National Bureau of Economic Research

About: National Bureau of Economic Research is a nonprofit organization based out in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Monetary policy & Population. The organization has 2626 authors who have published 34177 publications receiving 2818124 citations. The organization is also known as: NBER & The National Bureau of Economic Research.

Limited Attention, Information Disclosure, and Financial Reporting

Abstract: This paper models firms' choices between alternative means of presenting information, and the effects of different presentations on market prices when investors have limited attention and processing power. In a market equilibrium with partially attentive investors, we examine the effects of alternative: levels of discretion in pro forma earnings disclosure, methods of accounting for employee option compensation, and degrees of aggregation in reporting. We derive empirical implications relating pro forma adjustments, option compensation, the growth, persistence, and informativeness of earnings, short-run managerial incentives, and other firm characteristics to stock price reactions, misvaluation, long-run abnormal returns, and corporate decisions.

Stochastic Trends and Economic Fluctuations

Abstract: Are business cycles mainly the result of permanent shocks to productivity? This paper uses a long-run restriction implied by a large class of real-business-cycle models -identifying permanent productivity shocks as shocks to the common stochastic trend in output, consumption, and investment -to provide new evidence on this question. Econometric tests indicate that this common-stochastic-trend / cointegration implication is consistent with postwar U.S. data. However, in systems with nominal variables, the estimates of this common stochastic trend indicate that permanent productivity shocks typically explain less than half of the business-cycle variability in output, consumption, and investment. (JEL E32, C32) A central, surprising, and controversial result of some current research on real business cycles is the claim that a common stochastic trend-the cumulative effect of permanent shocks to productivity-underlies the bulk of economic fluctuations. If confirmed, this finding would imply that many other forces have been relatively unimportant over historical business cycles, including the monetary and fiscal policy shocks stressed in traditional macroeconomic analysis. This paper shows that the hypothesis of a common stochastic productivity trend has a set of econometric implications that allows us to test for its presence, measure its importance, and extract estimates of its realized value. Applying these procedures to consumption, investment, and output for the postwar United States, we find results that both support and contradict this claim in the real-businesscycle literature. The U.S. data are consistent with the presence of a common

Fear of Floating

Abstract: In recent years, many countries have suffered severe financial crises, producing a staggering toll on their economies, particularly in emerging markets. One view blames fixed exchange rates-- soft pegs'--for these meltdowns. Adherents to that view advise countries to allow their currency to float. We analyze the behavior of exchange rates, reserves, the monetary aggregates, interest rates, and commodity prices across 154 exchange rate arrangements to assess whether official labels' provide an adequate representation of actual country practice. We find that, countries that say they allow their exchange rate to float mostly do not--there seems to be an epidemic case of fear of floating.' Since countries that are classified as having a free or a managed float mostly resemble noncredible pegs--the so-called demise of fixed exchange rates' is a myth--the fear of floating is pervasive, even among some of the developed countries. We present an analytical framework that helps to understand why there is fear of floating.

Forecasting Output and Inflation: The Role of Asset Prices

Abstract: This paper examines old and new evidence on the predictive performance of asset prices for inflation and real output growth. We first review the large literature on this topic, focusing on the past dozen years. We then undertake an empirical analysis of quarterly data on up to 38 candidate indicators (mainly asset prices) for seven OECD countries for a span of up to 41 years (1959 1999). The conclusions from the literature review and the empirical analysis are the same. Some asset prices predict either inflation or output growth in some countries in some periods. Which series predicts what, when and where is, however, itself difficult to predict: good forecasting performance by an indicator in one period seems to be unrelated to whether it is a useful predictor in a later period. Intriguingly, forecasts produced by combining these unstable individual forecasts appear to improve reliably upon univariate benchmarks.