A Bayesian Model Comparison for Trend‐Cycle Decompositions of Output

Angelia Grant and Joshua Chan

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2017, vol. 49, issue 2-3, 525-552

Abstract: We compare a number of widely used trend‐cycle decompositions of output in a formal Bayesian model comparison exercise. This is motivated by the often markedly different results from these decompositions—different decompositions have broad implications for the relative importance of real versus nominal shocks in explaining variations in output. Using U.S. quarterly real GDP, we find that the overall best model is an unobserved components model with two features: (i) a nonzero correlation between trend and cycle innovations and (ii) a break in trend output growth in 2007. The annualized trend output growth decreases from about 3.4% to 1.2%–1.5% after the break. The results also indicate that real shocks are more important than nominal shocks. The slowdown in trend output growth is robust when we expand the set of models to include bivariate unobserved components models.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (26)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12388

Related works:
Working Paper: A Bayesian model comparison for trend-cycle decompositions of output (2015)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jmoncb:v:49:y:2017:i:2-3:p:525-552

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking is currently edited by Robert deYoung, Paul Evans, Pok-Sang Lam and Kenneth D. West

More articles in Journal of Money, Credit and Banking from Blackwell Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().