between time series analysis and spatial analysis. In time series, temporal dependence relations could be such that a “one-period-behind relation” exists, ruling out simultaneous dependence among observations. The time series one-observation-behind relation could arise if spatial observations were located along a line and the dependence of each observation were strictly on the observation located to the left. However, this is not in general true of spatial samples, requiring construction of estimation and inference methods that accommodate the more plausible case of simultaneous dependence among observations.

A semiparametric stochastic frontier model is proposed for panel data, incorporating several flexible features. First, a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production frontier is considered without log-transformation to prevent induced non-negligible estimation bias. Second, the model flexibility is improved via semiparameterization, where the technology is an unknown function of a set of environment variables. The technology function accounts for latent heterogeneity across individual units, which can be freely correlated with inputs, environment variables, and/or inefficiency determinants. Furthermore, the technology function incorporates a single-index structure to circumvent the curse of dimensionality. Third, distributional assumptions are eschewed on both stochastic noise and inefficiency for model identification. Instead, only the conditional mean of the inefficiency is assumed, which depends on related determinants with a wide range of choice, via a positive parametric function. As a result, technical efficiency is constructed without relying on an assumed distribution on composite error. The model provides flexible structures on both the production frontier and inefficiency, thereby alleviating the risk of model misspecification in production and efficiency analysis. The estimator involves a series based nonlinear least squares estimation for the unknown parameters and a kernel based local estimation for the technology function. Promising finite-sample performance is demonstrated through simulations, and the model is applied to investigate productive efficiency among OECD countries from 1970–2019.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Kalecki's theory of the business cycle is rightly renowned for various reasons: in particular, besides itself providing an original contribution, it set the framework for Kalecki's ideas on effective demand, for his anticipation of a number of Keynesian elements, and for the development of Kalecki's related themes such as income determination and distribution. Although the secondary literature (both technical and descriptive) on this subject is immense, a specific aspect seems to deserve further reflection.