ANIMAL SPIRITS AND ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS SHI FANG Adviser: Prof. Peter Matthews ECON 700 Senior Research Introduction/Motivation Animal Spirits and Economic Activity John Maynard Keynes Irrational human emotion or sentiments that are not the outcome “of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities.” Irrational Confidence vs. Rational Confidence Past recessions in the U.S. Introduction/Motivation Early 2000s Recession 120 Confidence Index 100 80 60 Business 40 Consumer 20 0 Quaters Introduction/Motivation 1990s Recession 100 Confidence Index 90 80 70 60 50 40 Business 30 Consumer 20 10 0 Quaters Introduction/Motivation Current Recession 100 90 Confidence Index 80 70 60 50 40 Business 30 Consumer 20 10 0 06Q4 07Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 08Q1 Q2 Quarters Q3 Q4 09Q1 Literature Review Matsusaka and Sbordone (1995) Chauvet and Guo (2003) “Consumer Confidence and Economic Fluctuations.” Self-fulfilling pessimism: an important independent factor in affecting aggregate output. “Sunspots, Animal Spirits, and Economic Fluctuations.” “Animal spirits” have played a nontrivial role in the 1969-1970, the 1973-1975, and the 1981-1982 recessions. Akerlof and Shiller (2009) Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism. Homo economicus is an unrealistic notion. Emotions due to noneconomic motivations should be taken into account. Data Consumer Confidence University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Business Confidence The Conference Board CEO Confidence Survey Variables capturing economic fundamentals Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP, Personal Income, etc) The Federal Reserve (Selected Interest Rates) Moody’s Dismal Scientist Data Summary Time Series Sample Period 1976 Q2 --- 2009 Q1 132 Quarters Selected Summary Statistics Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Consumer(UM) 87.00 12.30 54.4 110.1 Consumer(CB) 96.17 22.75 26.9 142.5 Business 53.51 10.45 24 76 Real GDP 8871.42 2566.83 5128.9 13415.3 3-month TB 5.75 3.12 0.21 15.05 VAR Model where 𝑦𝑡 = 𝑦1𝑡 , 𝑦2𝑡 , … , 𝑦𝐾𝑡 ′ is a 𝐾 × 1 random vector, 𝐴1 , … , 𝐴𝑝 are 𝐾 × 𝐾 matrices of parameters, 𝑣 is a 𝐾 × 1 vector of intercept parameters, and 𝑢𝑡 represents the innovations and is assumed to be white noise, such that 𝐸 𝑢𝑡 = 0, 𝐸 𝑢𝑡 𝑢𝑡′ = cross-equation error variance-covariance matrix , and 𝐸 𝑢𝑡 𝑢𝑠′ = 0 for 𝑡 ≠ 𝑠 VAR Model Vector Autoregression A n-equation, n-variable linear model in which each variable is in turn explained by its own lagged values, plus current and past values of the remaining n-1 variables. Model Selection Akaike's information criterion (AIC) Schwarz's Bayesian information criterion (SBIC) Hannan and Quinn information criterion (HQIC) Autocorrelation Stability condition VAR Model Best Specification (4-Variable with 4 Lags) Consumer confidence (UM), business confidence, 3month Treasury Bill interest rate, and first difference in log real GDP Granger Causality Tests Dependent Variable in Regression Regressor Consumer Business GDP Interest Rate Consumer 0.00 0.52 0.25 0.12 Business 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.17 GDP 0.74 0.02** 0.00 0.02** Interest Rate 0.12 0.01** 0.06* 0.00 All 0.16 0.00** 0.00** 0.03** Results Impulse Response Functions (IRF) IRF trace out the response of current and future values of each of the variables to a one-unit increase in the current value of one of the VAR errors/innovations, assuming that this error returns to zero in subsequent periods and that all other errors are equal to zero. Structurally interpretable IRF obtained by orthogonalized innovations via Cholesky decomposition Order: GDP, Interest Rate, Business Confidence, Consumer Confidence Impulse Response Suppose that the VAR is stable, we can derive the vector movingaverage representation of the VAR. ∞ 𝒚𝒕 = 𝝁 + 𝚽𝐢 𝐮𝐭−𝐢 𝒊=𝟎 where 𝜇 is the 𝐾 × 1 time-invariant mean of the process, and Φi are 𝐾 × 𝐾 matrices of parameters. The process by which the variables in 𝑦𝑡 fluctuate about their time-invariant means, 𝜇, is completely determined by the parameters in Φi and the (infinite) past history of the independent and identically distributed shocks or innovations, 𝑢𝑡 , 𝑢𝑡−1 , … Impulse Response Orthogonal IRF Impulse (10-unit Business), Response (GDP) % Growth in Real GDP 3 2.5 2 1.5 OIRF 1 Lower 0.5 Upper 0 -0.5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quarter 8 9 10 11 12 Impulse Response Cumulative Orthogonal IRF Impulse (10-unit Business), Response (GDP) % Growth in Real GDP 20 15 10 COIRF 5 Lower Upper 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quarter 8 9 10 11 12 Impulse Response Orthogonal IRF Impulse (10-unit Consumer), Response (GDP) % Growth in Real GDP 2.5 2 1.5 OIRF 1 0.5 Lower 0 Upper -0.5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quarter 8 9 10 11 12 Impulse Response Cumulative Orthogonal IRF Impulse (10-unit Consumer), Response (GDP) % Growth in Real GDP 14 12 10 8 COIRF 6 4 Lower 2 Upper 0 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quarter 8 9 10 11 12 Conclusion Animal spirits in business expectations has real, significant macroeconomic consequences. Animal spirits in consumer sentiment, however, has a relatively less significant impact in affecting macroeconomic activities. Limitations of the model due to Cholesky decomposition. Questions/Discussions