Complete Markets Strikes Back: Revisiting Risk Sharing Tests under Discount Rate Heterogeneity

Recent risk sharing tests strongly reject the hypothesis of complete markets, because in the data: (1) the individual consumption comoves with income and (2) the consumption dispersion increases over the life cycle. In this paper, I revisit the implications of these risk sharing tests in the context of a complete market model with discount rate heterogeneity, which is extended to introduce the individual choices of effort in education. I .nd that a complete market model with discount rate heterogeneity can pass both types of the risk sharing tests. The endogenous positive correlation between income growth rate and patience makes the individual consumption comove with income, even if the markets are complete. I also show that this model is quantitatively admissible to account for both the observed comovement of consumption and income and the increase of consumption dispersion over the life cycle.

Consumption Inequality and Discount Rate Heterogeneity

Although standard incomplete market models can account for the magnitude of the rise in consumption inequality over the life cycle, they generate unrealistically concave age pro.les of consumption inequality and unrealistically less wealth inequality. In this paper, I investigate the role of discount rate heterogeneity on consumption inequality in the context of incomplete market life cycle models. The distribution of discount rates is estimated using moments from the wealth distribution. I .nd that the model with heterogeneous income pro.les (HIP) and discount rate heterogeneity can successfully account for the empirical age pro.le of consumption inequality, both in its magnitude and in its non-concave shape. Generating realistic wealth inequality, this simulated model also highlights the importance of ex ante heterogeneities as main sources of life time inequality.

Currency Forecast Errors at Times of Low Interest Rates: Evidence from Survey Data on the Yen/Dollar Exchange Rate

Using survey expectations data and Markov-switching models, this paper evaluates the characteristics and evolution of investors' forecast errors about the yen/dollar exchange rate. Since our model is derived from the uncovered interest rate parity (UIRP) condition and our data cover a period of low interest rates, this study is also related to the forward premium puzzle and the currency carry trade strategy. We obtain the following results. First, with the same forecast horizon, exchange rate forecasts are homogeneous among different industry types, but within the same industry, exchange rate forecasts differ if the forecast time horizon is different. In particular, investors tend to undervalue the future exchange rate for long term forecast horizons; however, in the short run they tend to overvalue the future exchange rate. Second, while forecast errors are found to be partly driven by interest rate spreads, evidence against the UIRP is provided regardless of the forecasting time horizon; the forward premium puzzle becomes more significant in shorter term forecasting errors. Consistent with this finding, our coefficients on interest rate spreads provide indirect evidence of the yen carry trade over only a short term forecast horizon. Furthermore, the carry trade seems to be active when there is a clear indication that the interest rate will be low in the future.

Unemployment: natural rate epicycles or hysteresis?

This paper argues that the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis, in which equilibrium unemployment is determined by “structural” variables alone, is wrong: it is both implausible and inconsistent with the evidence. Instead, equilibrium unemployment is haunted by hysteresis. The curious history of the natural rate hypothesis is considered, curious because the authors of the hypothesis thought hysteresis to be relevant. The various methods that have been used to model hysteresis in economic systems are outlined, including the Preisach model with its selective, erasable memory properties. The evidence regarding hysteresis effects on output and unemployment is then reviewed. The implications for macroeconomic policy, and for the macroeconomics profession, are discussed.