I would like to replicate the results as in Swanson and Williams (AER 2014): "Measuring the Effect of the Zero Lower Bound on Medium- and Longer-Term Interest Rates" https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.10.3154.

However, I don't understand their specification for equation (9) (p. 11) $\Delta y_{t} = \gamma^{\tau_{i}}+ \delta^{\tau_{i}}\boldsymbol \beta \boldsymbol X_{t}+\varepsilon_{t}$ in the paper. "Where $\gamma^{\tau_{i}}$ and $ \delta^{\tau_{i}}$ are scalars that are allowed to take on different values in each calendar year $i$". $t$ indexex days and $\Delta y_{t}$ is the chagne in yield, $\boldsymbol X_{t}$ is a set of macroeconomin data surprise. They wrote

"We normalize the $\delta^{\tau_{i}}$ so that they have an average value of unity from 1990–2000, ..."

What chould they mean that the coefficients have an average value of one? Could it mean simply set $\delta^{\tau_{1990}} = 1$, $\delta^{\tau_{1991}} = 1$ ... $\delta^{\tau_{2000}} = 1$?

They have also posted their MATLAB code on the (bottom of the) website. But I still don't fully understand the specification. Would be nice if someone can help me out here.

  • $\begingroup$ Could you post more details about what $\Delta y_t$ and $\mathbf{X}$ are? I'm having trouble accessing the article at the moment. I don't think they've restricted all the $\delta^{\tau_i}$'s to $1$, though. That would defeat the purpose of including them in the specification. Surely it just means that $\frac{1}{11}\sum_{i=1990}^{2000} \delta^{\tau_i} = 1$? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2016 at 4:59
  • $\begingroup$ Here we go. Alternative link to the paper on Swanson's website. I'll try to have a closer look at this, but I'm putting the link up here in case someone else comes across this question and is able to help. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 17, 2016 at 5:05

1 Answer 1


I'm no empiricist (surprise), but skimming through the paper, I'm pretty sure that just means that the $\delta^{\tau_i}$'s are chosen so that

$$ \frac{1}{11}\sum_{i=1990}^{2000} \delta^{\tau_i} = 1 $$

as I stated in a comment above. This assumption is necessary in order to separately identify (estimate) $\delta^{\tau_i}$ and $\mathbf{\beta}$.

Without this assumption, all you are able to estimate is $\delta^{\tau_i}\mathbf{\beta}$, so you need additional assumptions to solve for the two factors separately.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.