<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Journal Article</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Front Matter</ti>
<augp>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>i</ppf>
<ppl>vi</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.i</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.i</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Contagious Adverse Selection</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stephen</gnm><snm>Morris</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Hyun Song</gnm><snm>Shin</snm><aff>Princeton U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>1</ppf>
<ppl>21</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We illustrate the corrosive effect of even small amounts of adverse selection in an asset market and show how it can lead to the total breakdown of trade. The problem is the failure of "market confidence," defined as approximate common knowledge of an upper bound on expected losses. Small probability events can unravel market confidence. We discuss the role of contagious adverse selection
and the problem of "toxic assets" in the recent financial crisis. (JEL D82, G01, G12, G14)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.1</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.1</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Structural Models</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Gunter</gnm><snm>Coenen</snm><aff>European Central Bank</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Christopher  J.</gnm><snm>Erceg</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Charles</gnm><snm>Freedman</snm><aff>Carleton University</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Davide</gnm><snm>Furceri</snm><aff>University of Palermo</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Michael</gnm><snm>Kumhof</snm><aff>International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Rene </gnm><snm>Lalonde</snm><aff>Bank of Canada</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Douglas</gnm><snm>Laxton</snm><aff>International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jesper</gnm><snm>Linde</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Annabelle</gnm><snm>Mourougane</snm><aff>OECD</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Dirk</gnm><snm>Muir</snm><aff>International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Susanna</gnm><snm>Mursula</snm><aff>International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Carlos </gnm><snm>de Resende</snm><aff>Bank of Canada</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Roberts</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Board</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Werner </gnm><snm>Roeger</snm><aff>DG ECFIN, European Commission</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Stephen</gnm><snm>Snudden</snm><aff>International Monetary Fund</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Mathias</gnm><snm>Trabandt</snm><aff>European Central Bank</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jan</gnm><snm>in't Veld</snm><aff>DG ECFIN, European Commission</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>22</ppf>
<ppl>68</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The paper subjects seven structural DSGE models, all used heavily by policymaking institutions, to discretionary fiscal stimulus shocks
using seven different fiscal instruments, and compares the results to
those of two prominent academic DSGE models. There is considerable agreement across models on both the absolute and relative sizes of different types of fiscal multipliers. The size of many multipliers is large, particularly for spending and targeted transfers. Fiscal policy is most effective if it has moderate persistence and if monetary policy is accommodative. Permanently higher spending or deficits imply significantly lower initial multipliers. (JEL E12, E13, E52, E62)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.22</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.22</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2010-0090_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2010-0090_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>How Does the US Government Finance Fiscal Shocks?</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Antje</gnm><snm>Berndt</snm><aff>Carnegie Mellon U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Hanno</gnm><snm>Lustig</snm><aff>UCLA</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Sevin</gnm><snm>Yeltekin</snm><aff>Carnegie Mellon U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>69</ppf>
<ppl>104</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We develop a method for identifying and quantifying the fiscal channels that help finance government spending shocks. We define fiscal shocks as surprises in defense spending and show that they are more precisely identified when defense stock data are used in addition to aggregate macroeconomic data. Our results show that in the postwar period, about 9 percent of the US government's unanticipated spending needs were financed by a reduction in the market value of debt and more than 70 percent by an increase in primary surpluses. Additionally, we find that long-term debt is more effective at absorbing fiscal risk than short-term debt. (JEL E62, H56, and H63)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.69</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.69</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2010-0136_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2010-0136_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Bond Premium in a DSGE Model with Long-Run Real and Nominal Risks</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Glenn D.</gnm><snm>Rudebusch</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Eric T.</gnm><snm>Swanson</snm><aff>Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>105</ppf>
<ppl>43</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>The term premium in standard macroeconomic DSGE models is far too small and stable relative to the data--an example of the "bond premium puzzle." However, in endowment economy models, researchers have generated reasonable term premiums by assuming investors have recursive Epstein-Zin preferences and face long-run economic risks. We show that introducing Epstein-Zin preferences into a canonical DSGE model can also produce a large and variable term premium without compromising the model's ability to fit key macroeconomic variables. Long-run nominal risks further improve the model's empirical fit, but do not substantially reduce the need for high risk aversion. (JEL E13, E31, E43, E44)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.105</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.105</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2009-0171_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Articles</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>International Portfolio Allocation under Model Uncertainty</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Pierpaolo</gnm><snm>Benigno</snm><aff>LUISS "Guido Carli", Rome and EIEF</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Salvatore</gnm><snm>Nistico</snm><aff>U Rome "La Sapienza" and LUISS "Guido Carli", Rome</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>144</ppf>
<ppl>89</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>This paper revisits an old argument, hedging real exchange rate risk, as an explanation of the international home bias in equity. In a dynamic model, the relevant risk to be hedged is the long-run risk as opposed to the short-run risk. Domestic equity is indeed a good hedge with respect to long-run real-exchange-rate risk. Two
new frameworks are able to explain a large share of the observed US home bias: a model with Hansen-Sargent preferences in which agents fear model misspecification and a model with Epstein-Zin preferences. These two models are also immune to the risk-free rate puzzle. (JEL C58, F31, G11, G15)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.144</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.144</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2010-0007_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Symposia</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Tranching, CDS, and Asset Prices: How Financial Innovation Can Cause Bubbles and Crashes</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Ana</gnm><snm>Fostel</snm><aff>George Washington U</aff></au>
<au><gnm>John</gnm><snm>Geanakoplos</snm><aff>Yale U and Santa Fe Institute</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>190</ppf>
<ppl>225</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>We show how the timing of financial innovation might have contributed to the mortgage bubble and then to the crash of 2007-2009. We show why tranching and leverage first raised asset prices and why CDS lowered them afterward. This may seem puzzling, since it implies that creating a derivative tranche in the securitization whose payoffs are identical to the CDS will raise the underlying asset price, while the CDS outside the securitization lowers it. The resolution of the puzzle is that the CDS lowers the value of the underlying asset since it is equivalent to tranching cash. (JEL E32, E44, G01, G12, G13, G21).</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.190</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.190</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2011-0037_data.zip</dataset>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Symposia</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Stories of the Twentieth Century for the Twenty-First</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Pierre-Olivier</gnm><snm>Gourinchas</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Maurice</gnm><snm>Obstfeld</snm><aff>U CA, Berkeley</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>226</ppf>
<ppl>65</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>A key precursor of twentieth-century financial crises in emerging and advanced economies alike was the rapid buildup of leverage. Those emerging economies that avoided leverage booms during the 2000s also were most likely to avoid the worst effects of the twenty-first century's first global crisis. A discrete-choice panel analysis using 1973-2010 data suggests that domestic credit expansion and real
currency appreciation have been the most robust and significant predictors
of financial crises, regardless of whether a country is emerging or advanced. For emerging economies, however, higher foreign exchange reserves predict a sharply reduced probability of a subsequent crisis. (JEL E44, F34, F44, G01, G21, O19)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.226</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.226</doi>
<dataset>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/data/2011-0020_data.zip</dataset>
<addt_matl_link>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/mac/app/2011-0020_app.pdf</addtl_matl_link>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Symposia</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>The Optimal Conduct of Monetary Policy with Interest on Reserves</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Anil K.</gnm><snm>Kashyap</snm><aff>U Chicago</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Jeremy C.</gnm><snm>Stein</snm><aff>Harvard U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>266</ppf>
<ppl>82</ppl>
</pp>
<ab>In a world with interest on reserves, the central bank has two distinct tools that it can use to raise the short-term policy rate: it can either increase the interest it pays on reserve balances, or it can reduce the quantity of reserves in the system. We argue that by using both of these tools together, and by broadening the scope of reserve requirements, the central bank can simultaneously pursue two objectives: it
can manage the inflation-output tradeoff using a Taylor-type rule, and
it can regulate the externalities created by socially excessive shortterm
debt issuance on the part of financial intermediaries. (JEL E43, E52, E58, G21)</ab>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.266</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.266</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


<head>
<pubinfo>
<pubnm>American Economic Association</pubnm>
<publoc>Nashville, TN</publoc>
</pubinfo>
<jrninfo>
<issn>1945-7707</issn>
<issn_online>1945-7715</issn_online>
<jrnti>American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics</jrnti>
<jrnurl>http://www.aeaweb.org/aej-macro/</jrnurl>
</jrninfo>
<issinfo>
<vol>4</vol>
<iss>1</iss>
<cd>January 2012</cd>
<iss_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/issue.php?journal=MAC&volume=4&issue=1</iss_url>
</issinfo>
<docty>Corrigendum</docty>
<artinfo>
<ti>Corrigendum: Emerging Market Currency Excess Returns</ti>
<augp>
<au><gnm>Stephen</gnm><snm>Gilmore</snm><aff>Future Fund, Melbourne</aff></au>
<au><gnm>Fumio</gnm><snm>Hayashi</snm><aff>Hitotsubashi U</aff></au>
</augp>
<pp>
<ppf>283</ppf>
<ppl>283</ppl>
</pp>
<art_url>http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/mac.4.1.283</art_url>
<doi>10.1257/mac.4.1.283</doi>
</artinfo>
</head>


