Dipankar Biswas,*
Nivedita Banerjee
and
Abhiman Das
The measurement of business conditions on real time basis is a challenging task as the state of
real economy is constantly evolving. In this context, in order to achieve an accurate and timely
estimate of the state of real activity in a systematic, replicable and statistically optimal manner,
this paper proposes a framework to construct a real-time business conditions index for India.
The study is primarily motivated by the seminal work of Aruoba, Diebold and Scotti (2009),
which proposed a high frequency business conditions assessment for the US economy. Based on
various economic indicators measured at different frequencies, this paper develops a real-time
business conditions index for India following a dynamic factor model framework for extracting
signals from continuously evolving states. A Kalman filter routine is used for signal extraction
from state-space representation as well as evaluation of likelihood function. Empirical results
show that this coincident indicator tracks the overall economic activity reasonably well.
JEL Classification : C61, E32, E37
Keywords : Business cycle; Dynamic factor model; Turning points; State-space
model; Expansion
Introduction
The state of the real economy of a country evolves in a continuous
fashion. Economic agents and policy makers, making decisions in real
time, require accurate and timely estimates of the state of real activity. In the light of the changing nature of the economy, where more and
more activities are being channelised through both organized and
unorganized business sectors, the assessment of business conditions on
real time basis is of paramount importance, particularly for central
banks. From mid-1980s until 1998, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
used a monetary-targeting framework. In the year 1998, the RBI’s
Working Group on Money Supply, in its report, pointed out that
monetary policy exclusively based on money demand could lack
precision and hence it was necessary to monitor a set of additional
indicators for monetary policy formulation. Accordingly, the RBI
adopted a multiple indicator approach from 1998 wherein, besides
monetary aggregates, information pertaining to currency, credit, fiscal
position, merchandise trade, capital flows, inflation rate, exchange rate,
refinancing and transactions in foreign exchange etc., were juxtaposed
with data on output and the real sector activity for drawing policy
perspectives. Monitoring a wide range of variables and studying their
dynamic interactions are now possible partly because of the development
of more sophisticated econometric models. In this context, in 2002, the
RBI’s Working Group of Economic Indicators provided importance to
deal with the business cycle analysis and to construct a composite index
of leading indicators for Indian economy. In 2007, the RBI’s Working
Group of Leading Indicators for Indian Economy, in its report,
recommended two series, viz., monthly Index of Industrial Production
(IIP) and quarterly Non-Agricultural GDP (NAGDP), as the reference
frame of business cycle in India. The Group also constructed Composite
Index of Leading Indicators (CILI) for each of these two reference
series following international best practices. As proposed by the Group,
the outlook for business cycle movement for 2-3 quarters ahead is
regularly examined internally in RBI and serves as an important input
to the monetary policy making.
It has been, however, observed that the proposal of the Working
Group of Leading Indicators to provide an outlook for business condition
of the Indian economy is not sufficient on real time basis due to the
following reasons. Firstly, most frequent data used for developing
leading indicators is observed on monthly basis. For real time
measurement, moving beyond the monthly frequency is a basic prerequisite. Some important indicators (e.g., asset prices, yield curve term
premium) are observed at daily frequency, which potentially contain
important information on the overall economic activity. Secondly, the
report did not take into account the assumption of continuously evolving
state of the economy, which is essential to real time measurement.
Lastly, the provisional and partially revised data used for the leading
index also affects the performance to predict future movements of
aggregate economic activity in the real-time framework (Diebold and
Rudebusch, 1991).
Against this backdrop, we propose a framework motivated by the
earlier work of Aruoba, Diebold and Scotti (2009), for the high frequency
business conditions assessment for India in a systematic, replicable and
statistically optimal manner. Giving the latest information of various
macroeconomic indicators of different frequencies, our objective is to
assess the current state of economic activity based on a real-time index
and to update our assessment as more information flows in. Our
assessment is as on today, and not beyond. In that sense, the index is
coincident (not leading) to the business condition.
The paper is organised as follows: Section II reviews select
literature on the real-time data analysis. Section III describes the
empirical analysis concerned with the development of real-time business
conditions index for Indian economy. The description of software used
for empirical analysis is mentioned in Section IV. Finally, Section V summarises the results, with a few concluding remarks in Section VI.
Section II
Literature Review
In empirical econometrics, the use of real-time data is not a recent
area of study. A long list of literature can be mentioned in this regard.
Early studies of real-time data focused on the sensitivity of certain
statistics to data vintage. Gartaganis and Goldberger (1955) did the first
work on real-time data analysis. They mainly confined themselves to
the properties of statistical discrepancy between Gross National Product
(GNP) and gross national income in United States, after data were
revised in 1954. Howrey (1978) focused on the use of preliminary data
in econometric forecasting and indicated clearly that the intelligent use of preliminary data would be expected to result in a meaningful
reduction in prediction error variances. Diebold and Rudebusch (1991)
examined the ability of composite index of leading economic indicators
to predict future movements in aggregate economic activities based on
real-time analysis. They used the provisional and partially revised data
for the leading index that were actually available historically, along
with recursive out-of-sample forecasts. They found substantial
deterioration of forecasting performance in the real-time framework.
Orphanides and Simon van Norden (2002) examined the reliability of
several detrending methods for estimating the output gap in real time.
They focused on the extent to which output-gap estimates were updated
over time as more information arrived and data were revised. They
suggested that, great caution would be required for measuring output
gap on real-time basis.
Later research posed the problem more formally as a signalextraction
problem. Evans (2005) focused on estimating high-frequency
GDP, equated business conditions with GDP growth and used state
space methods to estimate daily GDP growth using data on preliminary,
advanced, and final releases of GDP and other macroeconomic variables.
Anderson and Gascon (2009) used a state-space model to estimate the
“true” unobserved measure of total output in the US economy. The
analysis used the entire history (i.e., all vintages) of selected real-time
data series to compute revisions and corresponding statistics for those
series. The revision statistics, along with the most recent data vintage,
were used in a state-space model to extract filtered estimates of the
“true” series.
In the Indian context, some studies (Dua and Banerji, 1999, 2004)
related to business cycles and coincident economic indicators are
important. These studies use the classical NBER approach to determine
the timing of recessions and expansions in the Indian economy, as well
as the chronology of growth rate cycles, viz., the timing of pickup and
slowdown in economic growth. The reference chronology for business
as well as growth rate cycles is determined on the basis of the consensus
of key coincident indicators of monthly frequency along with a
composite coincident index comprising those indicators, which track fluctuations in current economic activity. However, our aim is to assess
the current state of economic activity based on the latest information of
various macroeconomic indicators of varying frequencies.
This study is primarily motivated by an empirical study of Aruoba,
Diebold and Scotti (2009) on the US economy. They constructed a
framework for measuring economic activity at high frequency,
potentially in real time. They used a variety of stock and flow data
observed at mixed frequencies and performed a prototype empirical
application for illustrating the gains achieved by moving beyond the
customary monthly data frequency. The four key ingredients of their
work are as follows:
1. Treatment of business conditions as an unobserved variable,
related to the observed indicators. Latency of business conditions
is consistent with economic theory (e.g., Lucas 1977), which
emphasizes that the business cycle is not about any single variable,
but the dynamics and interactions (or co-movements) of many
variables.
2. Explicit incorporation of business conditions indicators measured
at different frequencies. Important business conditions indicators
arrive at a variety of frequencies, including quarterly (e.g., GDP),
monthly (e.g., industrial production), weekly (e.g., employment),
and continuously (e.g., asset prices), and the incorporation of all of
them provides continuously updated measurements.
3. Explicit incorporation of indicators measured at high frequencies.
As the goal is to track the high frequency evolution of real activity,
it is important to incorporate (or at least not exclude from the
outset) the high frequency information flow associated with high
frequency indicators.
4. Extraction and forecasting of latent business conditions using
linear yet statistically optimal procedures, which involve no
approximation. The appeal of exact as opposed to approximate
procedures is obvious, but achieving exact optimality is not straight
forward, due to complications arising from temporal aggregation
of stocks versus flows in systems with mixed-frequency data.
The study proposed a dynamic factor model that permitted optimal
extraction of the latent state of macroeconomic activity being illustrated
by a four-variable empirical application and in a parallel calibrated
simulation (detailed theory is mentioned in the technical appendix).
The following four indicators with varying frequencies were chosen as
business conditions indicators:
1. Yield curve term premium, defined as the difference between
10-years and 3-months US Treasury yield, at daily frequency.
2. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, a weekly flow variable.
3. Employees on non-agricultural payrolls, a monthly stock variable.
4. Real GDP, a quarterly flow variable.
The real activity indicator thus obtained from the empirical analysis
threw new light on the area of business cycle measurement and
simultaneously outperformed the so-called National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER) chronology in some economic as well as
statistical sense. First, although the real activity indicator broadly
coincided with the NBER chronology, it had a propensity to indicate
earlier turning points, especially peaks. Second, the indicator was
available at high frequency and hence, a useful “nowcast”, whereas the
NBER chronology was available only monthly and with very long lags.
Third, it was evident that incorporation of weekly data in real activity
indicator was very helpful for providing real time information, as
compared to NBER chronology. However, incorporation of daily data
did not improve the performance of the indicator; still a daily state
space setup was needed to accommodate the variation in weeks per
month and weeks per quarter. Fourth, based on a simulation calibrated
to the empirical results, it was observed that, incorporating high
frequency data improved the accuracy of the extracted factor. Lastly,
the real time performance (preferably, daily) of the business conditions
would be assessed at any point of time by re-estimating the system
based on latest-vintage data.
Presently, six macroeconomic indicators are used to construct the
Aruoba-Diebold-Scotti Business Conditions Index (ADS Index). These
are weekly initial jobless claims, quarterly real GDP, monthly payroll employment, monthly industrial production, monthly real personal
income less transfers, and monthly real manufacturing and trade sales.
All these are important and widely monitored. The ADS Index is
updated weekly, following the release of that week’s new and/or revised
component indicator data.
Section III
Development of Real Time Business Conditions Index for India
It has been pointed out in Section 2 that, the business conditions of
an economy are latent, and are related to some observed indicators. In
order to develop a real time business conditions indicator in Indian
context, the prime objective is to select those observed indicators from
the existing information base on the same lines as was mentioned in the
study of Aruoba, Diebold and Scotti (2009). The information base
includes national income aggregates, index of industrial production,
capital market performance, monetary and banking statistics, price
statistics, fiscal statistics, trade data, etc. Some important series along
with their source, frequency, availability, and economic as well as
statistical justification for inclusion in the selected list are discussed in
Table 1.
Table 1: List of Selected Indicators |
Sl. No. |
Name of the Indicator |
Unit of Measurement |
Frequency |
Source |
1 |
Real Non-Agricultural GDP |
Rs. Crore |
Quarterly |
Central Statistics Office (CSO) |
2 |
Index of Industrial Production (IIP) |
--- |
Monthly |
-Do- |
3 |
Production of commercial motor vehicles |
Thousand Numbers |
Monthly |
-Do- |
4 |
Cargo Handled at Major Ports |
Million Tonne |
Monthly |
-Do- |
5 |
Revenue on Railways Freight Traffic |
Million Tonne |
Monthly |
-Do- |
6 |
Number of applicants on the live registers ofemployment exchange |
Thousand Numbers |
Monthly |
-Do- |
7 |
Narrow Money (M1) |
Rs. Crore |
Fortnightly |
RBI |
8 |
Money Supply (M3) |
Rs. Crore |
Fortnightly |
RBI |
9 |
WPI Primary Articles |
--- |
Weekly |
Ministry of Commerce and Industries |
10 |
Foreign Exchange Reserve |
Rs. Crore |
Weekly |
RBI |
11 |
Yield Curve Term Premium (difference between10-years Govt. Bond and 91 days Treasury yields) |
--- |
Daily |
RBI |
12 |
BSE Sensex |
--- |
Daily |
Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) |
a. Real Gross Domestic Product - Ideally the Real Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) represents almost all aspects of the economic
activities. In the literature of business cycle, the cyclical fluctuation
of Real GDP is a well-accepted reference frame of the business
conditions of the economy as it includes all the three sectors viz.,
primary, secondary and tertiary. In India, the Central Statistics
Office (CSO) of Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation releases the quarterly figures of GDP with a two
month time lag. In the report of RBI’s Working Group of Leading
Indicators for Indian Economy, the quarterly Non-agricultural
GDP (NAGDP) was taken as a reference series of business cycle
due to the dependence of agricultural sector on monsoon
performance. In the context of the Indian economy, the agriculture
and allied sector contributes almost 20 per cent to the total GDP.
However, the performance of agriculture sector depends heavily
on rainfall. The high volatility in agricultural sector may be
observed from the movement of cyclical component of GDP
Agriculture with standard deviation 0.26 (Chart 1). On the other
hand, the standard deviation of each of the Overall GDP and Non-
Agricultural GDP cycles is 0.13. Moreover, Chart 1 depicts similar
movements of Overall GDP and Non-Agricultural GDP cycles
(with correlation 0.87). Based on these observations, Nonagricultural
GDP is considered more preferable than overall GDP.
b. Index of Industrial Production – In the ADS index, out of six
macroeconomic series, one is monthly industrial production and
accordingly, in this study, monthly Index of industrial Production
(IIP) has also been considered. The index is regularly published by
CSO with a two month lag. It may also be mentioned that, OECD
uses monthly Industrial Production as the reference series for
business cycle analysis. Chart 2 presents the coincidental
movements of Non-Agricultural GDP and IIP cycles with
correlation 0.81. As the Non-Agricultural GDP has nearly 83 per
cent share in overall GDP, it is well justified that IIP also reflects
the business conditions of the economy with frequency higher than
quarterly intervals.
c. Indicators observing industrial activities – There are some other
indicators that show the performance of industrial activities.
Transportation of goods by road is a good indicator of industrial production process. Thus ‘Production of commercial motor
vehicles’ is taken as an indicator. Moreover, increased levels of
production, consumption and trade also get reflected, particularly
in a large country such as India, in increased transportation of
goods. Thus, the two series, viz., ‘Cargo Handled at Major Ports’
and ‘Revenue on Railways Freight Traffic’ are also considered in
this study. The data of these series are regularly released in the
monthly capsule report of CSO with two months lag. The
movements of cyclical components of the three industrial activities
indicators vis-à-vis IIP are presented in Charts 3 to 5. All show
coincidental movement with IIP cycle.
Table 2: Cross-correlation between Non-agricultural GDP and IIP |
i |
lag |
lead |
i |
Lag |
lead |
0 |
0.4321 |
0.4321 |
6 |
0.1256 |
-0.0078 |
1 |
0.3473 |
0.3130 |
7 |
0.1796 |
0.0219 |
2 |
0.2624 |
0.1940 |
8 |
0.2336 |
0.0472 |
3 |
0.1776 |
0.0749 |
9 |
0.2564 |
0.0348 |
4 |
0.0928 |
-0.0445 |
10 |
0.1797 |
-0.0139 |
5 |
0.0716 |
-0.0374 |
11 |
0.1031 |
-0.0627 |
d. WPI Primary Articles – In the ADS Index, the price factor was not
considered directly, but the daily yield curve term premium (i.e.,
difference between 10-year and 3-months US Treasury yield) had
taken into account inflation expectations to some extent. In our
study, we consider WPI Primary Articles compiled by Ministry of
Commerce and Industries, due to the following reasons.
(i) WPI Primary Articles data are available at weekly frequency1.
Although WPI Manufactured Products is more related to
industrial production than WPI Primary Articles, it is presently
compiled on monthly basis. Moreover, although WPI of ‘Fuel
and Power’ is available on weekly basis, the prices of some
products included in the ‘Fuel and Power’ group are
administered by the government.
(ii) The cyclical movement of WPI Primary Articles is somehow
coincident to IIP cycle, although divergence is clearly observed
in most cases (Chart 6).
e. Employment and Unemployment indicator – The comprehensive
employment series, which is available on a regular basis, is the
estimated average daily employment in factories. But it is available only on an annual basis. Data on unemployment rate are not
complied on a regular basis. The series, ‘Number of applicants on
the live registers of employment exchange’, released in Monthly
Abstract of Statistics by CSO, gives some indication of the number
of unemployed in the cities. But this suffers from the well-known
limitations such as the changing (increasing) number of
unemployment exchanges over the years, possibility of incomplete
as well as multiple registrations, registration by those currently
employed because they are looking for better jobs or through
failure to cancel registration, etc. Despite these limitations, Chitre
(2001) found this series as a useful coincident indicator of the
industrial production and, therefore, is included in the present
study (Chart 7). Another limitation of the series is its long lag
period for releasing the data. For example, the Monthly Abstract of
Statistics, September-October 2009 publication released the data
upto March 2009.
f. Yield Curve Term Premium – In the study of Aruoba, Diebold and
Scotti (2009), the only series with daily frequency was yield curve
term premium, defined as the difference between 10-years and
3-months US Treasury yield. On the same lines, in this study, the
difference between yields of 10-years government securities and
91-days Treasury Bills is included in the list. These data are
available on real-time basis.
g. BSE Sensex – Another daily indicator, as mentioned by Aruoba,
Diebold and Scotti (2009), is asset price. As a proxy of asset price,
daily Sensex data of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) has been
examined. It was observed that, in connection with the economic
activity of the country, Sensex seems to be noisy as well as volatile.
Also, on examining the cross correlation of BSE Sensex with Non-
Agricultural GDP (NAGDP), IIP and weekly Foreign Exchange
Reserve, we have seen that the correlation is not encouraging.
h. Foreign Exchange Reserves - As selected indicators are expected
to be highly correlated with each other, we have examined the cross-correlation among different series at different frequencies. It
was found that, the Foreign Exchange Reserves, which was
considered as a stock variable available at weekly frequency, has a
poor correlation with the economic activity, i.e., NAGDP as well
as with IIP, and hence is not considered fit for the requirement.
Table 3: Cross Correlation between cyclical components- BSE-Sensex with
Non-Agricultural GDP (NAGDP), IIP and Foreign Exchange Reserves |
NAGDP Vs BSE-Sensex |
IIP Vs BSE-Sensex |
Reserves Vs BSE-Sensex |
I |
lag |
lead |
i |
Lag |
lead |
i |
lag |
lead |
0 |
0.2936 |
0.2936 |
0 |
0.1667 |
0.1667 |
0 |
0.0222 |
0.0222 |
1 |
0.2910 |
0.2964 |
1 |
0.1684 |
0.1655 |
1 |
0.0187 |
0.0263 |
2 |
0.2885 |
0.2991 |
2 |
0.1703 |
0.1642 |
2 |
0.0153 |
0.0304 |
3 |
0.2859 |
0.3019 |
3 |
0.1719 |
0.1630 |
3 |
0.0115 |
0.0347 |
4 |
0.2833 |
0.3045 |
4 |
0.1734 |
0.1616 |
4 |
0.0078 |
0.0391 |
5 |
0.2807 |
0.3069 |
5 |
0.1751 |
0.1600 |
5 |
0.0040 |
0.0437 |
6 |
0.2783 |
0.3093 |
6 |
0.1767 |
0.1583 |
6 |
0.0002 |
0.0484 |
7 |
0.2760 |
0.3115 |
7 |
0.1781 |
0.1566 |
7 |
-0.0035 |
0.0532 |
8 |
0.2737 |
0.3136 |
8 |
0.1799 |
0.1546 |
8 |
-0.0073 |
0.0577 |
9 |
0.2714 |
0.3156 |
9 |
0.1821 |
0.1528 |
9 |
-0.0113 |
0.0619 |
10 |
0.2691 |
0.3175 |
10 |
0.1840 |
0.1508 |
10 |
-0.0154 |
0.0659 |
Table 4: Cross Correlation between cyclical components - Foreign Exchange
Reserves with Non-Agricultural GDP (NAGDP) and IIP |
NAGDP Vs Reserves |
IIP Vs Reserves |
i |
Lag |
Lead |
i |
lag |
lead |
0 |
-0.0528 |
-0.0528 |
0 |
0.0360 |
0.0360 |
1 |
-0.0514 |
-0.0545 |
1 |
0.0329 |
0.0393 |
2 |
-0.0499 |
-0.0562 |
2 |
0.0295 |
0.0426 |
3 |
-0.0484 |
-0.0578 |
3 |
0.0261 |
0.0459 |
4 |
-0.0470 |
-0.0596 |
4 |
0.0223 |
0.0489 |
5 |
-0.0456 |
-0.0613 |
5 |
0.0183 |
0.0518 |
6 |
-0.0443 |
-0.0631 |
6 |
0.0138 |
0.0548 |
7 |
-0.0431 |
-0.0648 |
7 |
0.0096 |
0.0579 |
8 |
-0.0419 |
-0.0666 |
8 |
0.0053 |
0.0611 |
9 |
-0.0408 |
-0.0685 |
9 |
0.0012 |
0.0635 |
10 |
-0.0398 |
-0.0704 |
10 |
-0.0029 |
0.0657 |
i. Money Supply and Narrow Money–Besides weekly variables,
Narrow Money (M1) and Money Supply (M3) have been considered
as fortnightly stock variable for testing coincidence with IIP and
NAGDP cyclical components. The cross-correlations of M1 and
M3 with NAGDP and IIP separately were examined and found that
Narrow Money had a better relationship with IIP and GDP than
Money Supply and hence was selected (Table 5 and Charts 8 and 9).
Table 5: Cross Correlation between cyclical components -
M 1 and M 3
with NAGDP and IIP |
M1 Vs NAGDP |
M1 Vs IIP |
M3 Vs NAGDP |
M3 Vs IIP |
i |
lag |
lead |
i |
lag |
lead |
i |
lag |
lead |
i |
lag |
lead |
0 |
0.6763 |
0.6763 |
0 |
0.5586 |
0.5586 |
0 |
0.1287 |
0.1287 |
0 |
-0.2187 |
-0.2187 |
1 |
0.6464 |
0.7230 |
1 |
0.5972 |
0.5383 |
1 |
0.2700 |
-0.0008 |
1 |
-0.2026 |
-0.2112 |
2 |
0.5806 |
0.6534 |
2 |
0.5527 |
0.4547 |
2 |
0.4322 |
-0.1132 |
2 |
-0.2235 |
-0.2069 |
3 |
0.4357 |
0.5182 |
3 |
0.5087 |
0.4392 |
3 |
0.5224 |
-0.2116 |
3 |
-0.2362 |
-0.1797 |
4 |
0.4030 |
0.4323 |
4 |
0.5059 |
0.3858 |
4 |
0.5782 |
-0.3264 |
4 |
-0.2228 |
-0.1499 |
5 |
0.2699 |
0.2348 |
5 |
0.4454 |
0.2912 |
5 |
0.5886 |
-0.4753 |
5 |
-0.2328 |
-0.1532 |
6 |
0.1092 |
0.1010 |
6 |
0.3878 |
0.2854 |
6 |
0.5751 |
-0.5606 |
6 |
-0.2285 |
-0.0966 |
7 |
0.0243 |
-0.0267 |
7 |
0.3465 |
0.2390 |
7 |
0.5986 |
-0.6325 |
7 |
-0.2549 |
-0.0589 |
8 |
-0.1208 |
-0.1072 |
8 |
0.3334 |
0.2225 |
8 |
0.5342 |
-0.6227 |
8 |
-0.2298 |
-0.0127 |
9 |
-0.2517 |
-0.1798 |
9 |
0.2679 |
0.2092 |
9 |
0.5034 |
-0.6113 |
9 |
-0.2625 |
0.0602 |
10 |
-0.3874 |
-0.2564 |
10 |
0.2404 |
0.1820 |
10 |
0.4240 |
-0.5991 |
10 |
-0.2833 |
0.1063 |
Based on the above-mentioned indicators as well as the methodology
(described in the Technical Appendix), four indicators were finally
selected (Table 6).
We implimented this methodology using a program in RATS
software to construct a real-time business conditions index in the Indian
context. Instead of weekly variable (as used in ADS index), we have
considered here a fortnightly available stock variable, i.e. Narrow
Money (M1).
Table 6: Finally Selected Indicators |
Serial no. |
Variable Name |
Frequency of Availability |
Variable Type |
1 |
Yield Curve Term Premium |
Daily |
Stock |
2 |
Narrow Money(M1) |
Fortnightly |
Stock |
3 |
Index of Industrial Production |
Monthly |
Flow |
4 |
Non-Agricultural GDP |
Quarterly |
Flow |
Section IV
Software
First, we have extracted the cyclical component from the four
selected series as we try to find an indicator for business cycle. We did
the extraction based on the following procedure:
I. Seasonal adjustment of the series using X-12 ARIMA methodology.
II. HP Filter to remove the smoothed trend from the seasonally
adjusted series and finally extracting the cyclical component.
Then the series having cyclical component only has been used in
the program as an input. After that, we have defined the matrices of the
state-space model following the theory stated in the paper by Aruoba,
Diebold and Scotti (2009). In their paper, they considered a weekly
flow variable, but in our case we have considered a fortnightly stock
variable. Again, instead of monthly stock variable, we have considered
a flow variable. The matrix coefficients have been changed accordingly.
We have used Dynamic Linear Model for estimating the coefficients.
We obtain our start-up values in two steps as follows. In the first step,
we use only daily and stock variables, which drastically reduce the
dimension of the state vector, resulting in very fast estimation. This
yields preliminary estimates of all measurement equation parameters
for the daily and stock variables and all transition equation parameters,
as well as a preliminary extraction of the factor (via a pass of the Kalman
smoother).
In the second step, we use the results of the first step to obtain startup
values for the remaining parameters, that is, those in the flow variable
measurement equations. We simply regress the flow variables on the
smoothed state extracted in the first step and take the coefficients as our
start-up values. With the model cast in state-space form, and for given
parameters, we use the Kalman filter and smoother to obtain optimal
extractions of the latent state of real activity.
Section V
Empirical Results
Based on the four finally selected indicators, viz., daily Yield curve
term premium, fortnightly Narrow Money (M1), monthly Index of
Industrial Production (IIP), and quarterly Non-Agricultural GDP
(NAGDP), the Real-time Business Conditions Index (RTBCI) was
constructed (Chart 10). Data period of the selected variables is presented
in Table 7.
Chart 10 displays the cyclical movements of Non-Agricultural
GDP (NAGDP) and Index of Industrial Production (IIP) along with the
daily movement of RTBCI. It is observed that there is a coincidental
movement among these three series. The movement of RTBCI beyond the vertical red line indicates the state of the economy which is otherwise not observed from the macro aggregates. The momentum as per the
RTBCI as on December 10, 2010, indicates somewhat low acceleration
of economic activity.
Table 7: Data Period of Selected Indicators |
Sr.
No. |
Variable Name |
Frequency of
Availability |
Variable
Type |
Period |
1 |
Yield Curve Term Premium |
Daily |
Stock |
1-Dec-2003 to 10-Dec-2010 |
2 |
Narrow Money (M1) |
Fortnightly |
Stock |
Fortnight ended 12-Dec-2003 to Fortnight ended 19-Nov-2010 |
3 |
Index of Industrial Production |
Monthly |
Flow |
Dec-2003 to October 2010 |
4 |
Non-Agricultural GDP |
Quarterly |
Flow |
Q4:2003-04 to Q2:2010-11 |
In order to see the importance of daily data for real-time
measurement, a separate analysis was done to construct an index using
the three selected indicators except daily “Yield curve term premium”
data. The reason behind this is to examine if the RTBCI using fortnightly
data performs better than the earlier index constructed using daily data.
Chart 11 displays the cyclical movements of Non-Agricultural GDP
(NAGDP) and Index of Industrial Production (IIP), along with the daily
movement of RTBCI without daily data. Although this chart indicates
co-movement between these three series, the next step is to search for
any lag difference between the movements of RTBCI and RTBCI
without daily data. Chart 12 displays the movements of RTBCI and
RTBCI without daily data. In this chart it is observed that, the turning
points of RTBCI including daily data is earlier than those of RTBCI
without daily data. The lag difference varies approximately from 1 to 6
weeks. This implies that, if the turning point occurs in the business
cycle movement, then RTBCI will capture the turning point earlier than
RTBCI without daily data. For example, the turning point occurred in
January 2009 in IIP cycle was captured by RTBCI (value corresponding to January 3, 2009 was the lowest) four weeks earlier than that captured
by RTBCI without daily data (value corresponding to January 31, 2009
was the lowest). This justifies the importance of usage of daily data
while constructing the Index.
Section VI
Concluding Remarks
Real time decision making requires accurate and timely
understanding of the state of real activity. In the light of the changing
nature of the economy where increasingly more and more activities are
channelised through both the organized and unorganized business
sectors, the measurement of business condition on real time basis is
extremely difficult. In this context, in order to achieve an accurate and
timely estimate of the state of real activity in a systematic, replicable
and statistically optimal manner, this paper proposes a framework to
construct a real-time business conditions index for India. Based on
various economic indicators measured at different frequencies, this
paper develops a real-time business conditions index for India following
a dynamic factor model framework for extracting signals from
continuously evolving states. A Kalman filter routine is used for signal
extraction from state-space representation as well as evaluation of
likelihood function. Empirical results show that this coincident indicator
tracks the overall economic activity reasonably well.
Technical Appendix
Measurement of Real-time Business Condition
As indicated earlier, the framework for measuring real time economic
activity at high frequency as presented in this paper was developed by
Aruoba, et al. (2008). Detailed methodology is documented there. A
brief description is presented in this technical appendix.The frequency
of the dynamic factor model considered here is daily. However, daily
data are mostly not observed for major variables and so will be shown
missing. As a result, missing data and temporal aggregation were treated
explicitly. In this process, measurement equations were obtained for
both stock and flow variables which were observed. This allowed us to
incorporate lagged state variables in the measurement equations and
also the trend, which are important characteristics of macro data.
a. Dynamic Factor Model: Framework for Daily Frequency
Though this approach can handle higher (intraday) frequencies, we
have assumed that the state of the economy evolves at daily frequency.
Obviously, there will be many macro variables which are observed at
monthly or quarterly or annual frequency and hence are not observed
daily. If the underlying business conditions at day t follows an AR(p)
dynamics, then
e. Empirical Application
We now present a simple application involving the daily term premium,
fortnightly Narrow Money, monthly IIP, and quarterly NAGDP. We
describe in turn the data, the specific variant of the model that we
implement subtleties of our estimation procedure, and our empirical
results.
Business Conditions Indicators
Our analysis covers the period from December 1, 2003 through July 2,
2010, which are 2406 observations of daily data. We use a seven-day
week and four indicators. Moving from highest frequency to lowest
frequency, the first indicator is the yield curve term premium, defined as
the difference between 10-year Government securities and 3-month
Indian Treasury yields. We measure the term premium daily; hence
there are no aggregation issues. We treat holidays and weekends as
missing. The second indicator is Narrow Money, a fortnightly stock
variable covering the seven-day period from Sunday to Saturday. We
set the end-of-fortnight value to the end-of-fortnight daily value, and
we treat other days as missing. The third indicator is IIP, a monthly flow variable. We set the end-of-month value to the sum of the daily values
within that month, and we treat other days as missing. The fourth and
final indicator is NAGDP, a quarterly flow variable. We set the end-ofquarter
value to the sum of daily values within the quarter, and we treat
other days as missing. Basically, we want the variables chosen to
illustrate the flexibility of our framework. Hence we choose four
variables measured at four different frequencies ranging from very high
(daily) to very low (quarterly), and representing both stocks (term
premium, narrow money) and flows (IIP, NAGDP). Since we are
seeking a ‘Business Cycle’ indicator, we have extracted the cyclical
component from the data (except the daily variable). This cyclical series
is taken as our input.
Model Implementation
In the development thus far we have allowed for general polynomial
trend and general AR(p) dynamics. In the prototype model that we now
take to the data, we make two simplifying assumptions that reduce the
number of parameters to be estimated by numerical likelihood
optimization. First, we de-trend prior to fitting the model rather than
estimating trend parameters simultaneously with the others, and second,
we use simple first-order dynamics throughout. In future work, we look
forward to incorporating more flexible dynamics but, as we show below,
the framework appears quite encouraging even with simple AR(1)
dynamics.
References
Anderson, Richard G. and Gascon Charles S., (2009), “Estimating U.S.
Output Growth with Vintage Data in a State-Space Framework”, Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, July/August, 91(4), pp. 349-69.
Aruoba, S. B. (2008), “Data Revisions Are Not Well-Behaved,” Journal
of Money, Credit and Banking, 40, 319–340.
Aruoba, S. B., Diebold Francis X. and Scotti Chiara, (2009), “Real-
Time Measurement of Business Conditions”, Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, October, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 417-427.
Burns, A. F., and Mitchell, W. C., (1946), Measuring Business Cycles,
New York: NBER.
Diebold, Francis X. and Rudebusch, Glenn D., (1991), “Forecasting
Output with the Composite Leading Index: A Real-Time Analysis”,
Journal of the American Statistical Association, September, 86(415),
pp. 603-10.
----------------, (1996), “Measuring Business Cycles: A Modern
Perspective,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78, 67–77.
Diebold, F. X., Rudebusch, G. D., and Aruoba, S. B., (2006), “The
Macroeconomy and the Yield Curve: A Dynamic Latent Factor
Approach,” Journal of Econometrics, 131, 309–338.
Dua, P., and Banerji, A., (1999), “An Index of Coincident Economic
Indicators for the Indian Economy”, Journal of Quantitative Economics,
15, 177-201.
----------------, (2004), “Coincident Index, Business Cycles and Growth
Rate Cycles: The Case of India” in Macroeconomic Modelling, ed., K.
Krishnamurty and V. Pandit, Oxford University Press.
Durbin, J., and Koopman, S. J., (2001), Time Series Analysis by State
Space Methods, Oxford University Press.
Evans, M. D. D., (2005), “Where Are We Now?: Real Time Estimates
of the Macro Economy,” The International Journal of Central Banking,
September,127–175.
Gartaganis, Arthur J. and Goldberger, Arthur S., (1955), “A Note on the
Statistical Discrepancy in the National Accounts”, Econometrica, April,
Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 166-173.
Hamilton, J. D., (1989), “A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of
Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle,” Econometrica, 57,
357–384.
Harvey, A.C., (1989), Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and
the Kalman Filter, Cambridge University Press.
Howrey, E. P., (1978), “The Use of Preliminary Data in Econometric
Forecasting”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, April, Vol. 60,
No. 2, pp.193-200.
----------------, (1984), “Data Revision, Reconstruction, and Prediction:
An Application to Inventory Investment,” Review of Economics and
Statistics, 66,386–393.
Liu, H., and Hall, S. G., (2001), “Creating High-Frequency National
Accounts with State-Space Modelling: A Monte Carlo Experiment,”
Journal of Forecasting, 20, 441–449.
Mariano, R. S., and Murasawa, Y., (2003), “A New Coincident Index of
Business Cycles Based on Monthly and Quarterly Series,” Journal of
Applied Econometrics, 18, 427–443.
Orphanides, A. and Norden, Simon van, (2002), “The Unreliability of
Output-Gap Estimates in Real Time”, The Review of Economics and
Statistics, November, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 569-583.
Reserve Bank of India, (1998), “Report of the Working Group on
Money Supply”, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.
----------------, (2002), “Report of the Working Group of Economic
Indicators”, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.
----------------, (2007), “Report of the Technical Advisory Group on
Development of Leading Indicators for the Indian Economy”, Reserve
Bank of India, Mumbai.
Stock, J. H., and Watson, M.W., (2002), “Macroeconomic Forecasting
Using Diffusion Indexes,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
20, 147–162.
|