Are the Responses of the U.S. Economy Asymmetric to Positive and Negative Money Supply Shocks?

We investigate whether the United States economy responds asymmetrically to positive and negative money supply shocks of different magnitude, using a test recently introduced by Kilian and Vigfusson (Quant Econ 2:419–453, 2011) based on impulse response functions. We use quarterly data, over the period from 1967:1 to 2014:1, and the new CFS Divisia monetary aggregates, making a comparison among the narrower monetary aggregates, M1, M2M, MZM, M2, and ALL, and the broad monetary aggregates, M4+, M4-, and M3. We show that there is no statistically significant evidence of asymmetry in the response of the U.S. economy to positive and negative money supply shocks of different magnitude.     

Interest Rates, Leverage, and Money

The current mainstream approach to monetary policy is based on the New Keynesian model and is expressed in terms of a short-term nominal interest, such as the federal funds rate in the United States. It ignores the role of leverage and also downplays the role of money in basic monetary theory and monetary policy analysis. But as the federal funds rate has reached the zero lower bound and the Federal Reserve is in a liquidity trap, the issue is whether there is a useful role of leverage and monetary aggregates in monetary policy and business cycle analysis. We address these issues and argue that there is a need for financial stability policies to manage the leverage cycle and reduce the procyclicality of the financial system. We also argue that in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and Great Contraction there is a need to get away from the New Keynesian thinking and back toward a quantity theory approach to monetary policy, based on properly measured monetary aggregates, such as the new Center for Financial Stability Divisia monetary aggregates.     

Economic policy uncertainty and real output: evidence from the G7 countries

We use economic policy uncertainty index, and impulse response based test to assess the impact of economic policy-related uncertainty on real economic activity. We use monthly data, over the period from 1985:1 to 2015:3, and impulse response functions to investigate how the economies of the G7 countries respond to positive and negative economic policy uncertainty shocks of different magnitudes. We find that economic policy uncertainty is countercyclical, that the effects of uncertainty shocks increase with size and that the responses of real output to positive and negative economic policy uncertainty shocks are country specific. Our research is important for policymaking and in favour of policies that remove economic uncertainty and its negative effects on the economy. We argue that some control over yellow journalism, a transparent tax system and a set of predictable fiscal and monetary policies can minimize the social costs of economic policy uncertainty.     

Broker-dealer Leverage and the Stock Market

This paper employs linear and nonlinear causality tests to examine (for the first time) the dynamic relation between broker-dealer leverage and the stock market in the United States, using quarterly data since 1967. We find significant linear causality from the stock market to broker-dealer leverage and a nonlinear feedback from broker-dealer leverage to the stock market, supporting the view that the macro economy is highly nonlinear. This bidirectional causality shows that a stock market crash might happen long before a fall in fundamental asset values.