IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kuiedp/1902.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Knightian Uncertainty Hypothesis: Unforeseeable Change and Muth�s Consistency Constraint in Modeling Aggregate Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Frydman

    (Department of Economics, New York University)

  • Soeren Johansen

    (Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Anders Rahbek

    (Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Morten Nyboe Tabor

    (Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark)

Abstract

This paper proposes the Knightian Uncertainty Hypothesis (KUH), a new approach to macroeconomics and finance theory. KUH rests on a novel mathematical framework that characterizes both measurable and Knightian uncertainty about economic outcomes. Relying on this framework and Muth�s pathbreaking hypothesis, KUH represents participants� forecasts to be consistent with both uncertainties. KUH thus enables models of aggregate outcomes that 1) are premised on market participants� rationality, and 2) accord a role to both fundamental and psychological (and other non-fundamental) factors in driving outcomes. The paper also suggests how a KUH model�s quantitative predictions can be confronted with time-series data.

Suggested Citation

  • Roman Frydman & Soeren Johansen & Anders Rahbek & Morten Nyboe Tabor, 2019. "The Knightian Uncertainty Hypothesis: Unforeseeable Change and Muth�s Consistency Constraint in Modeling Aggregate Outcomes," Discussion Papers 19-02, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.economics.ku.dk/research/publications/wp/dp_2019/1902.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prescott, Edward C., 1986. "Theory ahead of business-cycle measurement," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 11-44, January.
    2. Hendry, David F., 2018. "Deciding between alternative approaches in macroeconomics," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 119-135.
    3. Andrew Ang & Allan Timmermann, 2012. "Regime Changes and Financial Markets," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 313-337, October.
    4. John H. Cochrane, 2011. "Presidential Address: Discount Rates," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(4), pages 1047-1108, August.
    5. Barberis, Nicholas & Thaler, Richard, 2003. "A survey of behavioral finance," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128, Elsevier.
    6. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1982. "Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1345-1370, November.
    7. Roman Frydman & Edmund S. Phelps (ed.), 2013. "Rethinking Expectations: The Way Forward for Macroeconomics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 10002.
    8. Shiller, Robert J, 1981. "Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 421-436, June.
    9. Hansen, Lars Peter, 2013. "Uncertainty Outside and Inside Economic Models," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-7, Nobel Prize Committee.
    10. Nicholas Mangee, 2017. "New Evidence on Psychology and Stock Returns," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 417-426, October.
    11. Engel, Charles & Hamilton, James D, 1990. "Long Swings in the Dollar: Are They in the Data and Do Markets Know It?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 689-713, September.
    12. Kaminsky, Graciela, 1993. "Is There a Peso Problem? Evidence from the Dollar/Pound Exchange Rate, 1976-1987," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 450-472, June.
    13. Paul C. Tetlock, 2007. "Giving Content to Investor Sentiment: The Role of Media in the Stock Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(3), pages 1139-1168, June.
    14. Hamilton, James D., 1988. "Rational-expectations econometric analysis of changes in regime : An investigation of the term structure of interest rates," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(2-3), pages 385-423.
    15. Frydman, Roman & Goldberg, Michael D. & Mangee, Nicholas, 2015. "Knightian uncertainty and stock-price movements: Why the REH present-value model failed empirically," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 9, pages 1-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Magnus Henrekson & Dan Johansson & Johan Karlsson, 2024. "To Be or Not to Be: The Entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian Growth Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 48(1), pages 104-140, January.
    2. Annalisa Cristini & Piero Ferri, 2021. "Nonlinear models of the Phillips curve," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1129-1155, September.
    3. Matthias J. Feiler & Thibaut Ajdler, 2019. "Model uncertainty in financial forecasting," Papers 1912.10813, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roman Frydman & Soren Johansen & Anders Rahbek & Morten Tabor, 2019. "The Knightian Uncertainty Hypothesis: Unforeseeable Change and Muth`s Consistency Constraint in Modeling Aggregate Outcomes," Working Papers Series 92, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    2. Roman Frydman & Joshua R. Stillwagon, 2016. "Stock-Market Expectations: Econometric Evidence that both REH and Behavioral Insights Matter," Working Papers Series 44, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    3. Frydman, Roman & Goldberg, Michael D. & Mangee, Nicholas, 2015. "Knightian uncertainty and stock-price movements: Why the REH present-value model failed empirically," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 9, pages 1-50.
    4. John H. Cochrane, 2017. "Macro-Finance," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(3), pages 945-985.
    5. Willem H. Buiter, 2003. "James Tobin: An Appreciation of his Contribution to Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(491), pages 585-631, November.
    6. Matthijs Lof, 2015. "Rational Speculators, Contrarians, and Excess Volatility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1889-1901, August.
    7. Massimo Guidolin, 2011. "Markov Switching Models in Empirical Finance," Advances in Econometrics, in: Missing Data Methods: Time-Series Methods and Applications, pages 1-86, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    8. Roman Frydman & Michael Goldberg & Nicholas Mangee, 2015. "New Evidence for the Present-Value Model of Stock Prices: Why the REH Version Failed Empirically," Working Papers Series 2, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    9. Stijn Claessens & M Ayhan Kose, 2018. "Frontiers of macrofinancial linkages," BIS Papers, Bank for International Settlements, number 95.
    10. Escañuela Romana, Ignacio, 2016. "Azar, Determinismo e Indecidibilidad en la Teoría del Ciclo Económico [Randomness, Determinism and Undecidability in the Business Cycle Theory]," MPRA Paper 72978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Avramov, Doron & Li, Minwen & Wang, Hao, 2021. "Predicting corporate policies using downside risk: A machine learning approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-26.
    12. Diebold, Francis X & Rudebusch, Glenn D, 1996. "Measuring Business Cycles: A Modern Perspective," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(1), pages 67-77, February.
    13. Prescott, E.C., 2016. "RBC Methodology and the Development of Aggregate Economic Theory," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1759-1787, Elsevier.
    14. Roman Frydman & Soren Johansen & Anders Rahbek & Morten Tabor, 2017. "The Qualitative Expectations Hypothesis: Model Ambiguity, Consistent Representations of Market Forecasts, and Sentiment," Working Papers Series 59, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    15. Lewis, Karen K., 1995. "Puzzles in international financial markets," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 37, pages 1913-1971, Elsevier.
    16. Seok, Sang Ik & Cho, Hoon & Ryu, Doojin, 2019. "Firm-specific investor sentiment and the stock market response to earnings news," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 221-240.
    17. Roger E.A. Farmer & Carine Nourry & Alain Venditti, 2012. "The Inefficient Markets Hypothesis: Why Financial Markets Do Not Work Well in the Real World," NBER Working Papers 18647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Stijn Claessens & M Ayhan Kose, 2017. "Asset prices and macroeconomic outcomes: a survey," BIS Working Papers 676, Bank for International Settlements.
    19. Hommes, Cars & in ’t Veld, Daan, 2017. "Booms, busts and behavioural heterogeneity in stock prices," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 101-124.
    20. Pagan, Adrian, 1996. "The econometrics of financial markets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 15-102, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unforeseeable Change; Knightian Uncertainty; Muth�s Hypothesis; Model Ambiguity; REH; Behavioral Finance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • E00 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - General
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • E00 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - General
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1902. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Hoffmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/okokudk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.