Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated moments

This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location where you will have to reset your password.
Forum rules
This forum is closed. You can read the posts but cannot write. We have migrated the forum to a new location (https://forum.dynare.org) where you will have to reset your password.

Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated moments

Postby pedrocastrohenriques » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:06 pm

Hi,

I am new to Dynare and I am trying to simulate the model by Kiyotaki and Moore - Liquidity, business cycles and monetary policy. I was having much trouble in obtaining reasonable RBC moments, that were in line with those presented in King & Rebelo (1999), until I realized that I was computing the simulated moments rather than the theoretical ones, once I read this post: http://www.dynare.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2335.

Even though I am well aware that this is a very trivial question, I must ask you: why do these two methods of computation lead to so disparate results? Shouldn't the approximation be similar to the theoretical version? What prevents this from happening?

Please be so kind to reply to this post, as I cannot be sure my simulation is working fine until I understand why this is happening.

Best regards,
Pedro Henriques
pedrocastrohenriques
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated moments

Postby AssiaEzzeroug » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:11 pm

Hi,

in order 1, theoretical moments ie moments computed from the exact theoretical formula should lead to similar results than the simulated ones that are computed from simulated data.

could you post the mod-file in order to replicate the comparison plz?

Best
AssiaEzzeroug
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated moments

Postby pedrocastrohenriques » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:48 pm

I have attached the model file and the steady state generator. Since I have not computed the steady state accurately, I first simulate the model and then use the policy functions to upload the steady state with the .m file attached and run the model again in log deviations from this simulated steady state.

Thank you
Attachments
ssGEN_shockA_KM.m
(431 Bytes) Downloaded 147 times
shockA_KM.mod
(7.32 KiB) Downloaded 205 times
pedrocastrohenriques
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated moments

Postby pedrocastrohenriques » Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:16 pm

I think I have spotted the problem. It has to do with the hp filter option. When I simulate for theoretical moments without the hp filter I get the same moments as in the simulated model. I wonder why the hp filter is important in a stationary model though. Indeed it reduces the standard deviation, but I don't really understand why.
pedrocastrohenriques
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby wonderland01 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:22 am

i noticed you have a
load shockA_KM_RBCss;
line, what do you have in hockA_KM_RBCss? sorry if my question is naive
wonderland01
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby jpfeifer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:16 am

The mod-file says in its preamble what you have to do. But you might need Wouter Den Haan's dynarerocks-function.

Regarding the original question: it is common to treat the empirical and model data in the same way (both HP-filtered) although the model is theoretically already stationary. It is similar to the Cogley-Sims-Nason discussion on VARS
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby wonderland01 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:59 pm

thank you so much for your answer. yes, i read the introduction, and tried to run first simulated version (@#define moments = 0)
and got this:

??? Attempt to execute SCRIPT solve1 as a function:
/Applications/Dynare/4.3.3/examples/solve1.m

Error in ==> dynare_solve at 130
[x,info]=solve1(func,x,j1(r(i):r(i+1)-1),j2(r(i):r(i+1)-1),jacobian_flag,
bad_cond_flag, varargin{:});

Error in ==> evaluate_steady_state at 66
[ys,check] = dynare_solve([M.fname '_static'],...

Error in ==> steady_ at 54
[steady_state,params,info] =
evaluate_steady_state(oo_.steady_state,M_,options_,oo_,~options_.steadystate.nocheck);
Error in ==> steady at 81
[steady_state,M_.params,info] = steady_(M_,options_,oo_);

Error in ==> shockA_KM at 182
steady;

Error in ==> dynare at 120
evalin('base',fname) ;
in the console...
is it because i dont have a special script?
wonderland01
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby jpfeifer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:44 pm

No, it looks like a naming conflict. There should not be a solve1.m in the examples folder.
------------
Johannes Pfeifer
University of Cologne
https://sites.google.com/site/pfeiferecon/
jpfeifer
 
Posts: 6940
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm
Location: Cologne, Germany

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby wonderland01 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:23 pm

thanks a lot you were right!!! i erased the thingie in the examples, and replaced disp_dr.m for the one dynare-rock powered and it run. thanks for everything. i just noticed that i had to do it on 4.2.0, as there was no disp_dr.m with dynarerocks for 4.3.+ versions.
wonderland01
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Kiyotaki and Moore (2008) - theoretical vs simulated mom

Postby wonderland01 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:15 am

I have a question regarding the shock. It seems this is a productivity positive shock, as I see from
varexo e_A;
which enters only in the equation of A.
My question is, assuming we want a liquidity shock, we only need to erase the e_A from the equation of A, and insert it in the parts where the liquidity parameter appears? In this case, the parameter phi is liquidity, so it would become (phi+e_A)?
Regards
wonderland01
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:26 am


Return to Dynare help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests