TY - JOUR
T1 - Gresham’s Law of model averaging
AU - Cho, In Koo
AU - Kasa, Kenneth
N1 - Funding Information:
* Cho: Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1407 West Gregory, Urbana, IL 61801, Hanyang University, and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (email: inkoocho@illinois.edu); Kasa: Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada (email: kkasa@sfu.ca). This paper was accepted to the AER under the guidance of John Leahy, Coeditor. We thank Mikhail Anufriev, Jaroslav Borovicka, Jim Bullard, George Evans, Lars Hansen, Seppo Honkapohja, Albert Marcet, Tom Sargent, and Noah Williams for helpful comments and discussions. We are especially grateful to four anonymous referees for many constructive comments and suggestions. Shirley Xia provided expert research assistance. The first author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the National Science Foundation and the Korea Research Foundation (2015S1A5A2A01011999). The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the National Science Foundation, Korea Research Foundation, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Reserve System, or the Board of Governors. The authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, American Economic Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/11
Y1 - 2017/11
N2 - A decision maker doubts the stationarity of his environment. In response, he uses two models, one with time-varying parameters, and another with constant parameters. Forecasts are then based on a Bayesian model averaging strategy, which mixes forecasts from the two models. In reality, structural parameters are constant, but the (unknown) true model features expectational feedback, which the reduced-form models neglect. This feedback permits fears of parameter instability to become self-confirming. Within the context of a standard asset-pricing model, we use the tools of large deviations theory to show that even though the constant parameter model would converge to the rational expectations equilibrium if considered in isolation, the mere presence of an unstable alternative drives it out of consideration.
AB - A decision maker doubts the stationarity of his environment. In response, he uses two models, one with time-varying parameters, and another with constant parameters. Forecasts are then based on a Bayesian model averaging strategy, which mixes forecasts from the two models. In reality, structural parameters are constant, but the (unknown) true model features expectational feedback, which the reduced-form models neglect. This feedback permits fears of parameter instability to become self-confirming. Within the context of a standard asset-pricing model, we use the tools of large deviations theory to show that even though the constant parameter model would converge to the rational expectations equilibrium if considered in isolation, the mere presence of an unstable alternative drives it out of consideration.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032227693&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032227693&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1257/aer.20160665
DO - 10.1257/aer.20160665
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85032227693
SN - 0002-8282
VL - 107
SP - 3589
EP - 3616
JO - American Economic Review
JF - American Economic Review
IS - 11
ER -