Do stock market returns predict changes to output? Evidence from a nonlinear panel data model

Recent empirical work suggests a predictive relationship between stock returns and output growth. We employ quarterly data from a panel of 27 countries to test whether stock returns as useful in predicting growth. Unlike previous research, our approach allows for the possible non-linear effect of recessions on the growth-return relationship. There is strong evidence to suggest that a linear model would be misspecified and provide potentially misleading inference. Using a switching regression approach, we find evidence that returns are most useful in predicting growth when the economy is in recession.First version received: November 2002/Final version received: April 2003This paper benefited greatly from discussions with Kalvinder Shields, Mark Harris, Pete Summers, and Vance Martin. Two anonymous referees provided useful comments on an earlier version of the paper for which we are grateful. The usual disclaimer applies to any errors and omissions. Funding from The University of Melbourne greatly assisted in the completion of this paper.     

Some further evidence on the long-run neutrality of money

A recently developed reduced-form test for long-run neutrality is applied to twentieth-century Australian data on real output and the nominal money stock. The results show that narrowly defined money is neutral. However, real output is not invariant in the long run to a broader-based measure of the money stock.     

Has Financial Deregulation Revived the Permanent Income/Life Cycle Hypothesis?

The permanent income/life cycle hypothesis is tested using Australian data for periods covering the regulated and deregulated financial systems. The hypothesis is rejected for the entire sample period. Further investigation reveals that the rejection is confined to the period in which the financial system was regulated. The evidence points to liquidity constraints as being the cause of this rejection although the existence of myopic consumers may also be a possibility.     

Inflation, Unemployment and the NAIRU in Australia

In this paper we investigate the relationship between inflation and unemployment in Australia, post 1959. Our approach is based on identification of the time series components of the data. Evidence is found of significant correlations between the non-trend frequencies of inflation and unemployment and these correlations are exploited to estimate a simple forecasting model that does not suffer from the instability normally associated with the Phillips Curve. Estimates of the NAIRU are also provided and these range from as low as 2.3 per cent to as high as 9.2 per cent over this period, but these estimates are quite imprecise. Reasons for this imprecision are discussed.     

The Macroeconomic Implications of Current Fiscal Policy

Exchange rate changes and intertemporal consumption responses suggest that the short-run impact of current fiscal policy on aggregate demand will be small. However, cuts to public expenditure may have undesirable long-term consequences.     

Sustainability and Stability? Australian Fiscal Policy in the Twentieth Century

This paper examines data on Australian fiscal policy going back to federation to answer two questions. First, has the conduct of Australian fiscal policy been consistent with the government's intertemporal budget constraint? Second, have there been major structural changes in the conduct of Australian fiscal policy and if so, when did these changes occur?     

Resolving the empty core: trust as a determinant of outcomes in three-party negotiations

This research examined how trust affected resource allocation in a three-party negotiation. Negotiators were presented with an empty core problem in which their theoretical share of resources exceeded the resources available for distribution. We tested which of three components of trust—reliability, predictability and empathy—predicted negotiators’ outcomes. We distinguished between absolute and relative trust. We found that relative trust was a more consistent predictor of individual outcomes than absolute trust and that the most trusted party in a network obtained the highest individual outcomes. This finding highlights the importance of social context in shaping trust judgements. The component of trust that predicted individuals’ outcomes was affected by structural power. High and low power negotiators benefited from conveying empathy (identity-based trust), whereas moderate power negotiators benefited from conveying predictability (knowledge-based trust). Low power parties also benefited from appearing unreliable (low calculus-based trust). The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2002 International Association of Conflict Management Conference, Park City, Utah.     

Maybe It’s Right,Maybe It’s Wrong: Structural and Social Determinants of Deception in Negotiation

Context shapes negotiators’ actions, including their willingness to act unethically. Focusing on negotiators use of deception, we used a simulated two-party negotiation to test how three contextual variables—regulatory focus, power, and trustworthiness—interacted to shift negotiators’ ethical thresholds. We demonstrated that these three variables interact to either inhibit or activate deception, providing support for an interactionist model of ethical decision-making. Three patterns emerged from our analyses. First, low power inhibited and high power activated deception. Second, promotion-focused negotiators favored sins of omission, whereas prevention-focused negotiators favored sins of commission. Third, low cognition-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience fit between power and regulatory focus, whereas affect-based trust influenced deception when negotiators experience misfit between these structural context variables. We conclude that regulatory focus primes different moral templates: promotion-focused negotiators’ decision to deceive is determined by moral pragmatism, whereas prevention-focused negotiators’ decision to deceive is determined by opportunism. Because each combination of power and regulatory focus was tied to a specific subcomponent of trust, we further conclude that negotiators engage in motivated information search to determine whether they should deceive their opponents.