How to write expectations of products?
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:39 pm
Hi everyone,
I would like to clarify something that has bothered me for some time, and that has led to some discussions with colleagues: when I have the expectation of a product of variables, how should I write it in Dynare?
Say, for example, that my model has a condition that reads:
E_t [a_{t+1}*b_{t+1}] + c_t = 0
There are, in principle, two ways to write this condition in Dynare:
(i) Define the product as an auxiliary variable and write it as a forward looking variable
aux = a*b
aux(+1) + c = 0
(ii) Write the product of the forward looking variables
a(+1)*b(+1) + c = 0
I had always assumed that (i) would be the correct way to do it, but not only this seems to generate problems with the Blanchard-Kahn conditions (i.e. typically Dynare complaining that there are more EW's>1 than fwd-looking variables, since Dynare is only recognizing the auxiliary variables as forward-looking), and most examples that are available (i.e. Jesus Fernandex-Villaverde's codes) use method (ii).
I understand that (i) and (ii) should be completely equivalent for the purposes of a first-order approximation, but this may not necessarily be the case for higher order, right?
This may be a stupid question, but has left me (and other people) confused, so I would apprecitate if anyone could shed some light on this! Thanks!
I would like to clarify something that has bothered me for some time, and that has led to some discussions with colleagues: when I have the expectation of a product of variables, how should I write it in Dynare?
Say, for example, that my model has a condition that reads:
E_t [a_{t+1}*b_{t+1}] + c_t = 0
There are, in principle, two ways to write this condition in Dynare:
(i) Define the product as an auxiliary variable and write it as a forward looking variable
aux = a*b
aux(+1) + c = 0
(ii) Write the product of the forward looking variables
a(+1)*b(+1) + c = 0
I had always assumed that (i) would be the correct way to do it, but not only this seems to generate problems with the Blanchard-Kahn conditions (i.e. typically Dynare complaining that there are more EW's>1 than fwd-looking variables, since Dynare is only recognizing the auxiliary variables as forward-looking), and most examples that are available (i.e. Jesus Fernandex-Villaverde's codes) use method (ii).
I understand that (i) and (ii) should be completely equivalent for the purposes of a first-order approximation, but this may not necessarily be the case for higher order, right?
This may be a stupid question, but has left me (and other people) confused, so I would apprecitate if anyone could shed some light on this! Thanks!