steady state file

[mbbr]

Thank you very much for your reply. I wrote resid(1) after steady command as you said. But when I wrote it after initval block and before steady command, nothing changed. At least, simulation gives no error. But with steady state file, it gives the same error. There may be sth wrong with steady state file or not. Thanks...

[mbbr]

Hello,

You know, there is file which corresponds steady state file in the models folder under UserGuide of dynare. The file is called fs2000ns steadystate.m. May I use this file by just changing equations and parameters to create my own steady state file ? Does using this file have any advantage or disadvantage compared to using previously stated dog_steady state file?
Thanks...

[mbbr]

I write steady-state by modifying fs2000steady state file. In simulation part, it works. In estimation part, excluding gd as an estimated parameter, it works and calculates steady-state of the model. but when including gd as an estimated parameter it fails and gives this error

Configuring Dynare ...
[mex] Generalized QZ.
[mex] Sylvester equation solution.
[mex] Kronecker products.
[mex] Sparse kronecker products.
[mex] Local state space iteration (second order).
[mex] Bytecode evaluation.
[mex] k-order perturbation solver.
[mex] k-order solution simulation.
[mex] Quasi Monte-Carlo sequence (Sobol).
[mex] Markov Switching SBVAR.

Starting Dynare (version 4.3.1).
Starting preprocessing of the model file ...
Found 23 equation(s).
Evaluating expressions...done
Computing static model derivatives:
- order 1
Computing dynamic model derivatives:
- order 1
Processing outputs ...done
Preprocessing completed.
Starting MATLAB/Octave computing.


STEADY-STATE RESULTS:

c 0.150095
h 0.179761
lamda 275.756
a 1
g 1.01
k 0.292417
d 0.007
i 0.0396226
r 0.105919
y 0.211472
k_over_gh 1.61059
v 1
s 0.0211472
mu 1
gy 1.01
gc 1.01
gi 1.01
tb 0.000607129
tby 0.00287096
gy_obs 0.00995033
gc_obs 0.00995033
gi_obs 0.00995033
tby_obs 0.00287096




Residuals of the static equations:

Equation number 1 : 0
Equation number 2 : 0
Equation number 3 : 0
Equation number 4 : 0
Equation number 5 : 0
Equation number 6 : 0
Equation number 7 : 0
Equation number 8 : 0
Equation number 9 : 0
Equation number 10 : 0
Equation number 11 : 0
Equation number 12 : 0
Equation number 13 : 0
Equation number 14 : 0
Equation number 15 : 0
Equation number 16 : 0
Equation number 17 : 0
Equation number 18 : 0
Equation number 19 : 0
Equation number 20 : 0
Equation number 21 : 0
Equation number 22 : 0
Equation number 23 : 0


Loading 105 observations from arj_data.m

Error in computing likelihood for initial parameter values
Error using print_info (line 55)
The steadystate file did not compute the steady state

Error in initial_estimation_checks (line 69)
print_info(info, DynareOptions.noprint)

Error in dynare_estimation_1 (line 147)
oo_ =
initial_estimation_checks(objective_function,xparam1,dataset_,M_,estim_params_,options_,bayestopt_,oo_);

Error in dynare_estimation (line 70)
dynare_estimation_1(var_list,dname);

Error in uribefinansestson (line 315)
dynare_estimation(var_list_);

Error in dynare (line 120)
evalin('base',fname) ;

Parameter gd enters almost all equations for ss values of endogenous parameters and also enter equation of parameter rstar
rstar = ((1/betta)*(gd^(gammma)))-1;
In finding the posterior mode, Dynare recalculates the steady state of the model at each iteration of the optimization routine based on the newest round of parameters available. rstar is written before check=0 command in ss file. In that case, does rstar take new values for each value of gd or not? If it does not, how can I overcome this problem?

[petros_varth]

Hi All,

Say we have computed the steady-state values of the endogenous variables of the model. I just want to assign these values and take the 2nd-order approximation of the model without using steady command or another m-file which compute the steady-state of the model (i.e. dog_steadystate). I just want to use an M-file with the values for the endogenous variables.

How can i do this in Dynare?

Thanks in advance,

P.

[petros_varth]

Hi All,

I suppose you can use
initval; end; commands without using the steady command. In this way, the approximation is around the steady-state given between initval; ... end;.

Is this correct?

P.

[jpfeifer]

You don't need the steady command after initval. It mostly provides diagnostics. Note however, that the steady state computation performed within steady is always conducted during the stoch_simul-command.

[petros_varth]

Dear jpfeifer,

Thanks for your reply.

If i don't use the steady command. The approximation will be around the steady-state given between
initval; ... end;?

P.

[jpfeifer]

Not exactly. stoch_simul will always search for a steady state. If your initial values already describe a steady state, this one is taken and nothing needs to be done. If the initial values do not exactly describe a steady state, Dynare will use a solver to find one given your initial values.

This also implies that you cannot fool Dynare to compute an approximation around a given point that is not a steady state by using your described approach.

[petros_varth]

Thanks.

I use a steady-state, between initval; ...end;
The problem is that i use some rules, like a Taylor rule, which their feedback coefficients should affect only transition and not the steady-state.
However, when i use dynare to find the steady-state the feedback coefficient affects , even sligthly, the steady-state values of the model.

P.

[jpfeifer]

I don't understand how that can be. If you provide actual analytical steady state values, this should not happen. The feedback parameters may only affect the steady state due to numerical issues when you provide inaccurate values and Dynare uses a root finder. But even then, if the model has a unique steady state, the steady state should be same when you use a small enough convergence criterion. If you suspect a problem with Dynare, please send me the mod-file.

[petros_varth]

Dear jpfeifer,

Many thanks for your help.
Please see the attached, if you change the feedback coefficients steady-state changes. Please take a look if i define correctly the rules. (lines 73-75)

P.

[jpfeifer]

Your problem derives from specifying the Taylor rule not as reactions to deviations from actual steady state values, but from approximate values only. This results in the model having several steady states. This is not a problem with Dynare.

[jpfeifer]

P.S.: If you want to continue this discussion about how to deal with this issue, please move it to a new post.

[petros_varth]

Thanks.

Ok i will.

P.