Pitfalls in Financial Model Building: Reply and Some Further Extensions.
This article presents a reply by the author in response to the comment made by scholar Kevin Clinton. Clinton has provided an interesting counterexample to the verbal argument that the omission of cross-adjustment coefficients necessarily misspecifies the system of asset adjustment proposed by econo...
| Publicado en: | American Economic Review Vol. 63; no. 5; pp. 1005 - 1009 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
American Economic Association
Dec73
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=4508645&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 4508645 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00028282 AER jtl: American Economic Review issn: 00028282 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec73 vid: 63 iid: 5 pid: 22 pub: American Economic Association artinfo: ui: 4508645 ppf: 1005 ppct: 4 formats: tig: atl: Pitfalls in Financial Model Building: Reply and Some Further Extensions. aug: au: Ladenson, Mark L. affil: Assistant Professor of Economics, Michigan State University. su: Economic statistics Econometric models Economic models Demand function Tobin, James, 1918-2002 Economists Clinton, Kevin sug: subj: Economic statistics Econometric models Economic models Demand function Tobin, James, 1918-2002 Economists Clinton, Kevin ab: This article presents a reply by the author in response to the comment made by scholar Kevin Clinton. Clinton has provided an interesting counterexample to the verbal argument that the omission of cross-adjustment coefficients necessarily misspecifies the system of asset adjustment proposed by economists William Brainard and James Tobin. However, Clinton's specification is not a counterexample to any of the formal propositions developed in the paper. As Clinton observes in a footnote, the author dealt with two alternative sets of sufficient conditions for consistency of that system. He has presented a third alternative. All three of these alternatives are special cases of the complete set of necessary and sufficient conditions for consistency. The author did not develop these latter conditions in my paper since, at the time he wrote it, the author did not recognize their economic interpretation. This interpretation can now be provided. He therefore welcome the opportunity to develop the complete set of conditions. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y dt: @attributes: year: 1973 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|